96kHz Audio tracks so far: ZERO

[Stereo24192]

(With the exception of a few music concerts
plus Chronos and Nature's Journey .)

http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Stats.php

I don't agree that 96kHz sampling is useful only for music.
I want the best possible sound when watching movies too!

Of course if the original recording is done in 48kHz (I've heard that's often the case) it should be 48k on the disc. Everything else is a waste of space.

But come on, film producers, it's 2008! Multi-track 24bit/96kHz recording can be done on a simple laptop so I don't think you can claim it's too expensive to upgrade the recording equipment.
As far as I understand, most music studios have been recording in 24/96 for many years now. -So it seams to me that Hollywood is lagging behind .

I mean, when it comes to the picture they are so careful to always have maximum (1080p) resolution -but the audio is always 48khz
and sometimes only 16 bit which certainly can't be called High resolution
no matter how lossless it's encoded.

[Bobby Henderson]

While it would be nice for movies to feature 24/96 quality audio tracks, I'm skeptical that anymore than a few are being recorded and mixed that way. Making the problem worse, lots of sound effects libraries and such have some pretty crude origins.

Perhaps if film makers see the potential in advance they'll create movie soundtracks from the ground up in 24/96 resolution. I'm afraid the "good enough" ethic will continue to prevail. It's kind of similar to my complaints of Hollywood not shooting movies in superior film formats like 65mm or 8-perf 35mm. 2-perf Super35 quality stuff seems "good enough."

[xradman]

Perhaps Love Blu-ray released by Tai Seng in USA features original Mandarin audio in 24/96 dts HD MA 7.1 and Dolby True HD 7.1. Best part is that it's only $18 from Amazon.

Blu-ray.com page on Perhaps Love

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Stereo24192

I mean, when it comes to the picture they are so careful to always have maximum (1080p) resolution -but the audio is always 48khz

What percentage of movies are 1.78:1 and use the maximum 1080p resolution for the motion picture not for encoding black bars?

[Themoth]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

What percentage of movies are 1.78:1 and use the maximum 1080p resolution for the motion picture not for encoding black bars?

good point...

[ryoohki]

Most movie today are mixed in 24/48. I wouldn't change anything to go 24/96 since it would only mean oversampling. Some shows are 96khz because they are either coming from an Analog Source of high enought quality or they are mixed digitally in 24/96 because it's music

[Clark Kent]

There are simply no Hollywood films being mixed in 24/96 and I don't see it changing anytime soon. The only BDs we are going to see at 24/96 is music releases.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by Stereo24192

But come on, film producers, it's 2008! Multi-track 24bit/96kHz recording can be done on a simple laptop so I don't think you can claim it's too expensive to upgrade the recording equipment..

When mixing sound for film you're not talking about recording your band in rehearsal studio with your laptop but mixing and processing (and storing) easily more than a hundred tracks. That load on processors and storage is substantial. The gained quality not necessarily so.

Originally Posted by Stereo24192

I mean, when it comes to the picture they are so careful to always have maximum (1080p) resolution -but the audio is always 48khz
and sometimes only 16 bit which certainly can't be called High resolution
no matter how lossless it's encoded.

First of all 1080 is not the maximum resolution.

Second, 48/16 is not LoFi. An experienced engineer can make a 48/16 recording sound a lot better than a fool with 96/24 equipment. I have some great sounding red book CDs (44.1/16) and some bad sounding SACDs (for many the holy grail of sound).

Look beyond the numbers; a (true) lossless presentation of a good mix is a lot more important than maxing out the specs.

[Alkali]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

What percentage of movies are 1.78:1 and use the maximum 1080p resolution for the motion picture not for encoding black bars?

You saying you prefer not to have black bars?

Personally I vastly prefer 2.35:1 ratio if it's available; when you get fullscreen its normally been cropped at the sides and you lose some of what the original shot had. I just wish I could buy a 2.35:1 ratio LCD, but at this time the only way to do it in sensible budget is to use a Projector with 2.35:1 capability.

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by Alkali

You saying you prefer not to have black bars?

Personally I vastly prefer 2.35:1 ratio if it's available; when you get fullscreen its normally been cropped at the sides and you lose some of what the original shot had. I just wish I could buy a 2.35:1 ratio LCD, but at this time the only way to do it in sensible budget is to use a Projector with 2.35:1 capability.

No, I think what he is saying is that there aren't that many films shot in the 16:9 ratio of HD. It would be nice though in the sense that you would have a larger image; but I do not think that most of us want that at the expense of losing some of the film.

Rich

[Alkali]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

No, I think what he is saying is that there aren't that many films shot in the 16:9 ratio of HD. It would be nice though in the sense that you would have a larger image; but I do not think that most of us want that at the expense of losing some of the film.

Rich

Let me link a poll here, I think you'll be suprised what people do want
http://gizmodo.com/5028062/are-extra...tvs-the-future

I'm confused why you say 2.35:1 loses film... If anything its the only format that keeps 100% of any film format. 4:3, 16:9, and 2.35:1 formats would all be full pixel on a 2.35:1 screen. (Just with black bars to the side on the smaller formats). Lets not forget lots of Blu-Rays have 2.35:1 ratio already, so it's not like we lose anything, but gain!

[naturephoto1]

There are some films shot in or very close to the 16:9 (1.78:1) ratio of HD. There are also many other ratios, most commonly it seems in the range of 2.35:1.

Rich

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Alkali

You saying you prefer not to have black bars?

Personally I vastly prefer 2.35:1 ratio if it's available; when you get fullscreen its normally been cropped at the sides and you lose some of what the original shot had. I just wish I could buy a 2.35:1 ratio LCD, but at this time the only way to do it in sensible budget is to use a Projector with 2.35:1 capability.

Well I'd prefer not to have black bars, but it's a necessity if a film is 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 and you're watching on a 1.78:1 HDTV.

What I was replying to was this

when it comes to the picture they are so careful to always have maximum (1080p) resolution

I don't think it can truthfully be said that a 2.35:1 film on Blu-ray is using the "maximum (1080p) resolution" of Blu-ray (for the motion picture) - not the black bars.

If I had a 2.35:1 tv or projector it still wouldn't be utilising a full 1080p lines for the moving picture with the "maximum 1080p" video 2.35:1 Blu-rays.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Alkali

I'm confused why you say 2.35:1 loses film... If anything its the only format that keeps 100% of any film format. 4:3, 16:9, and 2.35:1 formats would all be full pixel on a 2.35:1 screen. (Just with black bars to the side on the smaller formats). Lets not forget lots of Blu-Rays have 2.35:1 ratio already, so it's not like we lose anything, but gain!

2.35:1 would lose more image area/screen pixels than 1.78:1 when displaying 4:3 or 1.78:1 content. Isn't a 35mm film frame closer to 4:3 (1.33 or 1.37) in actual size? Yes you could use an anamorphic lens and store it anamorphically on the film but it's not the native aspect ratio of 35mm film.

[naturephoto1]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

2.35:1 would lose more image area/screen pixels than 1.78:1 when displaying 4:3 or 1.78:1 content. Isn't a 35mm film frame closer to 4:3 (1.33 or 1.37) in actual size? Yes you could use an anamorphic lens and store it anamorphically on the film but it's not the native aspect ratio of 35mm film.

Actual 35mm film size is 36mm by 24mm or 1.5:1 ratio.

Rich

[Alkali]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

I don't think it can truthfully be said that a 2.35:1 film on Blu-ray is using the "maximum (1080p) resolution" of Blu-ray (for the motion picture) - not the black bars.

If I had a 2.35:1 tv or projector it still wouldn't be utilising a full 1080p lines for the moving picture with the "maximum 1080p" video 2.35:1 Blu-rays.

Well, I certainly agree that if you're not fullscreen (and therefore not utilising all 1080 lines), its not full pixel. 2.35:1 movie on a 16:9 screen is not full pixel, agreed. But, if you have a 2.35:1 screen, either TV or Projector, the bars dont exist, ie. theres full pixel coverage, ie. full 1080p @ 2.35:1 ratio.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by naturephoto1

Actual 35mm film size is 36mm by 24mm or 1.5:1 ratio.

Rich

Is that the entire image area or the image area including sprocket holes etc.
Does it say that anywhere on wikipedia?

[Alkali]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

2.35:1 would lose more image area/screen pixels than 1.78:1 when displaying 4:3 or 1.78:1 content. Isn't a 35mm film frame closer to 4:3 (1.33 or 1.37) in actual size? Yes you could use an anamorphic lens and store it anamorphically on the film but it's not the native aspect ratio of 35mm film.

Yes, certainly it would be lot of screen coverage lost if you viewed 4:3 content on a 2.35:1 screen. I think the idea is by the time we have those screens even low-res (what we currently call SD) would mostly be 16:9 by then; and older films (1900-1980's ish), or older documentaries (maybe up the the 90's?), or things like soaps up till 2004 or so, would be the only 4:3 locked media.

I guess Movie lovers would be the first to get the new TV's if they ever come into existence, seen as so many movies are made with that original format or at worst 1.85:1.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Alkali

Well, I certainly agree that if you're not fullscreen (and therefore not utilising all 1080 lines), its not full pixel. 2.35:1 movie on a 16:9 screen is not full pixel, agreed. But, if you have a 2.35:1 screen, either TV or Projector, the bars dont exist, ie. theres full pixel coverage, ie. full 1080p @ 2.35:1 ratio.

It's still not full 1080p 2.35:1 ratio because Blu-ray encodes black bars as part of the picture so you'd only have about 817 lines for the picture if the black bars didn't exist on your 2.35:1 TV or projector, as Blu-rays aren't encoded anamorphically.

No matter what tv/projector you have the Blu-ray itself is encoded with the picture (excluding bars) for a 2.35:1 film with 817 lines approx

[naturephoto1]

That is really the film size for the film gate on 35mm still images. That actually was changed some years ago. Checking though on Wikipedia they are indicating that for the motion picture industry it has been between 1.33-1.37. But since the 1950s it has been 1.85:1.

You can read much more at the Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film

Rich