How can the 25GB King Kong HD Port be considered "reference material"? - Blu-ray Forum

blu-ballz · 03-10-2009, 09:55 PM

I see there are two versions of the film and no extras on the 50GB BD. I don't have a BluRay computer drive so am assuming there are actually two slightly different copies of the movie, possibly 3 with the PiP version?

Does someone have a filesize breakdown?

Now to my point, if I am correct in stating we are actually watching the same Video Image as was on the HD-DVD, how at around 20GB can it be considered better video quality than a full blown 50GB movie like so many others out there? Is there really no difference what the human eye can visuallize whether a 25GB file or what you would think should be two times better at 50GB?

Hero_Sky · 03-10-2009, 10:00 PM

It ain't the size of the boat that matters.

vamsilak · 03-10-2009, 10:03 PM

Actually its a good qauestion;
kingkong hd dvd is like 30gb almost
I believe kingkong on bluray even though its say 50gb i t might came under 42 or 32 gb

another possibility is hddvd and bluray uses variety of codecs
mpeg-2
avc
vc-1

when they encode the movie to High def formats these codecs gives various bitrates which ultimately gives different GB

as far as i know it won't be much difference in the size after all

blu-ballz · 03-10-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamsilak

Actually its a good qauestion;
kingkong hd dvd is like 30gb almost...

I thought they could only go to 25GB on an HDDVD?

also, doesn't an "HDDVD Port" mean there is no re-encoding done? That's what I read everywhere. Its just a direct copy of what was on the HD-DVD, filestructure aside

ckent22 · 03-10-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamsilak

Actually its a good qauestion;
kingkong hd dvd is like 30gb almost
I believe kingkong on bluray even though its say 50gb i t might came under 42 or 32 gb

another possibility is hddvd uses vc-1 codec and bluray uses variety of codecs
mpeg-2
avc
vc-1

when they encode the movie to High def formats these codecs gives various bitrates which ultimately gives different GB

as far as i know it won't be much difference in the size after all

That's incorrect. HD-DVD supports MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC, and VC-1 video codecs.

vamsilak · 03-10-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ckent22

That's incorrect. HD-DVD supports MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC, and VC-1 video codecs.

Thankx man i corrected it

i wonder
what codecs they use in hdvd and bluray..!!!?

Sonny · 03-10-2009, 10:16 PM

^^^ the same. King Kong is the best VC-1 I have seen. Its low bit rate too, but thats what VC-1 does. I have both versions BD & HD.

vamsilak · 03-10-2009, 10:20 PM

HD DVD has movie
bluray had two versions of the movie that makes a bigger GB may be..

and audio versions may be

JonBidinger · 03-10-2009, 10:22 PM

37,050,138,624 bytes apparently, according to DVDBeaver. There is presumably only one copy of the film, with the other scenes added with seamless branching.

stumlad · 03-10-2009, 10:26 PM

The HD DVD was on a 30 GB disc but used 1.5 mbps audio. The blu-ray has two versions with DTS-HD MA audio (24 bit i believe), but I think it is done via seamless branching -- not positive on that. The average video bit-rates are about the same on both hd dvd and blu-ray.

Overall, the movie is very close to reference, but not quite.

When Transformers came out on blu-ray, it had its bit-rate bumped up to take advantage of the format, but there was no noticeable difference between it and HD DVD (other than sound). The first Bourne movie and Miami Vice favored the higher bit blu-ray. Some of the other universal titles are a mixed bag (Mummy, U571, The Thing). To sum it up, there's a lot of factors involved...

blu-ballz · 03-10-2009, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vamsilak

HD DVD has movie
bluray had two versions of the movie that makes a bigger GB may be..

and audio versions may be

Yea we all know that. I am trying to find out how it is better than the HD-DVD version visually and how can it be when its a "port" and when there are other actual 40GB-50GB films on BD discs that people say are great but not as good as King Kong. I am Legend comes to mind.

To me its like a slap in the face to the BD community to say...

"This magnificent HD-DVD port is the shining example of reference material and outshines all other Blu-ray movies"

If this is true, I am not sure what to believe anymore about the old format war. Was it fought for nothing if what is considered "BEST" was a direct port and came from that other format?

Sonny · 03-10-2009, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blu-ballz

Yea we all know that. I am trying to find out how it is better than the HD-DVD version visually and how can it be when its a "port" and when there are other actual 40GB-50GB films on BD discs that people say are great but not as good as King Kong. I am Legend comes to mind.

To me its like a slap in the face to the BD community to say...

"This magnificent HD-DVD port is the shining example of reference material and outshines all other Blu-ray movies"

If this is true, I am not sure what to believe anymore about the old format war. Was it fought for nothing if what is considered "BEST" was a direct port and came from that other format?

It was done extremely extremely well. What more do you want...

Don't get the sh!7 twisted.

Clark Kent · 03-11-2009, 12:20 AM

While the encodes are similar in quantity, the Blu-ray encode was entirely new. Unfortunately they did not really bump up the average bitrate. They did include lossless audio this time and included the longer cut of the movie on one disc, which would have never happened on HD DVD.

Blu As Hell · 03-11-2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blu-ballz

Yea we all know that. I am trying to find out how it is better than the HD-DVD version visually and how can it be when its a "port" and when there are other actual 40GB-50GB films on BD discs that people say are great but not as good as King Kong. I am Legend comes to mind.

To me its like a slap in the face to the BD community to say...

"This magnificent HD-DVD port is the shining example of reference material and outshines all other Blu-ray movies"

If this is true, I am not sure what to believe anymore about the old format war. Was it fought for nothing if what is considered "BEST" was a direct port and came from that other format?

Okay, just because a movie was released on HD DVD and ported over doesn't mean that it's not reference material. The HD DVD of King Kong was one of the best looking transfers on either format, I think they did redo the encode for Blu-ray and they did include lossless audio.

Blu As Hell · 03-11-2009, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

While the encodes are similar in quantity, the Blu-ray encode was entirely new. Unfortunately they did not really bump up the average bitrate. They did include lossless audio this time and included the longer cut of the movie on one disc, which would have never happened on HD DVD.

You beat me to this.

deadhatetheliving · 03-11-2009, 01:13 AM

This version sucks so who cares?????

HeavyHitter · 03-11-2009, 01:53 AM

King Kong looks great, but I think there was some very light filtering as film grain is suspiciously absent in much of the movie. I'm guessing the BD came from the same source as the HD DVD - so when they created the HD DVD they needed to filter it slightly so it could fit on an HD30. This would have not been an issue on a BD50.

On any rate, Kong still looks great but I still think it could look a bit better with a higher bitrate and presumably unfiltered source.

Achilles3 · 03-11-2009, 02:44 AM

King Kong looks amazing on my Samsung LCD so I would definitely say that it is safe to show off, especially the outdoor scenes, gorgeous.

4K2K · 03-11-2009, 02:49 AM

I think we should have the very best transfers and the highest possible video bitrates on Blu-ray for the very best picture quality no matter what size display you have, and not filter or limit it to the max bitrate that HD DVD was capable of.

Tempest · 03-11-2009, 03:43 AM

Well it seems most of the time when they port an HD DVD movie to Blu Ray they are too cheap and lazy to make a better encode and just stick with the sometimes filtered/reduced bitrate version from HD DVD. Eventually there won't be any more hd dvd ports and all movies hopefully will have a chance of getting a better encode.

At least they all seem to be including the lossless audio now but took some of them awhile to see the light at the cost of releasing many movies that nobody wants to buy now on blu because of the lack of lossless audio.

03-10-2009, 09:55 PM	#1
blu-ballz Member Member since:Jan 2008	How can the 25GB King Kong HD Port be considered "reference material"? I see there are two versions of the film and no extras on the 50GB BD. I don't have a BluRay computer drive so am assuming there are actually two slightly different copies of the movie, possibly 3 with the PiP version? Does someone have a filesize breakdown? Now to my point, if I am correct in stating we are actually watching the same Video Image as was on the HD-DVD, how at around 20GB can it be considered better video quality than a full blown 50GB movie like so many others out there? Is there really no difference what the human eye can visuallize whether a 25GB file or what you would think should be two times better at 50GB?

03-10-2009, 10:03 PM	#3
vamsilak Banned Member since:Feb 2008 Trading Score:1	Actually its a good qauestion; kingkong hd dvd is like 30gb almost I believe kingkong on bluray even though its say 50gb i t might came under 42 or 32 gb another possibility is hddvd and bluray uses variety of codecs mpeg-2 avc vc-1 when they encode the movie to High def formats these codecs gives various bitrates which ultimately gives different GB as far as i know it won't be much difference in the size after all Last edited by vamsilak; 03-10-2009 at 10:09 PM.

03-10-2009, 10:16 PM	#7
Sonny Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Aug 2007 Home Theater Gallery:8 Blu-ray reviews:6 Trading Score:1	^^^ the same. King Kong is the best VC-1 I have seen. Its low bit rate too, but thats what VC-1 does. I have both versions BD & HD. Last edited by Sonny; 03-10-2009 at 10:18 PM.

03-11-2009, 02:49 AM	#19
4K2K Special Member Top contributor Member since:Feb 2008 Location:Region B	I think we should have the very best transfers and the highest possible video bitrates on Blu-ray for the very best picture quality no matter what size display you have, and not filter or limit it to the max bitrate that HD DVD was capable of. Last edited by 4K2K; 03-11-2009 at 02:51 AM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Nicolas Cage in "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" (due Nov. 20)	Movies	wnicholas76	1	11-10-2009 12:45 AM
Big Subs: Worth it for "sub"-reference listening?	Subwoofers	McPanse	37	09-21-2009 02:03 AM
"King Kong" 1976 version	Movies	wnicholas76	16	04-09-2008 10:22 PM
News: CryENGINE 2 port "challenging" on PS3 but will look like high-end PC.	PS3	Nerdkiller likes BD	10	04-09-2008 04:26 PM
Universal HD encodes "not good enough" to port? How?	General Chat	Nick Graham	25	01-22-2008 03:29 PM

03-10-2009, 10:00 PM	#2
Hero_Sky Member Member since:Mar 2007	It ain't the size of the boat that matters.

03-10-2009, 10:20 PM	#8
vamsilak Banned Member since:Feb 2008 Trading Score:1	HD DVD has movie bluray had two versions of the movie that makes a bigger GB may be.. and audio versions may be

03-10-2009, 10:22 PM	#9
JonBidinger Active Member Top contributor Member since:Dec 2007 4K collection:36 Blu-ray collection:375	37,050,138,624 bytes apparently, according to DVDBeaver. There is presumably only one copy of the film, with the other scenes added with seamless branching.

03-10-2009, 10:26 PM	#10
stumlad Active Member Member since:Sep 2008 Trading Score:2	The HD DVD was on a 30 GB disc but used 1.5 mbps audio. The blu-ray has two versions with DTS-HD MA audio (24 bit i believe), but I think it is done via seamless branching -- not positive on that. The average video bit-rates are about the same on both hd dvd and blu-ray. Overall, the movie is very close to reference, but not quite. When Transformers came out on blu-ray, it had its bit-rate bumped up to take advantage of the format, but there was no noticeable difference between it and HD DVD (other than sound). The first Bourne movie and Miami Vice favored the higher bit blu-ray. Some of the other universal titles are a mixed bag (Mummy, U571, The Thing). To sum it up, there's a lot of factors involved...

03-11-2009, 12:20 AM	#13
Clark Kent Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Metropolis Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:184	While the encodes are similar in quantity, the Blu-ray encode was entirely new. Unfortunately they did not really bump up the average bitrate. They did include lossless audio this time and included the longer cut of the movie on one disc, which would have never happened on HD DVD.

03-11-2009, 01:13 AM	#16
deadhatetheliving Blu-ray Samurai Top contributor Member since:Jan 2008 Location:Virginia Beach, VA Home Theater Gallery:51 4K collection:812 Blu-ray collection:2693 DVD collection:90 Prime collection:1 Blu-ray reviews:5 Trading Score:7	This version sucks so who cares?????

03-11-2009, 01:53 AM	#17
HeavyHitter Blu-ray Baron Member since:Jul 2007 Home Theater Gallery:4 Trading Score:154	King Kong looks great, but I think there was some very light filtering as film grain is suspiciously absent in much of the movie. I'm guessing the BD came from the same source as the HD DVD - so when they created the HD DVD they needed to filter it slightly so it could fit on an HD30. This would have not been an issue on a BD50. On any rate, Kong still looks great but I still think it could look a bit better with a higher bitrate and presumably unfiltered source.

03-11-2009, 02:44 AM	#18
Achilles3 Active Member Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Texas Blu-ray collection:66 Trading Score:6	King Kong looks amazing on my Samsung LCD so I would definitely say that it is safe to show off, especially the outdoor scenes, gorgeous.

03-11-2009, 03:43 AM	#20
Tempest Senior Member Member since:Apr 2008 Blu-ray collection:223 Blu-ray reviews:7	Well it seems most of the time when they port an HD DVD movie to Blu Ray they are too cheap and lazy to make a better encode and just stick with the sometimes filtered/reduced bitrate version from HD DVD. Eventually there won't be any more hd dvd ports and all movies hopefully will have a chance of getting a better encode. At least they all seem to be including the lossless audio now but took some of them awhile to see the light at the cost of releasing many movies that nobody wants to buy now on blu because of the lack of lossless audio.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals