Doesn't that suck? WB just increased bitrates for no reason

[melodywhore]

You shouldn't worry about it - by then you'll still be playing Robert Neville in your fortified den with your six HD DVD players.

BTW I see that nobody was surprised about the thread title - it is inspired by a line from the movie Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and that (especially as delivered by Robert Downey Jr) always cracks me up: "Doesn't that suck? I just hit you for no reason."

lol... i make vague movie references like that all the time and i'm the only one that understands them.

[Lee Stewart]

Yes, that is why I stated that they strive for transparency (as a bit for bit copy is impossible).

How can you strive for something that is impossible to achieve?

No such thread exists Lee. The max peak bitrate on a BD25 is the same as that on a BD50. They differ only in gross capacity.

OK - I will look.

How come I could find it and you couldn't?

What is the max bitrate on a 25gb blu-ray if studio prints "just the movie?"

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...highlight=BD25

[tiberius]

OK - so was HD DVD prone to artifacts because it had a lower max bit rate?

All other things being equal, yes. The lower bandwidth of HD DVD has long been one of the primary reasons why many pushed for blu-ray so hard.

Now keep in mind that that won't always result in noticeable differences. But sometimes it does. Other sacrifices may have been made to avoid noticeable artifacts in picture, like avoid lossless audio tracks for example. Or someone may have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get one particular scene to render well because the bandwidth limitation was causing significant artifacts. Given more capacity, that time would not have to be spent or other sacrifices would not have to be made. But always, always, always the lower bandwidth and capacity the hardware has the more sacrifices must be made (obviously within reason - if instead of movies the discs contained plain text documents the hardware capacity would far exceed the demand and there would be no need to compress anything at all).

[Kid Banana]

How can you strive for something that is impossible to achieve?

There is no logical contradiction there. A bit for bit lossless copy is impossible but perceptive transparency may not be. To strive for the latter does not make the former any less impossible.

Strive:
1. to exert oneself vigorously; try hard
2. to make strenuous efforts toward any goal

[Grubert]

How come I could find it and you couldn't?

What is the max bitrate on a 25gb blu-ray if studio prints "just the movie?"

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...highlight=BD25

That's max average bitrate. Not max peak bitrate.

avg bitrate = total video filesize / runtime

What we have seen on the first post



is from a BD25 disc. See how the increased bandwidth allows the compressionist to use higher bitrate in difficult scenes, as long as the total file size doesn't go above capacity.

[Kid Banana]

OK - I will look.

How come I could find it and you couldn't?

What is the max bitrate on a 25gb blu-ray if studio prints "just the movie?"

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...highlight=BD25

Because that is referring to what the average bitrate may be on an average length movie (yes, the thread is that vague).

One again, none of this changes the max peak bit rate available on a BD25.

[melodywhore]

Unfortunately, your approach to this isn't correct. No one is blaming HD DVD for all of Bluray's shortcomings, but HD DVD is partially to blame for some. However, HD DVD fanboys who were extra-sensitive to the fact that some of HD DVD's limitations on a FORMAT level have been self evident in several releases.

Now that someone can find titles here and there that haven't been encoded to the MAX tries to make it sound like all of a sudden that these hardware limitations that HD DVD didn't matter? LOL.

All I have to say is smoke on. We can't force the studios to do one thing or another per se. We can cry about their encodes, but in the end, blu-ray has the higher capacity per layer, has the higher bitrate, and is the only supported physical hi def format at this time.

So, you can sit there and point at each title and scrutinize it and continue to speculate as to WHY they might not have done this or done that, but the fact remains the format itself isn't the problem.

However, HD DVD as a format did have crappier stats than blu-ray. Can you live with that? Or do you have to keep on telling yourself that it didn't matter? Cause obviously it does to many HD DVD fanboys, since they are trying to point his out as a shortcoming in light of "can't tell a difference."

it's okay. soon the blu-ray fanatics will start blaming dvds, studios, the directors, the producers, the distributors, the private financers, the actors, the cameras, the gaffer, the disc production facilities, the foley artists, the composers, the editors and their mothers.

and hd dvd as a format had comparable PQ and AQ with blu-ray because there is no visual or audio proof other than specs that say otherwise. take your variable bit rate meters and a bottle of lube and go to town all you want because ultimately, that's about all its worth.

[Grubert]

Blaming studios - So? When there was only DVD we also criticized poor releases by any studio.

[Fettastic]

But the ultimate decision of what goes into the disc rests with the studio(s). If they decide that an existing HD DVD encode is "good enough" then the blame for that decision goes to the studio. HD DVD is a dead format and no longer has any bearing on what a studio like Warner puts into a bluray disc. If you want, blame Warner for being too lazy or cheap to re-encode a movie using the bluray format to it's fullest potential, but leave the dead format out of it. When HD DVD ended any existing encodes should have been scrapped anyway.

But because HD DVD did exist, studios created transfers to HD DVD specs. Did they have to do that? No. But I'm sure they saw no benefit in paying twice as much for nearly the same thing.

If there were no HD DVD and only BD, then all studios would have encoded for BD's higher specs.

So because Toshiba wanted to throw a tantrum and cling desperately to their DVD patents, the end result is that we get LESSER encodes on BD.

Remind me why HD DVD gets a pass on this again?

[Lee Stewart]

There is no logical contradiction there. A bit for bit lossless copy is impossible but perceptive transparency may not be. To strive for the latter does not make the former any less impossible.

Strive:
1. to exert oneself vigorously; try hard
2. to make strenuous efforts toward any goal

You can "strive" to jump up and try to touch the moon . . . but you can't do it.

Are you aware that both the sampling rate and the color bit depth are different (better) from the master versus a BD?

[Lee Stewart]

That's max average bitrate. Not max peak bitrate.

avg bitrate = total video filesize / runtime

What we have seen on the first post



is from a BD25 disc. See how the increased bandwidth allows the compressionist to use higher bitrate in difficult scenes, as long as the total file size doesn't go above capacity.

OK - so the bit rate and the capacity are tied together. You could use up the capacity running a high bit rate and run out of capacity to complete the production.

Like MPH versus distance traveled . . . If I step down on the gas - I can get there faster - but my rate of gas usage goes up.

[Roshan]

You can "strive" to jump up and try to touch the moon . . . but you can't do it.

Are you aware that both the sampling rate and the color bit depth are different (better) from the master versus a BD?

If you dont strive you can suck

[Lee Stewart]

But because HD DVD did exist, studios created transfers to HD DVD specs. Did they have to do that? No. But I'm sure they saw no benefit in paying twice as much for nearly the same thing.

If there were no HD DVD and only BD, then all studios would have encoded for BD's higher specs.

So because Toshiba wanted to throw a tantrum and cling desperately to their DVD patents, the end result is that we get LESSER encodes on BD.

Remind me why HD DVD gets a pass on this again?

Remind you? Sure - there was no difference in the PQ. The best of HD DVD equaled the best of BD . . . and visa versa.

Oops . . format war talk.

Maybe I should delete it? Naaaa - THAT would be worse!

[melodywhore]

But because HD DVD did exist, studios created transfers to HD DVD specs. Did they have to do that? No. But I'm sure they saw no benefit in paying twice as much for nearly the same thing.

If there were no HD DVD and only BD, then all studios would have encoded for BD's higher specs.

So because Toshiba wanted to throw a tantrum and cling desperately to their DVD patents, the end result is that we get LESSER encodes on BD.

Remind me why HD DVD gets a pass on this again?

this sounds like bitter blu-ray whinging to me.

there were no agreements between the bda/toshiba and any studio that dictated anything about the quality of the mastering and/or the encodes. therefore it was up to the studio to decide what it was going to do between the two formats. if the studio decided that it was going to stick with the limits of the 30GB capacity of hd dvd, it was their decision to do so. what this meant was the quality of the encodes and the content that was offered to both formats were within the specs of the format. and you're only going to hear this argument from a bunch of AV geeks about what they didn't get because the studio didn't want to pay for two separate encodes, all the while blaming it on the limits of hd dvd.

but from the mouths of the bda themselves to you, the early adopters:

you knew what you were getting into.

[Philnerd]

But because HD DVD did exist, studios created transfers to HD DVD specs.

Studio Fett. Studio. Universal was HD DVD exclusive. Paramount had two seperate houses encode movies, one for each format. Warner is the only "studios" you refer too.

So because Toshiba wanted to throw a tantrum and cling desperately to their DVD patents, the end result is that we get LESSER encodes on BD.

Don't blame any supposedly lesser encodes on HD DVD. Warner crammed Assassination of Jesse James onto a BD25!! And HD DVD exclusives like Bourne Ultimatum will go toe to toe with the best BD releases out there (video, 24bit lossless audio, PiP, HD extras - everything).

I don't know what's worse.. the way you keep beating up a dead format or the way you're wrong when you beat it up