New Blu-ray titles: Kingdom of Heaven 1st 50 gb dual layer (1 Viewer)

[Ed St. Clair]

DaViD,
Everyone seems to be juggling right now, so a lot is getting dropped.
Tough times.
Even the "insiders" are wrong!
How are 'us' little people supposed to get the correct info, let alone keep up???

So, is this title 194 or 224 minute version?

How does BD 25 GB MPEG 2 97 minute movies look?
How does BD 25 GB MPEG 2 112 minute movies look?

Sony's MPEG 2 will NOT be better or worse, as MPEG 2 is MPEG 2.
Peter THX, is absolutely wrong when he says size does not matter (or, "25 = 30" for that matter! LOL ).

However, if a film, say LoW at 122m, looks good then there is hope for a good transfer. If LoW does not achieve a high level of presentation, then this title is in trouble as well.

 

[Rob_Walton]

This is a VBR HD version of MPEG2 which, as I understand it, is quite new and therefore likely to be refined and improved. Certainly WB managed more consistently good results with their MPEG2 encoder than Sony put out.

 

[MarekM]

I even like the theatrical version, I didn't saw Directors Cut, but I am hearing ONLY POSITIVE things about directors cut.... can't wait to see it...

Marek

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Actually, that's not true.

There are many different implimentations of MPEG2 encoders... and many of them have different signatures.

Over at AVS one insider was saying that in his opinion the Sony encoder (the one Sony brags about) is actually not reference-quality at all... and there is another VBR MPEG2 encoder he prefers to use for HD material which he feels is much more transparent.

Also, even with the same physical encoder black-box and film transfer the result could look 180 degrees different in the hands of a different compressionist. There are hundreds of variables that can vary in hands of a different technician... many decisions like DVR, high-pass filtering, edge-emphasis, which bit-rate to use for a given scene etc.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

So, I'm "right" when I say "Sony's MPEG 2...".
Just others may be better, got ya!
Good to know, thanks all!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Even using the same encoder there can be great variation in the final compressed product based on all the factors I mentioned (and more).

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Of coarse!
I wasn't speaking of mastering.
A 16/44.1 CD can be compressed & no-noised to death. Would that sound like the same source, with a flat transfer? Nah! ;-)
Let's just hope the person with their hands on the controls, knows what the heck their doing!!!

 

[Rob_Walton]

I'm still not seeing why you think Sony's HD MPEG2 encoding won't improve, particularly since they have the most room for improvement. Hopefully the unflattering comparison to other studio's output will matter to the people making the decisions.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I expect that most of the improvement will come when MPEG2 is used on disks with more storage, allowing for less compression and compromise in audio and video. Since MPEG2 has been in use quite a while, it is reasonable to believe that the technicians have a much smaller learning curve in the use of MPEG2 for HD transfers than MPEG4 or VC1.

This argues that we should see the most improvement over time in these two compression formats, rather than MPEG2.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Is this referring to my comments? I don't recall saying or implying that Sony HD incoding could/would not improve over time. I only mentioned that at AVS an independent (non microsoft, not Amir) tester stated that the new Sony MPEG2 encoder itself was not the marvel of transparency that Sony has claimed and that other MPEG2 encoders do a better job on HD material.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Again speculation until confirmed, but on AVS it also mentioned that the DTS Master Audio lossless tracks for Fox titles would be 24 bit. Perhaps 24/48?

That's a damn site better than 16/48 which seems to be the norm right now.

Hopefully, lossless means lossless whether it's DTS MA or Dolby TrueHD.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

DaViD,
I believe Rob is addressing me.

Rob,
You have it right that I don't think "Sony's HD MPEG2" system "won't improve".
However, as I gave with my "CD" analogy, the "encoding" of each transfer is open to interpretations.
If that's not clear;
I do not feel Sony will improve their MPEG 2 decoder,
although the may indeed improve their compression/encoding technique.

So...
I just don't see Sony spending any more time or money on MPEG 2.
Do you?
Hope this gives you a better idea of what I'm thinking about MPEG 2.
Which was fine for DVD's, by the way! ;-)

 

[RobertR]

Have unflattering comparisons to other studios mattered to Sony decision makers in the past? Why should it matter any more to them than it has?

 

[Rob_Walton]

Yeah, Ed was the fella my questions were directed to. Sorry for the confussion there, DaViD.


It was also considered fine for DVHS, and the top titles on that format are often mentioned as the best (or perhaps now tying for best) footage available to us consumers of HD material. I suspect that MPEG2 has been writen off far too soon, with only a few titles and one player (from Samsung!) to form that opinion.

As for Sony's individual decisions, only time will tell. But it's certainly interesting that they've released so few titles recently, especially since it was always assumed they would be the one studio to flood the market early on, for obvious reasons. Perhaps they're looking again at their supply chain to try and iron out the kinks.

BTW MPEG2 will probably remain the standard for broadcast HD in the US for many years (since many station have their entire network set up for this standard), so it makes sense to continue investing in this codec. Personally, though, I'm hopeful that AVC will quickly gain favour in all forms of HD distribution.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Regarding MPEG2,

keep in mind that Sony did all the MPEG2 compression/encoding for the first round of BD titles for all the studios.

However, that's changing now. Given how incredible Fox's D-VHS titles looked (using MPEG2) I'm more optimisitc that on 50 gig BD they might compare very well against VC1 HD DVD titles. I'm eager to see the result, though I do hope that the studios start moving to VC1/AVC regardless for the obvious benefits of efficiency.

 

[Harminder]

Forget it. Your posts I'm totally going to ignore.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Great info. Glad your 'sharing' all of this.
Like the fact that D-VHS still looks good with 2 & broadcast uses it as well.
Is it easy or will it be easy, for broadcast to go to MPEG 4?
Sony really inbareassed themselves with 2. Where as you point out, it didn't have to be that "BAD"!!!

Oh, BTW, where do you get your "favour"???
I'm from California.
We've got "flavor" too!!! ;-)

 

[Rob_Walton]

My flavour's a byproduct of English rain. Best rain in the world!

Oddly enough MPEG4 is the encoding method for our own British HD broadcasts, and across other countries in Europe as well, so it's quite likely the codec will mature a pace over here. Though our HD is limited to 720p at the mo'...

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Is that the "best rain" or the "most rain"??? :-0
My "flavor" is a byproduct of California wine, the best wine in the world! ;-)

Our broadcast (OTA, cable, & sat) is both 720p & 1080i, hindered by the greed of wanting 200 channels of crud, instead of 40 channels of quality! :-(

 

[Rob_Walton]

Sure, continue to deliberately misspell my language (that's right, my language ) , see if I care...

HD broadcasts have only just started over here, with no OTA available yet. Things are just begining, and as everyone knows The begining is a delicate time.

BTW I've had some Californian wine and it's corking, but in a good way! Rioca from Spain is probably my favourite, though.