Superbit: Worth it? (merged thread) (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

Chuck, I would probably try to find a decent deal on the Superbit. I never meant to imply there was no difference between the editions, just that the Superbits are not what Columbia claims them to be. They are too expensive for what you actually get.

 

[KyleC]

I can't wait to get the Spiderman Superbit. The current release's video is garbage for such a high profile movie. I notice artifacts all the time (sorry for non-technical terms). I was shocked when I first put it in how crappy it looked.

 

[Dan Brecher]

Adam is, and has been for the greatest length of time on the HTF now, one of the rare breed still around with the abilities and actual knowledge to educate those about the many varying realities of DVD and Home Theatre, should they care to listen. It's disappointing then that so few obviously care to do so.

Still, misinformation has come to form the solid ground upon which this fair internet of ours stands, has it not? Party on!

Dan (UK)

 

[Brett C]

Still, misinformation has come to form the solid ground upon which this fair internet of ours stands, has it not?

I'd agree with that statement 100%,though I'd personally say also quite ironic in context to the comments you were talking about,I disagree myself.Though I do respect that everyones entitled to their own opinion, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[JohnRice]

Oh my God! Can we actually have one thread discussing the content of DVDs without it deteriorating to yet another argument over DD and DTS?


Maybe not.



My impression of Columbia didn't improve tonight. I rented Mona Lisa Smile (surprised to find I liked it quite a bit) and also noticed it is heavily compressed. This movie is just a few seconds under 2 hours, but only takes up 3.7 GB including subtitles and all soundtracks. The disc does have 2.5 GB of other stuff. I just wonder why Columbia decides to compress this movie so far. Could it be intentional downgrading planning on a future Superbit release?

I know this probably isn't the right thread to bring that up in, but Columbia is really starting to annoy me.

 

[JohnRice]

After reading KyleC's comments about the Spider-Man DVD, I decided to check it out as well. There is no doubt the video on that disc pretty well sucks.

Even though disc 1 is a pretty substantial 7.35 GB, the movie itself, which runs 1:59:13 only accounts for 3.8 GB of space with all soundtracks. The evidence against Columbia is piling up remarkably quickly in my eyes. Look at all the people who bought it and are waiting anxiously to drop more money for a decent version.

 

[Darren Haycock]

I second that.

 

[MikeMcNertney]

Phil, did you not read Adam's posts? It has nothing to do with the overall space of the DVD. The DVD format has a set maximum bandwith of 9.8 megabits per second. If the DVD could hold 100 GB, the bandwidth restriction would hold. This restriction is based on the the speed of reading from 1x DVDs and the speed of decoding the video and audio (at least that's my guess, but it is probably accurate). If you exceeded this bandwidth, not only would you be faling to meet DVD specifications, but many players would not be able to correctly play the disk because the DVD drive is too slow or the decoders aren't up to the task of handling more data

 

[Shane Martin]

Regardless of the fact of which format you prefer, I like the fact I can choose which I want. That combined with excellent video and I'm a happy camper. I don't think I've ever read where someone says "That superbit dvd picture stinks".

Now some would prefer the extra 10% they "Might' gain by taking off the DTS track while some might prefer the extra %'s they gain from the DTS track. I think the differences to gain either way are so small that whatever sells the product more will make up the decision thus I suspect they will keep DTS on them for a long time to maintain some sales.

 

[MarkHastings]

To add to this, the 9.8mbps is VBR and not constant.

If my math is correct:

9.8 mb/8 MB = 1.225 MB/sec
1.225 MB/sec * 60 sec. = 73.5 MB/minute
4.7 GB (i.e. what a single layer on a DVD holds) / 73.5 MB = 63.9 minutes per layer.

63.9 minutes * 2 (layers) = 127.8 minutes (or approx. 2 hours)

With those specs, you can say that you can estimate a 2 hour movie would fit (at the highest possible bit rate) on a dual layered DVD.

BUT, depending on motion (or lack of motion), a 9.8mbps movie (which is the highest you can set the compression) may not use that full 9.8mbps, which means that your 2 hour movie may only end up only being 5.4 GB's (i.e. an average of 6mbps) which leaves LOTS of room for extras.

So to the average person, it may seem that the DVD author didn't use the full potential of the space, yet he did!

 

[JohnRice]

That's a good point Shane. I have to admit, I kind of like the choice when it makes sense (as in, the movie is short enough) to include both. I know I like the DTS soundtrack on Chicago better then the DD, but I kind of doubt that really has anything to do with DTS. Here I go, encouraging the very argument I was discouraging a little while ago. My problem is with the pretty obvious manipulation Columbia does trying to get people to see a value in Superbits that really isn't there. I bought new copies of Chicago, Far From Heaven and Moulin Rouge!, to name a few, for $15 or less each. Every one of them has decent to almost outrageous extras, outstanding transfers and both DD and DTS. the superbit titles are just fine, the price isn't. Particularly when it seems Columbia intentionally creates poor regular price editions to encourage the sales of their overpriced superbits.

 

[JohnRice]

Mark, I don't actually understand the ins and outs of the whole thing, but the discs don't actually hold that much. When it comes to computer data, they hold about 4.36 GB on the first layer and a little less on the second. So, realistically, a dual layer disc holds maybe around 8.3 GB, not the 9.4 GB of your example. Add to that menus, trailers, sound files in the menus, extra soundtracks, interviews, featurettes and so on and there seems to be a lot more waste than there should be. It is not universal. some studios seem to use up the space quite well, but I'm discovering several don't, particularly the ones planning to market other "special" editions.

 

[MarkHastings]

Yeah, I wasn't using exact numbers...it was more to show how you can estimate the video for a certain number and still fall short of it.

So 8.4 GB total gives you approx. 113 minutes at a constant 9.8 mbps.

Also note that most DVD's only peak at that 9.8 mbps point and hardly stay up there. They usually remain at the 5-6 mark for most of the movie.

 

[Shane Martin]

Understood so don't buy them. If Columbia doesn't sell many of these then they will change(they have to). I suspect that they won't change and they sell pretty decent for the effort they put into them.

Yes It's sad I have to wait until a version comes out the way I expect but I'm a patient guy. I almost expect a Superbit to come out on every Columbia disc.

 

[JohnRice]

I certainly don't seek them out. I own a handful of them. 3 are available only as superbits, 1 is just the way I bought it and 1 I sold and bought the Superbit. Since the question in the title of the thread is "Superbit: Worth it?" I think all this discussion is completely to the point. Are you telling me not to discuss this?

I just want to point out that the whole Superbit concept is turning out to be nothing more than a scam. Now, if they retailed for a more reasonable price and all the titles were done properly to begin with, there would be no problem. My problems with Superbit have nothing to do with having to wait for a decent edition.

 

[Shane Martin]

Oh no. But often times threads like this degenerate. Toe me to declare them a scam you'd have to not see the value in them and if you don't then so be it. I don't mind paying the $22.99 price which I don't think is outrageous(especially coming from the laserdisc world). Really to most people since the difference is pretty minimal I think the initial editions are done properly, its just there are better versions for those willing to pay for the difference. Sorta like buying a cheapo Corvette which some will say is more than enough for them, then there are the few that are willing to pay for the Z06 which is more $$. Is the cheapo Corvette improperly done? I don't think so.

 

[RodneyT]

Boy oh boy, did i laugh at that.

IMO, i enjoy the Superbit editions mainly because of the addition of DTS (which i am an advocate of, by the way) even if the regular editions are pretty near-on identical with the Superbit versions.

As far as "Is Superbit Worth It?", well, the answer is probably not. You get no extra features (unless you buy a Deluxe Edition) and invariably your viewing pleasure is not increased substanitally enough to justify the added cost.

The way I see it, if Columbia released decent DVD's in the first place, including the DTS soundtrack (which can always be endlessly debated) and maximised resolution, and perhaps keep all the added material on a second disc, then the need for Superbit editions and all this ballyhoo would be a moot point.

To all those reading this thread who are wondering what the answer is to the question, get yourselves copies of some titles in both Superbit & regular editions, and do a comparison for yourselves..[I will say at this point that the only two titles i have done this for that have had a marked difference are Lawrence of Arabia, and Das Boot, both of which have already been mentioned] That way, rather than relying on other peoples opinions, you can make up your own mind. Adam can spend all day espousing the technical benefits/disadvantages for Superbit, DTS/Dolby, picture quality etc etc..... Unless you see for yourself and have a go, you'll never know the real answer for yourself

 

[JohnRice]

Shane, you seem to be completely missing my point. There are better editions from many other studios which are also cheaper, plus, Columbia's claim that the entire disc is used up by video and audio and therefor there is no room for extras is a blatant lie.

I also bought LD, but that has absolutely no bearing here.

 

[PhilBoy]

I rephrase my post.

... up to the maximum peak usable video bitrate.

The best authored DVD I have seen is T2 Extreme disc 1. It is not a SuperBit release, but it appears to have been meticulously transfered and authored. An example for others to follow.

 

[Tan Ng]

Rodney

Laugh as much as you like. To me Dolby Digital was dead already beacause I never listened to it anymore. I don't mean Dolby digital dead by no one use it anymore. I always purchased Superbit and listened to DTS automatically. I got into home theater for 4+ years now and I now only have 30 DVDs left and all are DTS or Superbit. I sold all my Dolby DVDs and stop buying Dolby Digital DVDs unless there were certain movies that I really liked and no DTS track was available. I think most people automatically select DTS track when both Dolby and DTS track were in 1 DVD. I know I seemed to start up another war thread between DTS and Dolby Digital so I am going to stop here. I have Meridian 568 processor and this awesome processor made a distinction between DTS and Dolby when I listened to it.I do hear a big difference between DTS and Dolby Digital and it is my own opinion and I will leave at that. I suggest the moderator to close this thread.