AVATAR: Blu-ray takes the "Superbit" approach (1 Viewer)

[cafink]

Originally Posted by TravisR ">[/url]

I wouldn't say that they're taking the Superbit approach. The movie isn't even 3 hours so they could easily put a few featurettes, deleted scenes, etc. on the disc without comprising the AV quality. [/QUOTE]It sounds to me like they're taking the Superbit approach exactly. Yeah, they surely could fit at least a few supplements on the disc without compromising the AV quality, but the whole point of the Superbit line was to omit supplements altogether so that every last bit (except for a small but necessary amount reserved for minimal menus) could be used for the movie itself, even if it meant only a miniscule improvement in AV quality. And that's exactly how Fox is approaching the initial Blu-ray release of [i]Avatar[/i], it seems.

They're even advertising the lack of supplements as an effort to maximize AV quality, exactly as was done with the Superbit line. From

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Joseph Bolus




Please explain to me how a 3D release of Avatar in November will lose money for Fox?? The disc will be backward-compatible with all current, extant, Blu-ray players *and* will provide extra content and desired supplements to boot! The fact that the 3D Avatar experience is locked-in that disc somewhere (just waiting for the proper equipment to release it) will actually *enhance* its sales while at the same time driving additional hardware sales *and* solidifying Blu-ray's status as the "best way to view a movie at home". And it certainly doesn't mean that Fox can't release another "3D Ultimate Collector's Edition" of Avatar a few years down the road when the format is more firmly established. It's actually a "win-win" for everybody involved!

It's a lose-lose, actually. While there is a Bluray standard, as manufacturers have pointed out there are different ways to render, and now 3 different types of glasses. Panasonic is pushing one, Samsung another, and Nvidia also has a different option.

Within a market push or really a second generation with a lot of adopters, you're wasting a lot of resources mastering for a "version 1" of a content type. This seems like a bad deal for a studio, and a guarantee that you'd force people to double/triple dip.

 

[Richard--W]

My impression of Avatar, after seeing it under optimal conditions and then at the Imax, is that it James Cameron's proprietary digital 3-D technology is dim and soft compared to 35mm, like a film that had been duped and projected too much. Perhaps it needs all the help it can get. Since it originates in the digital realm I expect it will look better on Blu-ray and the luminosity of a TV display than it did in the theaters.

I would be surprised if James Cameron didn't put hours of supplements in a 2-disc set.

 

[cafink]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the studio wouldn't be "mastering for a 'version 1' of a content type." As you said, there is a 3D standard for Blu-ray. The type of 3D implemented by the hardware (Blu-ray players and displays) will have no effect on the software, which will use the existing Blu-ray 3D standard, and continue to be compatible with future hardware no matter which type of 3D they implement.

 

[Jason Charlton]

Originally Posted by mattCR

It's a lose-lose, actually. While there is a Bluray standard, as manufacturers have pointed out there are different ways to render, and now 3 different types of glasses. Panasonic is pushing one, Samsung another, and Nvidia also has a different option.

Within a market push or really a second generation with a lot of adopters, you're wasting a lot of resources mastering for a "version 1" of a content type. This seems like a bad deal for a studio, and a guarantee that you'd force people to double/triple dip.

Can you clarify your comment "there are different ways to render".

My understanding was that the Blu-Ray authoring process was not in question. No matter which hardware system you go with - Samsung, Panasonic, etc. the Blu-Ray itself would be no different.

The glasses are "married" to the display, so to speak. No matter what, the 3D effect is achieved by displaying alternating fields at higher refresh rates and having active shutter glasses in sync with the display to control which eye sees which field.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

A 3D Blu-ray disc will playback on any 3D system in 3D, and should play on any 2D player in 2D. The only proprietary link is the glasses to the display as Jason mentioned. As to the disc, I know there was a lot of material left on the cutting room floor (or the recycle bin since its digital ) that I imagine will eventually make it to the additional release. My guess is Fox wanted it our and James Cameron hasn't had the time to really work on it yet, thus the reason for the multiple releases. Will I double dip? yes.

 

[mattCR]

There is an approved 3D standard for BD. This is true. But several vendors have openly said that there shutter systems (lenses/glasses/whatever) will be different, and some even use different rendering methods. So, you're designing something for version1 of the content type. And, I hate the call of "Well, there is a standard" .... yes, and VC1 was originally the main (and for awhile, when HD-DVD was around, supposedly the "BIG" standard) but others found homes, the standards were revised and updated..

Those not expecting the same from a 3D format are, I think, not looking at the track record of how this has went so far.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by cafink



It sounds to me like they're taking the Superbit approach exactly. Yeah, they surely could fit at least a few supplements on the disc without compromising the AV quality, but the whole point of the Superbit line was to omit supplements altogether so that every last bit (except for a small but necessary amount reserved for minimal menus) could be used for the movie itself, even if it meant only a miniscule improvement in AV quality. And that's exactly how Fox is approaching the initial Blu-ray release of Avatar, it seems.

They're even advertising the lack of supplements as an effort to maximize AV quality, exactly as was done with the Superbit line. From The LA Times:

"According to sources at Fox, Avatar will make history as the first Blu-ray new release from a major studio to hit stores without a single trailer or promotional content of any kind"

"Everything that is put on a disc takes up room--the menus, the extras, the trailers and studio promotions--we got rid of all that so we could give this movie the best picture and sound possible."

They could still accomplish this and not force the people who lack patience or discipline to double-dip by simply including the supplements on a 2nd disc. It's still an attempt to get people to buy the same film twice within a seven month span, no matter what marketing spin Fox attempts to put on it. And the $40 MSRP is certainly priced like a special edition. Hopefully this will be a big enough draw that retailers will be severely discounting the title. If it ends up being a standard 30% discount, I will be passing until the price drops.

For those of us who do not really care about the extra features, the double-dip marketing strategy is a non-issue, though.

 

[cafink]

You're confusing two different things, Matt.

The Blu-ray 3D standard specifies a way of encoding a stereoscopic image on an optical disc. This specification has been finalized, officially accepted by the Blu-ray Disc Association. Although no commercial products are available yet, the HTF's own Adam Gregorich has gotten his hands on a copy of Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D on Blu-ray.

What's you're talking about is a way of displaying a stereoscopic image in 3D. There is currently no precisely "standard" way of doing it (though I understand that most home solutions involve "active shutter" glasses), but that's a completely separate issue from the above. Just because there's no standard way of displaying a 3D image stored on a Blu-ray disc doesn't mean there can't be a standard way of storing that 3D image on the Blu-ray disc in the first place.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by cafink ">[/url]

You're confusing two different things, Matt.

The Blu-ray 3D standard specifies a way of [i]encoding a stereoscopic image on an optical disc[/i]. This specification has been finalized, officially accepted by the Blu-ray Disc Association. Although no commercial products are available yet,

 

[Mark_TB]

I don't have a problem with the so-called "triple-dip." At least they are being upfront about it, so one can plan accordingly. No need to buy one version if you prefer the version coming later. (But to be honest, I'll probably end up with all three. )

As far as utilizing all of the space on the disc for the feature in order to maintain maximum video and audio quality, I would guess that is more of a consideration for the DVD than the Blu-ray.

I also understand their decision to wait on the 3-D version. I doubt Cameron and Fox want to be the guinea pig for a new and relatively untested format. Plus, you can make a much bigger bang once 3-D playback systems have saturated the market.

- Mark

 

[Douglas Monce]

I have serious doubts about 3D catching on as a main stream product at home. When blu-ray and HD DVD were first released, there was much talk about how the install base of HDTVs was somewhere around 15 to 20%. meaning that 15 to 20% of American homes had an HDTV. I read recently that figure it now around 65%. That means that more than half of American households spent $1000 or more on a new HDTV in the last 3 or 4 years. I just don't see most of those people, in this economy, going out and spending another $1500 to $1800 on another HDTV just to have 3D.

I do however see 3D being the thing that finally pushes theater owners to install digital projectors, which will benefit 2D films as well as 3D.

Doug

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

I have serious doubts about 3D catching on as a main stream product at home. When blu-ray and HD DVD were first released, there was much talk about how the install base of HDTVs was somewhere around 15 to 20%. meaning that 15 to 20% of American homes had an HDTV. I read recently that figure it now around 65%. That means that more than half of American households spent $1000 or more on a new HDTV in the last 3 or 4 years. I just don't see most of those people, in this economy, going out and spending another $1500 to $1800 on another HDTV just to have 3D.

I agree, Doug. I am one of those people who have purchased a new large TV within the past 18 months -- along with a BD player and new HDMI 1.3 A/V receiver. There is no way I plan on replacing this equipment, which cost approximately $3,800, just to buy into 3D. A substantial percentage of family, friends and co-workers (none of whom are HT enthusiasts) also have purchased new HDTV's for their prime viewing rooms in the past year, too. I do not see any of them doing another upgrade, either.

 

[cineMANIAC]

"We got rid of all the promotional stuff to take full advantage of disc space for optimal PQ" or some BS like that? Don't make me laugh. Does this mean when you pop the disc into the player a menu for the film will appear immediately with "play" the only option? No Interpol warnings, trailers for other films, disclaimers, fluff, logos, etc.? And they want thirty-five bucks for this? I'll wait for a price drop for the first release and call it a day - special editions these days aren't so special anymore - chances are all we'll get are a couple of 12 minute featurettes, a music video and a commentary track featuring 8 people talking at the same time, most of them spouting techno-babble. No, thanks

 

[Southpaw]

Originally Posted by Luisito34

"We got rid of all the promotional stuff to take full advantage of disc space for optimal PQ" or some BS like that? Don't make me laugh. Does this mean when you pop the disc into the player a menu for the film will appear immediately with "play" the only option? No Interpol warnings, trailers for other films, disclaimers, fluff, logos, etc.? And they want thirty-five bucks for this? I'll wait for a price drop for the first release and call it a day - special editions these days aren't so special anymore - chances are all we'll get are a couple of 12 minute featurettes, a music video and a commentary track featuring 8 people talking at the same time, most of them spouting techno-babble. No, thanks

Yup, it's a joke. Just put the special features on a 2nd disc. If you are really that concerned with giving the public the best a/v presentation and don't want to jeopardize that by taking up disc space with bonus stuff, just put it all on disc 2. But no, they've got to milk the cow and wait on that stuff until an ultimate edition is released that will be timed around the holidays.
I will wait and by the time it comes out, I may be so over it I won't even care anymore.

 

[Vincent_P]

Sony never pushed VC-1 as the "standard". In fact, the earliest Sony Blu-rays were MPEG-2, and most since have been AVC. There never was a "standard" being pushed, all three of those codecs were supported and used, and AVC and VC-1 continue to be used.

Vincent

Originally Posted by mattCR




Yes. I understand that the two are different. Again, though, I use VC-1 CODEC as an example of how a "standard" of how it's done can also be revised to better match the hardware that it's being displayed on. You're seeing fewer and fewer discs in VC1, which was the encoding "standard" Sony pushed when the format war was on.

 

[Martin Henry]

As per the question in the OP's opening post, my reply is simple. I won't be buying Avatar at all, be it 2D, 3D or the next technology they decide to bung it out on. Can't polish a turd IMO.

 

[Jason Charlton]

Originally Posted by Martin Henry .

 

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by Martin Henry

As per the question in the OP's opening post, my reply is simple. I won't be buying Avatar at all, be it 2D, 3D or the next technology they decide to bung it out on. Can't polish a turd IMO.

hmm, that's interesting.

 

[Martin Henry]

Originally Posted by Jason Charlton /forum/thread/298958/avatar-blu-ray-takes-the-superbit-approach/30#post_3671450