Writing a letter to Warner about lack of lossless audio on their BRD (1 Viewer)

[David Wilkins]

If the BD25 issue is an industry wide problem, then why does WB continually feature lossy audio more often than other studios. They obviously place little value on hi-res audio. True, WB has been a great studio for hi-def software, but the current trend is obvious, seems to be growing, and their decision making as to which titles get hi-res audio is sometimes baffling.

I've always been in favor of cutting studios slack, when it comes to adjusting to a new marketplace, format, or whatever. I've spoken out in favor of being patient about many issues in the past, but this particular issue at this particular point in the game, seems to be a regressive step deliberately taken. It flies in the face of everything we've been sold on, about the BD format.

You say WB is choosing higher fidelity video over audio? Raw bit-rate doesn't always translate into a noticeably superior video transfer, when deciding how best to use disc space for presentation of a given title.

Patience is a fine virtue, but this particular problem continues to spread...where WB is concerned. Other studios seem to be less afflicted. Continuing to complain about it is perfectly legitimate.

As a side note: BD must be doing well, if they're bumping up against production capacity. They've had a decent chunk of time to make assessments and implementations.

 

[Edwin-S]

That's my guess which is why I'll rent "Speed Racer" for the time being. Writing a letter might do some good, but I doubt it. I'm sure WB read plenty of the bitches that occurred on websites like this one and still went ahead with a lossy track.

Also if the space constraint of a 25G BD is going to result in degraded video or audio then I would rather have slightly less than perfect audio, rather than degraded video. The effects of lower video quality are much more noticeable than slightly downgraded audio.

 

[Brandon Conway]

There are 4 types of Warner releases that get lossy audio only from what I can tell:

1. TV shows
2. New films that performed under box-office expectations
3. Catalog titles that had the disc image finished prior ~June 2008 (having been prepped for both formats)
4. Catalog titles with Mono 1.0 original audio

#3 is not an issue as most of these have now been scheduled; however, a few more may still need to make their way into the market.

#4 is a problem only for those with absolutely amazing hearing (The Adventures of Robin Hood is an example of one of these releases).

#1 is a matter of paying for a higher quality mix.

#2 is the most frustrating, and needs to be corrected ASAP.

I think the big problem is that Warner is so huge that the different home video production lines are likely working with different standards. Catalog is a different division than TV, TV is a different division than TV Animation/Kids, New Releases is different than Catalog, etc.

 

[PaulDA]

Quite so. As such, I will continue to weigh the odds, for films I want to own, of a future release with lossless vs the likely time frame for such a release vs how often I plan to watch the film. With Speed Racer, I'm more than willing to live with the less than perfect current edition. With other films, it'll be case by case. But plain ol' vanilla DD/DTS have served me well for quite some time now--it's not the best available option, but is is far from "crap". The jump from 480p to 1080p (or even 720p) is far more significant than the jump from "lossy" to "lossless".

 

[rjrenjian]

centrifugeCertainly has you to like------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------lab centrifugehigh speed refrigerated centrifugeLarge capacity centrifuge

 

[Douglas Monce]

I haven't looked at the actual numbers but its likely that Warners releases more titles than just about any other studio, and as such has to make hard choices about what releases will get a BD50 and which won't. (assuming that each studio gets an equal allocation of BD50 scheduled slots)

Other studios with a lighter release schedule may not have to make those choices.

Doug

 

[Cees Alons]

No, this thread proves it's hindered by it. Both, in volume of total releases and in quality.

Warner received options on an alotment of slots when they decided to go one-format. Apparently, the capacity still hasn't been increased much beyond that.


Cees

 

[JediFonger]

aren't there ONLINE petitions where u can get issues resolved? i can't remember which now, but u can goto that cause site and create a cause and email it many people and they will sign it. doing it on physical pen and paper is a huge hassle and many people are way too lazy to do so. I AM ONE OF THEM .

so if som1 creates an online petition and links it here, I WILL SIGN IT!!! bring it on! i luv this idea. let's get the movement going! =P. i refuse to buy BD's without lossless on movies THAT HAVE TO HAVE IT!!! i saw speed racer opening night. blew me away, i remembered making a mental note to buy the BD when it came out and was about to pre-order it when online sites reported non-lossless. it's not the first time too, superman returns and happy feet didn't have that when they first came out. superman returns has just been re-issued, i bought it straight up from WHV on release date. if happy feet and speed racer and many movies that REQUIRE it gets re-released with lossless i am SO THERE.

but please remember also that releasing EVERYTHING on lossless doesn't make 100% sense unless studios (not just WB) go back to original sountrack and remaster THAT too. sometimes they dump the same print on both lossy and lossless for pre surround sound/hi-fi days and it'll make no difference. but if they HAVE remastered original audio, we want lossless no matter how new or old the films are. i believe Dolby includes TrueHD 1.0 spex AS WELL. so even casablanca can include lossless TrueHD 1.0!!!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Online petitions are largely ineffective, as there is no way to verify the information contained in them, including the signatures of the signees to the petition.

 

[OliverK]

VERY embarassing for a format to be limited in picture and sound quality by production capacity when its major claim to fame is superior picture and sound.

Warner allready voiced disappointment on how the Blu-Ray format develops at the IFA this year and I hope that things will change for the better soon. It is incredible that more than 2 years into the life of the format DL production capacity is still a problem.

This is not intended as a belated format war post as I consider Blu-Ray to be the right HD format for several reasons but it is about time that studios should not be forced to release compromised SL discs just because DL production capacities are still not what they should be.

Regarding how this affects only/mainly Warner: They release and sell more titles than any other studio so it is probable that their allotment of DL capacity cannot keep up with their demand more so than with other studios.

 

[Cees Alons]

That's very encouraging news in this whole matter. It means they are aware of the problem, and look to change things for the better rather sooner than later.

It also means they really want to bring out richer releases more often if only they could.
Of course we support that!


Cees

 

[Loregnum]

The lack of lossless on some of the new releases is a bummer and reading some of the replies here it seems the problem may well be the production capacity rather than Warner just choosing to do this for fun. If that is the case then I will happily wait for the "double dip" when the production issues can be sorted out.

I think it does make sense because Warner clearly releases more titles than anyone so if they have a set allotment of BD50s then obviously some movies will get the shaft. Me personally, I'd rather Warner just delayed discs until they can get them "right" but sadly the business world doesn't work that way and the double dip (not just in HT but every industry that has double dips) is the way companies roll.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's not just Warner. As I noted above, Universal's U-571 was widely cited for having a less detailed image on Blu-ray than on HD-DVD. This is no doubt due to the Blu-ray's having a lossless track, which the HD-DVD did not, and the Blu-ray is a BD25.

I don't know about anyone else, but for the foreseeable future, I'll wait for reviews before buying any Uni titles released on a BD25. I think they're struggling under the same production pressures as Warner -- maybe even worse, since they had no existing Blu-ray presence when the format war ended.

M.

 

[OliverK]

It seemed that while others were pretty happy with what had been achieved so far Warner was the only studio that was not satisfied with only being a bigger niche fromat than last year, so we surely should encourage them to drive Blu-Ray forward. As most posters on here like classic movies we need a more aggressive approach - low numbers of software and hardware sales mean less classics as only the new releases reach the critical mass needed to make some money.

 

[OliverK]

I was only talking about the missing lossless tracks. But I agree that what Universal did was even worse. I'd certainly prefer DD+ and the same PQ to TrueHD and compromised PQ

I completely agree about waiting for reports about new titles first - with low BD50 capacities and some bad transfers thrown in for good measure here and there one might end up with a number of titles that are at best worth a rental.

 

[David Wilkins]

Your comments are well stated. The format was born not ready for prime time, and it still isn't, so far as production capacity. And again, this isn't a rehashed format war remark.

I wasn't aware that Warner had expressed their opinion in that way, but it still remains that Warner is releasing products that potential customers feel are compromised or sub-standard. Perhaps until the production problems are solved, Warner should release fewer titles. The public is already primed to expect a somewhat slow roll-out of titles in a new format...better to have them continue in that frame of thought, than to release products that are perceived as "thin" or compromised; it creates disappointment where it didn't previously exist. In short: You don't miss what you never had.

In the past, through the lifetime of multiple formats, I've made too many double dips to mention, most of them unwisely from a purely economic point of view. It will NOT happen with titles related to this issue. Just my two cents. One cent, adjusted for inflation.

 

[Lance Rumbolt]

hmm the first paragraph is a rehash of old format war talk, why isn't blu ray ready for prime time? because of production limitations? Could someone please supply some links for the information that says production plants are at capacity and that's why warner et al are releasing Blu rays with lower resolution audio...! I'm sorry guys but that sounds like nonsense.

 

[David Wilkins]

That remark was in reference to the notorious problems that BD had right out of the starting gate. I'm not sorry that BD won the format war...somebody needed to come out on top. I didn't invest so heavily in HD, as to have intolerable regrets about the outcome.

The talk about production capacity relates to BD50 capacity only, not BD25 capacity. The BD50 production problems are well documented.

With BD sales and market penetration being supposedly disappointing, it's all the more ironic that the "powers-that-be" in the BD community, carry on in a rather unprepared mode. It isn't logical to expect great public acceptance, when production standards and/or capacity aren't up to the task. Brings to mind an old axiom: You have to spend money in order to make money.

 

[Lance Rumbolt]

Nor me, I was fence sitter until the whole thing was resolved. I think I'm going to have to go do a bit research re production bottle necks me thinks..

 

[OliverK]

Good point and probably the best solution for now. I guess Warner did not really want to cancel releases thoughb that they had already announced - not every studio takes these things as easy as Fox