Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Blades of Glory/Face Off - BD HD differences


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
62 replies to this topic

#1 of 63 BrettB

BrettB

    Producer

  • 3,024 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2001

Posted July 27 2007 - 06:20 AM

link

Quote:
'Blades of Glory'. This title will feature a PCM 5.1 soundtrack for the Blu-ray release, but will feature no equivalent on the HD DVD, presumably because of the smaller disc capacity. Two weeks later, Paramount will ship 'Face/Off' with extras features available in high definition, but only on the Blu-ray version, again due to space constraints.


#2 of 63 Paul Arnette

Paul Arnette

    Screenwriter

  • 2,616 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 16 2002

Posted July 27 2007 - 06:23 AM

Turn about's fair play.
Universal Blu-ray Discs I will not be buying while they're offered only as Blu-ray + DVD 'flipper' discs:

The Jackal
, Out of Africa, and Traffic.

#3 of 63 Nick Graham

Nick Graham

    Screenwriter

  • 1,409 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2001

Posted July 27 2007 - 06:29 AM

Weird - on Top Gun, the Blu-Ray gets PCM, and the HD gets TrueHD, however there are no extras on that release (!), so it would appear to be a space issue. These are the days when format neutrality is really paying off.

#4 of 63 John Berggren

John Berggren

    Producer

  • 3,245 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 17 1999

Posted July 27 2007 - 11:03 AM

This is a clear indicator that capacity is a consideration for HD releases. Also, don't be fooled, format neutrality will only delay or eliminate the adoption and normalization of HD optical media for the mass consumer.
Support the fight against Multiple Sclerosis as I ride in the 2007 MS 150 in New Bern this September.

Be a Widescreen Advocate

#5 of 63 Walter Kittel

Walter Kittel

    Producer

  • 4,572 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted July 27 2007 - 11:13 AM

Yes, it is a clear indicator from Blu-ray.com.

- Walter.
Fidelity to the source should always be the goal for Blu-ray releases.

#6 of 63 Marc Colella

Marc Colella

    Screenwriter

  • 2,607 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 1999

Posted July 27 2007 - 11:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Berggren
Also, don't be fooled, format neutrality will only delay or eliminate the adoption and normalization of HD optical media for the mass consumer.

Lack of interest is what will eliminate the adoption of HD media for the mass consumer.

#7 of 63 Tim Glover

Tim Glover

    Lead Actor

  • 7,616 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 1999
  • Real Name:Tim Glover

Posted July 27 2007 - 02:13 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Berggren
This is a clear indicator that capacity is a consideration for HD releases. Also, don't be fooled, format neutrality will only delay or eliminate the adoption and normalization of HD optical media for the mass consumer.

If this 'report' is true, I'm not sure capacity has much to do with it. Troy has a running time of 2 hours, 42 minutes and has a rather powerful Dolby True HD track.

Face/Off in both HD DVD and BD will be 2 disc sets. Space is not an issue. Posted Image

#8 of 63 Dave_P.

Dave_P.

    Supporting Actor

  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: May 20 1999

Posted July 28 2007 - 12:12 AM

It's true. Troy didn't have space-hogging, all-HD extras like Blades of Glory does, just SD.

HD-DVD cover
Posted Image


Blu-ray cover
Posted Image

#9 of 63 Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul

  • 38,853 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted July 28 2007 - 12:26 AM

I wanted to order Face/Off in HD-DVD but based on
the article, just preordered it in Blu-Ray.

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

gallery_269895_23_10043.jpg Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders gallery_269895_23_1316.jpg Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

gallery_269895_23_773.jpg Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive gallery_269895_23_992.jpgClick Here for our complete DVD review archive

gallery_269895_23_7246.jpg Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule gallery_269895_23_3120.jpg Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#10 of 63 Jim_K

Jim_K

    Executive Producer

  • 10,089 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 07 2000

Posted July 28 2007 - 02:14 AM

Here's hoping this starts a trend with bonus material in HD, this is something the studios should have been doing from the start.
Death before Streaming!


#11 of 63 Mike_Richardson

Mike_Richardson

    Supporting Actor

  • 639 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 11 2002

Posted July 28 2007 - 02:23 AM

Quote:
Face/Off in both HD DVD and BD will be 2 disc sets. Space is not an issue.

Agreed. Folks, don't believe everything you read from a propaganda site like Blu-ray.com (just look at their other articles for unabashed cheerleading filled with misinformation).

If HD-DVD can't keep up take a look at KING KONG, a 3-hour movie that's VC-1 encoded and looks as good as anything in either format IMO.

#12 of 63 Shawn Perron

Shawn Perron

    Supporting Actor

  • 500 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 25 2002

Posted July 28 2007 - 02:51 AM

Quote:
If HD-DVD can't keep up take a look at KING KONG, a 3-hour movie that's VC-1 encoded and looks as good as anything in either format IMO.

But it lacks a space and bandwidth hogging TrueHD sound track. Would it have impacted the video quality? There's no sure answer, so it's not the best example to use. Also King Kong has no HD extras, which again makes it a bad example. If you really want to prove HD-DVD has no space issues, you really need an example of a feature length movie with TrueHD and HD extras on the disc while still maintaining a high level of video quality. Your King Kong example is a best case scenario for an encode: a movie with no TrueHD soundtrack that also lacks a significant amount of extras taking up space.

Using King Kong as an example for HD-DVD would be the equivalent of using Pirate of the Carribean: Dead Man's Chest as an example of a Blu-Ray. Both are best case scenarios with the entire disc dedicated to the movie as opposed to having the main disc loaded up with HD special features and other space hogs.

#13 of 63 Dave_P.

Dave_P.

    Supporting Actor

  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: May 20 1999

Posted July 28 2007 - 08:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_Richardson
Agreed. Folks, don't believe everything you read from a propaganda site like Blu-ray.com (just look at their other articles for unabashed cheerleading filled with misinformation).

If HD-DVD can't keep up take a look at KING KONG, a 3-hour movie that's VC-1 encoded and looks as good as anything in either format IMO.

Then what's the reason for the omission of the lossless track from the Blades of Glory HD-DVD? Content is exactly the same on both format except for the lossless.

#14 of 63 DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted July 30 2007 - 03:21 AM

Quote:
Then what's the reason for the omission of the lossless track from the Blades of Glory HD-DVD? Content is exactly the same on both format except for the lossless.

Dave,

King Kong did NOT have room for a lossless audio track. It's ironic that this title keeps being used by some enthusiasts as a proving ground for "HD DVD has enough space/bandwidth" when it doesn't even have room for lossless audio.



Paramount has been providing (what they feel are superior) video encodes for BD for a while. It's nice to see the higher bandwidth/space also being used now for lossless audio.

Each title has it's own unique issues with required video bandwidth, audio soundtrack options, and the availablitity of high-def bonus material. While HD bonus material could always be moved to a second HD DVD if absolute space on a 30GB platter was a limiting factor (though I much prefer 1-disc when possible without any image/sound compromise to the feature film), the difficulty with lossless audio is that it has to stream simultaneously with the feature film, so it both competes for disc space *and* bandwidth during movie-play.

BD has enough bandwidth it should never be a problem. Chicago on BD not only had a 24-bit lossless English track (5.1), but there was even enough space for Disney to provide a lossless Spanish track (2.0) as well (plus lossy 640 kbps Dolby tracks in other languages). Using Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA versus PCM would bring even more lossless language options or leave room for peak-video bit-rate for difficult to compress scenes in films with lots of entropy.
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#15 of 63 Tim Glover

Tim Glover

    Lead Actor

  • 7,616 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 1999
  • Real Name:Tim Glover

Posted July 30 2007 - 09:39 AM

David, tell us again how Paramount has been using "superior' video encodes for BD for awhile now? Posted Image

#16 of 63 Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer

  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted July 30 2007 - 09:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Dave,

King Kong did NOT have room for a lossless audio track. It's ironic that this title keeps being used by some enthusiasts as a proving ground for "HD DVD has enough space/bandwidth" when it doesn't even have room for lossless audio.


I don't think anyone has proved that KK didn't have room for a lossless audio track. The fact of the matter is that until about 2 months ago Universal wasn't putting lossless audio on ANY of their releases as a matter of policy. Who says that it couldn't accommodate a True HD track.

Superman Returns has True HD and its not exactly a short movie, and it looks fantastic. Batman Begins is another fairly long movie with a True HD track, and it also includes the in-movie feature.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#17 of 63 DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted July 30 2007 - 09:58 AM

Quote:
David, tell us again how Paramount has been using "superior' video encodes for BD for awhile now?

Personally, I don't see any difference between their HD DVD and BD encodes, but when I asked a paramount rep why they were using different video codecs on BD versus HD DVD, the answer was that BD had more space so they "didn't have to use VC1".

Strange actually, considering how good VC1 looks even on their own HD DVDs. So, what I'm saying is that the rationale that the Parmount rep offered was that they were using different codecs on BD versus HD DVD becuase they had more space to work with on BD and preferred that choice.

It could also be that someone at the studio just wanted to get experience with a variety of codecs to see how they perform, and naturally went with MPEG2 on BD where the bit-rate allows it to work more transparently than it could on HD DVD. I can only tell you what the rep said.

I haven't bought a paramount BD lately: does anyone know what they're doing now? Are they still doing different encodes for HD DVD/BD? Using AVC on BD or still MPEG2?
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#18 of 63 DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted July 30 2007 - 10:01 AM

Quote:
I don't think anyone has proved that KK didn't have room for a lossless audio track. The fact of the matter is that until about 2 months ago Universal wasn't putting lossless audio on ANY of their releases as a matter of policy. Who says that it couldn't accommodate a True HD track.

Superman Returns has True HD and its not exactly a short movie, and it looks fantastic. Batman Begins is another fairly long movie with a True HD track, and it also includes the in-movie feature.

True. There's no confirmed proof that it wouldn't have fit had Universal chosen to include it (I don't have the figures about the consumed disc-space and bandwidth on the 30GB HD DVD). However, the fact remains that the title did not provide TrueHD, so it still makes no sense to hold up that particular HD DVD as a icon of how the HD DVD format can deliver the ultimate AV quality.
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.

#19 of 63 Tim Glover

Tim Glover

    Lead Actor

  • 7,616 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 12 1999
  • Real Name:Tim Glover

Posted July 30 2007 - 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Paramount has been providing (what they feel are superior) video encodes for BD for a while. It's nice to see the higher bandwidth/space also being used now for lossless audio.
.

The Past 7 Paramount HD Media Offerings (back to mid May 2007) Highdefdigest source of reviews...

Shooter:
BD got MPEG 2
HD DVD got AVC MPEG 4
results were indentical

The Warriors:
BD & HD DVD both got AVC MPEG 4

The Untouchables:
BD got AVC MPEG 4
HD DVD got VC-1
Results were identical

Coming to America:
BD got AVC MPEG 4
HD DVD got VC-1 "richer colors-sharper details"

Trading Places:
BD & HD DVD both got AVC MPEG 4

Flags Of Our Fathers:
BD got AVC MPEG 4 "tiniest bit sharper but reviewer states neither gives an advantage"
HD DVD got VC-1

Freedom Writers:
BD & HD DVD both got AVC MPEG 4
both looked identical....


David can you tell us what were the "superior" video encodes for Blu-ray offered by Paramount Studios???

*In nearly all of these the Audio tracks are superior on the HD DVD versions.

#20 of 63 DaViD Boulet

DaViD Boulet

    Lead Actor

  • 8,805 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 1999

Posted July 30 2007 - 10:19 AM

Tim, see above. The "better" isn't my personal opinion, but that of what the Paramount rep was telling me when I asked him why his studio used different encodes on the BD/HD DVD counterparts.

However, from the looks of things from your list above, it appears more to my eyes like the studio merely wants to experiment with various codecs and compression techniques and is taking advantage of the dual-format releases to explore that. If we start to see Paramount move towards single-video-encodes going forward, or to start to use the same codec on both formats, that will be a sign. Curious, in cases where the same video codec appears on both formats, can anyone confirm if it's literally the same encode (ala Warner) or a different encode using the same codec?
Be an Original Aspect Ratio Advocate

Supporter of 1080p24 video and lossless 24 bit audio.


Back to Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow