Difference Between Warner Blu-Ray VS Warner Archive Blu-Ray (1 Viewer)

[jcroy]

And rep dude didn't even have to search his database...he just said, "Have you checked online?"

These days if by chance I'm going to be passing by a BB in town (ie. driving on the same road segment), I'll first check their online listings to see whether the nearby stores have anything I want. About 95% of the time, stuff I might be interested in, is generally not carried at all at the nearby stores.

No point anymore in even dropping by to see what's on the shelves. Not even the dump bins.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

All Warner Archive Blu-rays are pressed discs - it's not the same as with DVDs, where some titles get pressings for the first run, but burned copies once those sold out. I think if a Blu-ray title sells out, they'll replicate more, but in small batches. I'd be curious to know what the runs are for each of these Blu-ray titles from Warner Archive. Back in 2008 or so, when I was working at PBS Video, the different manufacturers we used (I believe we used thee different companies for manufacturing but it's been a few years so that could be wrong -- I know it was more than one) had minimums of I think 1000 copies for Blu-ray replication orders. I wonder if that number has changed or not - I'd take a wild guess that Warner Archive Blu's are probably pressed at close to whatever the minimum is.

One of the biggest cost savings, and thus advantages, for the Archive over traditional distribution has got to be not dealing with retail stocking. I didn't do sales at PBS, but often worked closely with the sales team in developing the releases - and one of the things that would be a factor in how many copies we decided to replicate would be how many advance retail orders we could get, and whether the terms in those orders included returns, and if so, how many copies were allowed to be returned and at what rate, etc. I can't speak to how distribution has changed since I left there in 2009, but we know retail floorspace for packaged media has decreased since then, so I imagine it's harder than ever to get a retailer to commit to floor space for a title. And stores no longer need to stock one of everything, or do special orders for customers, because you'll go home and do your own "special order" through Amazon or a similar company.

As a fan of discs, I'm more and more okay with the approach of a Warner Archive, making a small number of Blu-ray copies for sale mostly online, especially since most of the sales of these titles is shifting towards online buyers anyway. I hope the success that a company like Twilight Time has had, frequently releasing small-batch pressings of titles, might inspire Warner Archive to make more Blu-rays of more titles. Right now there are only a handful, but I feel like at the least, they could probably manage to do one or two new ones a month instead of the current, almost random announcements that occasionally show up. And, much as TT has developed a following of sorts, perhaps a more regular announcement and release schedule from Warner Archive for Blu-rays would inspire a similar following. There are so many titles Warner controls that might not be 5000 or 10,000 unit sellers, that I think could at least sell 500 or 1000 units. Hopefully it will continue to be a work in progress

 

[jcroy]

I'd be curious to know what the runs are for each of these Blu-ray titles from Warner Archive. Back in 2008 or so, when I was working at PBS Video, the different manufacturers we used (I believe we used thee different companies for manufacturing but it's been a few years so that could be wrong -- I know it was more than one) had minimums of I think 1000 copies for Blu-ray replication orders. I wonder if that number has changed or not - I'd take a wild guess that Warner Archive Blu's are probably pressed at close to whatever the minimum is.

Would a big fish like Warner own and run their bluray manufacturing facility?

Or do the big fish also "outsource" their bluray/dvd disc manufacturing to third party disc manufacturers?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Would a big fish like Warner own and run their bluray manufacturing facility?

Or do the big fish also "outsource" their bluray/dvd disc manufacturing to third party disc manufacturers?

I can't speak for everyone, and this may have changed over years, but I think most is outsourced. Sony has its own plant, and does manufacturing for other studios as well -- but I think that is more of a function of Sony being a big tech company, not a case of Columbia Pictures deciding they wanted a plant.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Our one hope is that we buy enough of these WA BDs that Warner decides to increase the number of titles release each time.

I agree that this is all we can do. I certainly hope that the core BD demographic isn't just holding off on purchases until they hit the $5 mark, as then we'll really be screwed.

 

[Dick]

These days if by chance I'm going to be passing by a BB in town (ie. driving on the same road segment), I'll first check their online listings to see whether the nearby stores have anything I want. About 95% of the time, stuff I might be interested in, is generally not carried at all at the nearby stores.

No point anymore in even dropping by to see what's on the shelves. Not even the dump bins.

Hard to believe anymore that there was a "heyday" at Best Buy. Ten to five years ago that place was flourishing in terms of Home Theater and DVD/BD inventory. You could find virtually any title you wanted. Now, video is going the way of audio. Shelves are being removed to add new smart phones and Kindle crap. But, hey, I still miss having Circuit City around.

 

[jcroy]

Hard to believe anymore that there was a "heyday" at Best Buy. Ten to five years ago that place was flourishing in terms of Home Theater and DVD/BD inventory. You could find virtually any title you wanted. Now, video is going the way of audio. Shelves are being removed to add new smart phones and Kindle crap. But, hey, I still miss having Circuit City around.

(On a huge tangent).

Similar things could probably be said about Borders bookstores.

I remember around 20 years ago, when I first walked into one of those big box Borders stores, the inventory was incredible for various book genres (such as sci-fi, computers, etc ...) and a decent music cd selection. (I didn't live near any Barnes & Noble big box stores at the time).

Eventually Borders met the same fate as Circuit City.

 

[jcroy]

I agree that this is all we can do. I certainly hope that the core BD demographic isn't just holding off on purchases until they hit the $5 mark, as then we'll really be screwed.

I'll admit I'm one of those "bottom feeders" who waits for bluray titles to tumble into the $5-$7 dump bins.


On the other hand, I've been taking the harder longer way (and sometimes more expensive) in getting to know the content of some recent movies. For example, I've been reading the novelizations or original books of some recent movies (over the last year or so), such as: "Star Trek: Into Darkness" and "Wolf of Wall Street".

In practice, it would be a lot less time consuming and probably less expensive to just buy and watch the bluray movies, than reading the books or graphic novels the movies were based on.

 

[McCrutchy]

So I'll be the first to say this.

There's one difference between WB releases and (recent) Warner Archive ones.

Warner Archive now use the whole BD-50.

WB has a hard-on for trying to get as much content into as little digital "space" as possible. It makes me wonder if they draw up most releases using some kind of "HDDVD template", where very few discs go anywhere near 25GB, let alone 30GB or the whole 50GB. Even some releases which should be on two discs are crammed onto one, like Adult Swim / Cartoon Network titles, which have issues with compression.

I know that bitrate doesn't matter all that much, if you have a skilled compressionist. But that's the problem: Big studios aren't exactly renowned for getting the details right, and I should think that with many releases, they're not about to insist that someone take their time to do encode exactly right, and squeeze a two hour catalog title onto a BD-25 with multiple audio and subtitles options. Much easier to use a whole BD-50 and let the high bitrate make things easier. Fox, Paramount (non-Warner), and Universal do it that way, and Sony is, of course, Sony--and they rarely err with encoding a Blu-ray. Warner, however, sometimes plays things a bit too close to the chest. It's not often, but it happens, and I think high bitrate encodes would simply make things easier.

Take, for instance, Out of the Past, which runs 97 minutes and in Academy (1.37:1) ratio. WAC have said it will be a BD-50, even though it will only include an audio commentary and English SDH subs. If this were a WB release, you can bet it would be BD-25, even with the additional dubs and subs. And sure, that would be a great WB disc, probably, but the extra space and high bitrate certainly don't hurt anything, especially considering that Warner (Archive or otherwise) now almost always works from great elements. Just like The Americanization of Emily, I expect Out of the Past to be spectacular, and I'm sure the high bitrate can only help that.

To be frank, as long as they continue to encode this way, I will be happier knowing a release is coming from Warner Archive than knowing it is coming from Warner Bros.

(Ducks under a rock)

 

[bruceames]

Well if they just maxed out the bitrate then soon we wouldn't have skilled compressionists any longer and when it came time to needing them they would be scarce to find. Too many people let the average bitrate affect their judgement of the PQ, but a properly encoded variable bitrate encode at 19 mbps would look just as good as one maxed at 38 mbps or so.

Regarding HD DVDs, there is almost a reverse correlation on Warner average bitrates and what the average PQ review rating for the movie was (mainly because the older movies required a higher bit rate due to heavier grain).

 

[haineshisway]

So I'll be the first to say this.

There's one difference between WB releases and (recent) Warner Archive ones.

Warner Archive now use the whole BD-50.

WB has a hard-on for trying to get as much content into as little digital "space" as possible. It makes me wonder if they draw up most releases using some kind of "HDDVD template", where very few discs go anywhere near 25GB, let alone 30GB or the whole 50GB. Even some releases which should be on two discs are crammed onto one, like Adult Swim / Cartoon Network titles, which have issues with compression.

I know that bitrate doesn't matter all that much, if you have a skilled compressionist. But that's the problem: Big studios aren't exactly renowned for getting the details right, and I should think that with many releases, they're not about to insist that someone take their time to do encode exactly right, and squeeze a two hour catalog title onto a BD-25 with multiple audio and subtitles options. Much easier to use a whole BD-50 and let the high bitrate make things easier. Fox, Paramount (non-Warner), and Universal do it that way, and Sony is, of course, Sony--and they rarely err with encoding a Blu-ray. Warner, however, sometimes plays things a bit too close to the chest. It's not often, but it happens, and I think high bitrate encodes would simply make things easier.

Take, for instance, Out of the Past, which runs 97 minutes and in Academy (1.37:1) ratio. WAC have said it will be a BD-50, even though it will only include an audio commentary and English SDH subs. If this were a WB release, you can bet it would be BD-25, even with the additional dubs and subs. And sure, that would be a great WB disc, probably, but the extra space and high bitrate certainly don't hurt anything, especially considering that Warner (Archive or otherwise) now almost always works from great elements. Just like The Americanization of Emily, I expect Out of the Past to be spectacular, and I'm sure the high bitrate can only help that.

To be frank, as long as they continue to encode this way, I will be happier knowing a release is coming from Warner Archive than knowing it is coming from Warner Bros.

(Ducks under a rock)

Just want to say again that one of the leading authoring houses in LA told me straight out that for any film under two hours with few extras, such as Out of the Past, putting it on a BD50 is pointless and that there would be no difference whatsoever between it and a BD25 if the work is good. If the work isn't good you could put it on a BD900 and it wouldn't matter.

 

[McCrutchy]

Just want to say again that one of the leading authoring houses in LA told me straight out that for any film under two hours with few extras, such as Out of the Past, putting it on a BD50 is pointless and that there would be no difference whatsoever between it and a BD25 if the work is good. If the work isn't good you could put it on a BD900 and it wouldn't matter.

That's the whole point, though, Bruce. Do you really think that all catalog titles are going to be pored over by compressionists, especially if they're, say, coming in a set on the same release date, or a low-profile budget release? Considering that most catalog titles are going to get only one shot at Blu-ray, I'd rather WB went that tiny bit further for them, and just used dual-layered discs and sometimes, higher bitrates.

It's not just Fox, Paramount and Universal who do it this way either. Where the space is afforded, Criterion use high bitrates, too. Now, they are some of the best in the business, and when they need to, they go as low as they can, and I'm sure they take their time with the packed discs that require their attention. But when they have a 100-minute black-and white film with limited extras, more often than not, the bitrate is over 30 Mbps--since the space is available, they take advantage of it. Twilight Time does the same thing.

The same is also true for Arrow, BFI and MoC in the UK, three of the top home video labels abroad.

With most Japanese releases, a high video bitrate is a matter of course, and Japan has some of the highest video bitrates ever, often going above 35 Mbps. Now, with an older master, it's not going to help much, and certainly, there are some Japanese releases that are mediocre or poor quality, but when they have newer or brand new materials to encode from, they produce some of the best Blu-rays in the world. When was the last time you read about compression artifacts on a Japanese Blu-ray release?

Again, I'm not saying that high bitrates are "the key" to a great Blu-ray release, and I realize that the most important issue is the master, and also that not all encoding equipment is the same. What I am saying is that, for big studios, the cost has got to negligible, and I'm certain it's an easier way to a great release, than sitting there and trying to compress a 4K-sourced HD master down to less than 25GB. And from my perspective, generally, it's only WB who try to do that.

 

[Powell&Pressburger]

I like that WB Archive uses BD 50 on titles even when it isn't needed. I know it all comes down to encoding but Archive's Blu Releases are always stellar IMO. I like that they take no chances and jsut max out their discs. I know for a 90 min film it won't matter much, however many WB retail titles are often short changed and could be a bit better. Which makes me wish most Warner Blu titles were thru Archive! (Aside from the kind of not so great looking Archive cover art print jobs I appreciate their releases more and more) If only they could do professional looking cover art for their BLUs. (However I am thrilled they generally use the original Poster Artwork rather than a tacky looking hack job on their releases... so it is a double edged sword

 

[John Doe]

Could anyone tell me the difference between a Warner Blu-Ray and a Warner Archive Blu-Ray? For example Warners has released Point Blank on Blu- Ray and The Wind And The Lion on Warner Archive Blu Ray. Is Point Blank superior in video and audio quality because it is on a Blu Ray disc? What are the technical differences between a Blu-Ray and an Archive Blu-Ray? Bottom line what does it all mean? Thanks!

Robert

Point Blank is a superior movie, that's for sure.

 

[Richard M S]

The WarnerArchive website features a very helpful pressed disc section featuring all of the Warner Archive titles released as pressed instead of MOD.

I know they always say once the WarnerArchive pressed discs are gone, the title will be available in a MOD format.........but it seems to my very general, very unscientific observation that the discs I can recall as being released several years as pressed are still available as pressed. If anything has sold out and transitioned to MOD I must have missed it.

 

[John Morgan]

Is there any cost saving to a studio if they don't use the upper bitrate available on a given bluray? I suspect there is a big cost saving between a BD 25 and BD 50, but it seems unlike the WB Archive, Warners doesn't max out the bit rate. I have read this in several reviews that often there is a ton of left over space on certain titles.

 

[McCrutchy]

Is there any cost saving to a studio if they don't use the upper bitrate available on a given bluray? I suspect there is a big cost saving between a BD 25 and BD 50, but it seems unlike the WB Archive, Warners doesn't max out the bit rate. I have read this in several reviews that often there is a ton of left over space on certain titles.

I have often wondered this also. Clearly, there must be some sort of price difference in favor of BD-25 media, but the price difference cannot be that great, since BD-50 media is largely standard now for all studios. In fact, the only studios that release feature-length films on BD-25 discs on a regular basis are Warner (for catalog titles, including Paramount) and Olive. Smaller studios like Starz/Anchor Bay and Magnolia will use them sometimes, but generally, everything from Criterion, Disney, Fox (and MGM), Lionsgate, Paramount, Sony and Universal is BD-50.

Warner also has issues with giving new releases lossy audio (Looney Tunes, Cartoon Network) and cramming too much content onto a disc (Adult Swim). Which is why I'm less inclined to believe that they are doing it right versus all of the other majors when it comes to compression.

Having said that, there have been some disturbing releases from Sony overseas that have had no lossless audio (Force 10 from Navraone, Gilda, Hudson Hawk, Nowhere to Run, etc.) over the past several months. Some of those titles even had lossless audio on US editions from other labels.

 

[Robert Harris]

I have often wondered this also. Clearly, there must be some sort of price difference in favor of BD-25 media, but the price difference cannot be that great, since BD-50 media is largely standard now for all studios. In fact, the only studios that release feature-length films on BD-25 discs on a regular basis are Warner (for catalog titles, including Paramount) and Olive. Smaller studios like Starz/Anchor Bay and Magnolia will use them sometimes, but generally, everything from Criterion, Disney, Fox (and MGM), Lionsgate, Paramount, Sony and Universal is BD-50. Warner also has issues with giving new releases lossy audio (Looney Tunes, Cartoon Network) and cramming too much content onto a disc (Adult Swim). Which is why I'm less inclined to believe that they are doing it right versus all of the other majors when it comes to compression. Having said that, there have been some disturbing releases from Sony overseas that have had no lossless audio (Force 10 from Navraone, Gilda, Hudson Hawk, Nowhere to Run, etc.) over the past several months. Some of those titles even had lossless audio on US editions from other labels.

Nothing wrong with BD25s. Especially for a 90 minute film without extras, and even more so for wider aspect ratios or 1.37. I would suggest that it not be presumed that a single layer disc, be it from WB or Olive, makes any difference in quality, as long as extras are controlled.RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

I have often wondered this also. Clearly, there must be some sort of price difference in favor of BD-25 media, but the price difference cannot be that great, since BD-50 media is largely standard now for all studios. In fact, the only studios that release feature-length films on BD-25 discs on a regular basis are Warner (for catalog titles, including Paramount) and Olive. Smaller studios like Starz/Anchor Bay and Magnolia will use them sometimes, but generally, everything from Criterion, Disney, Fox (and MGM), Lionsgate, Paramount, Sony and Universal is BD-50.

Warner also has issues with giving new releases lossy audio (Looney Tunes, Cartoon Network) and cramming too much content onto a disc (Adult Swim). Which is why I'm less inclined to believe that they are doing it right versus all of the other majors when it comes to compression.

Having said that, there have been some disturbing releases from Sony overseas that have had no lossless audio (Force 10 from Navraone, Gilda, Hudson Hawk, Nowhere to Run, etc.) over the past several months. Some of those titles even had lossless audio on US editions from other labels.

I think it depends on the movie as The Outsiders, Sabrina and Shane were released in Region A on 50 GB discs.

 

[Randy Korstick]

That's what I have noticed as well. I don't think any title has sold out and gone to DVD-r yet in the 2 years they have been using this model. So their intial pressed runs must be fairly large or they are pressing more. They never said they wouldn't press more just that they could be replaced with DVD-r's after the initial run is sold out.

The WarnerArchive website features a very helpful pressed disc section featuring all of the Warner Archive titles released as pressed instead of MOD.

I know they always say once the WarnerArchive pressed discs are gone, the title will be available in a MOD format.........but it seems to my very general, very unscientific observation that the discs I can recall as being released several years as pressed are still available as pressed. If anything has sold out and transitioned to MOD I must have missed it.