More Warner BD releases in October - Art & Specs added

The Searchers and Unfogiven!! :D Can't wait.

RisingSun

I just found out that the Searchers and Unforgiven are BD50 titles: which explains at least to some extent why they were delayed. If this turns out to be true it goes back to my argument of even VC-1 encoding going over 25GB at this stage of the HD-DVD discs. HD-DVD is starting to max out already.

RisingSun

Quote: Originally Posted by RisingSun:I just found out that the Searchers and Unforgiven are BD50 titles: which explains at least to some extent why they were delayed. Interesting. Source? You really think Warner are going to re-encode these titles for Blu-ray? I'd hazard a guess that, unless they throw in some sort of additional bonus, these titles won't use more than 30 GB. As for VC1 being "maxed out" on 30 GB discs, none of the 15/9 combos I've seen have had any encoding problems. Granted, these releases haven't had any extras on the HD side, but the point is that, with VC1, it seems entirely possible to create a stellar looking transfer using only 15 GB. I don't think we're even close to knowing precisely at what stage the codec will be "maxed out".

Michael Mackenzie

Quote: Originally Posted by Michael Mackenzie:You really think Warner are going to re-encode these titles for Blu-ray? I'd hazard a guess that, unless they throw in some sort of additional bonus, these titles won't use more than 30 GB. That's not really the point I was making. I was trying to say if these early titles encoded in VC-1 is going over 25GB: then they haven't got much to play with in the future. Lord of the Rings is a big example, but there are other much shorter newer movies that will use up more space with extras. I guess only BDA studios will have to show the way....

RisingSun

Quote: Originally Posted by RisingSun:That's not really the point I was making. I said if these early titles encoded in VC-1 is going over 25GB: then they haven't got much to play with in the future. Lord of the Rings is a big example, but there are other much shorter newer movies that will use up more space with extras. I guess only BDA studios will have to show the way.... I take your point, but bear in mind that the new codecs are continually being modified. Those responsible have said on numerous occasions that they are improving the efficiency of VC1, which allows the peak bit rates to be lowered without sacrificing quality. I'm not denying that extra disc space is always welcome. Hell, if someone told me I could have a 30 GB disc or a 50 GB disc in an ideal world where both were playable on the same hardware, of course I'd take the 50 GB disc. I just think that there are other concerns to factor in.

Michael Mackenzie

Quote: Originally Posted by Michael Mackenzie: Interesting. Source? Like I said if it turns out to be true. Even if it doesn't: Superman Returns is another example.

RisingSun

Quote: Originally Posted by Michael Mackenzie:As for VC1 being "maxed out" on 30 GB discs, none of the 15/9 combos I've seen have had any encoding problems. They may not have had any encoding problems but I that doesn't mean they were perfect in terms of Picture/audio quality. While I can't stand westerns it'll be interesting to see how an old film looks in HD. Presumably they'll be using the same encode for Phantom as they did for HD DVD, which was fine but lacked some of the detail of US MPEG2 broadcasts. I have a soft spot for Under Siege, it's Die Hard on a boat

camaj

Quote: They may not have had any encoding problems but I that doesn't mean they were perfect in terms of Picture/audio quality. I'd be more than willing to describe Unleashed as perfect in terms of transfer. Granted, it's a very recent film and one with a very clean visual style, but it does contain a lot of frenetic camerawork, and to my eyes it didn't have a single problem. I'd be interested to see how something older and grainier would cope on a single-layer disc, though.

Michael Mackenzie

RisingSun your masturbatory love of Blu-ray is wearing thing, change the record. Quote: Originally Posted by RisingSun:I just found out that the Searchers and Unforgiven are BD50 titles: which explains at least to some extent why they were delayed. Like Mike said from whom? If it turns out to be true isn't an answer. Quote: Originally Posted by Michael Mackenzie: I take your point, but bear in mind that the new codecs are continually being modified. Those responsible have said on numerous occasions that they are improving the efficiency of VC1, which allows the peak bit rates to be lowered without sacrificing quality. As exactly happened with DVD and MPEG2. The encoding on early DVDs isn't half as good as it is today. Quote: Originally Posted by Michael Mackenzie: As for VC1 being "maxed out" on 30 GB discs, none of the 15/9 combos I've seen have had any encoding problems. Granted, these releases haven't had any extras on the HD side, but the point is that, with VC1, it seems entirely possible to create a stellar looking transfer using only 15 GB. Fair point but then we all thought the first DVDs looked stella but today they look ropey as hell, often due to the low bitrate. Quote: Originally Posted by RisingSun:If this turns out to be true it goes back to my argument of even VC-1 encoding going over 25GB at this stage of the HD-DVD discs. HD-DVD is starting to max out already. So what. Single layer DVDs maxed out very quickly with their low 4.7Gb discs, hence dual layer has become (mostly) the norm.

bradavon

Quote: Originally Posted by bradavon:Fair point but then we all thought the first DVDs looked stella but today they look ropey as hell, often due to the low bitrate. I didn't. ;) And to be honest, there are a lot of discs being released nowadays, including major titles from the main studios, that look worse than some of the earliest DVDs.

Michael Mackenzie

Searchers and unforgiven on 50GB and World Trade Center (paramount) also 50GB (release date TBA) From http://videostoremag.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=9777

camaj

Quote: Originally Posted by bradavon:RisingSun your masturbatory love of Blu-ray is wearing thing, change the record. I am here to point out the positive side of Blu-Ray, and I a lot of what I say may hold merit. Quote: Originally Posted by Michael Mackenzie: I take your point, but bear in mind that the new codecs are continually being modified. Those responsible have said on numerous occasions that they are improving the efficiency of VC1, which allows the peak bit rates to be lowered without sacrificing quality. Still doesn't look good if current releases are reaching near 30GB. Especially with upcoming interactivity options. I know you could also supply an additional disc for extras. But is that what you really want? I hardly even use the second DVD extras disc on a regular basis (Many studios may want the consumer to actually use the extra interactivity? ;) ) Take the fact if you want to do PIP commentary with 7.1 soundtrack for long movies: you can expect movies to be split into 2 discs. This is the future?? :confused: Quote: So what. Single layer DVDs maxed out very quickly with their low 4.7Gb discs, hence dual layer has become (mostly) the norm. 30GB on HD-DVD is the practically the norm now. And I think we have a pretty good case of it been maxed out. Why do you think HD-DVD camp is now developing HD-DVD45? Someone’s got to have demanded it! ;)

RisingSun

Quote: I am here to point out the positive side of Blu-Ray, and I a lot of what I say may hold merit. Are you? Since when did you work for Sony as a Blu-ray representative? I've no problem with your views on Blu-ray just your cult like devotion to one and not the other strikes me as odd. Quote: I hardly even use the second DVD extras disc on a regular basis (Many studios may want the consumer to actually use the extra interactivity?) Then why would you look at extras if they were on the same disc? Mike: How many in terms of data have been maxed out? When checking using Windows Explorer. Quote: Take the fact if you want to do PIP commentary with 7.1 soundtrack for long movies: you can expect movies to be split into 2 discs. This is the future?? Rubbish unless you're talking very long films and that's the norm. already. 2.5 hours or less will be on 1 disc. Quote: Why do you think HD-DVD camp is now developing HD-DVD45? Someone’s got to have demanded it! Exactly. Triple layer yipeey!

bradavon

Quote: Originally Posted by bradavon: Quote: I am here to point out the positive side of Blu-Ray, and I a lot of what I say may hold merit. Are you? Since when did you work for Sony as a Blu-ray representative? I've no problem with your views on Blu-ray just your cult like devotion to one and not the other strikes me as odd. Like your cult devolution to HD-DVD. What company do you work for? Toshiba or Microsoft? :confused: BTW: Not that I really care but the BDA does have members other than Sony. BDA was created to break the strangle hold of some companies in the DVD forum. For competition’s sake: the better the two exist the better for the consumer.

RisingSun

I like everyone else here have no such devotion to HD-DVD, read my posts I'm waiting for a dual player or a winner. I don't frankly give a hoot who it is as I believe both at the end of the day are as good as each other. Just like DVD+ is as good as DVD- and DVD-A as good as SACD. Yes right now going on paper I "prefer" HD-DVD (just like I prefer SACD, also a Sony product btw) but "going on paper" can mean very little. Why do I prefer HD-DVD? Well the overall disc looks more polished and complete. The discs are often stacked with extras, have that PIP in not found on Blu-ray yet, offer Dolby Digital Plus or Dolby True-HD. Then there is the ill-concevied yet still nice Combo format. Blu-ray granted has Uncompressed PCM on it's side but often the discs barely have extras at all and that's before we've even mentioned the MPEG2 codec issue. All the oodles of Phantom of the Opera extras made their way to the HD-DVD version yet Black Hawk Down even on a dual layer disc misses out on loads. Yes it still a healthy amount but frankly we should have them all (the Superman HD-DVD is no better here, the DVD version has stacks more extras). I also think Sony are ripping us off with the cost of the Blu-ray hardware (it's brand new hardware so this is normal but look how much cheaper the HD-DVD players are, 50% can't ignored). I've actually not read any Blu-ray disc reviews mind you, all the DVD Times ones are HD-DVD. But crucially like I said I both believe at the end of the day are as good as each other. Read my posts you will see I've dissed the HD-DVD Combo format just as much. I just want to be able to play ALL available titles not the ones the studios through some stubborn pig headed nice want me to play. If a dual supporting Blu-ray/DVD-DVD player existed today for no more than £550 I'd already own it. The other viable option for me is one format winning and going by history both options are as viable as each other. I've no interest in Sky HD but likewise Freeview HD when that comes I'm all over it. I bought a HDTV but as yet haven't watched anything HD actually on it. Quote: For competition’s sake: the better the two exist the better for the consumer. You reckon? Consumers are already confused enough as it is.

bradavon

Interesting to note "Phantom of the Opera" is identical to the HD-DVD version EXCEPT it's missing any Lossless HD Audio (in the case of HD-DVD Dolby True-HD), as in PCM in the case of Blu-ray. Personally I'd say it makes the HD-DVD version better. It makes you wonder why it wasn't included when even at single layer they've got 25Gb compared with HD-DVD 30Gb dual layer (I'm presuming the HD-DVD is dual layer). I guess that's what the extra 5Gb is for.

bradavon

Freeview via Aerial will never be High Def as it does not have the bandwidth but it will be available via Satellite Dish. Humax are currently working on a chip for a Freeview High Def via dish version of their PVR-9200 hard drive recorder to be released late next year.:D

ShawnDuHast

Quote: Originally Posted by ShawnDuHast:Freeview via Aerial will never be High Def as it does not have the bandwidth but it will be available via Satellite Dish. Funny I could've sworn there is a trial in London right now. Although agreed a one off cost of the dish is more likely. That said you're basing the "not enough bandwidth" point on today's airspace, things will be very different when analogue TV is completely switched off.

bradavon

Brad you are correct about the trial. "In May 2006, a limited trial started in London on the Crystal Palace transmitter, to test the service, but this is not a public trial and requires special decoding hardware." But according to Media Week back in June 06:- "Freeview is still at least two years away from being HDTV-ready."

ShawnDuHast