Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

LOTR Trilogy EE's Blu-Rays to be split on 2 disc each.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 292 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 1:14:47 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
I'm just reading the thread, buddy. :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 1:16:20 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:37 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 1:22:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:37 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 1:29:33 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
What about the audio?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 1:30:20 PM PDT
I think you're holding your own nicely tarek.

I have a question for anyone out there... Is there any noticeable difference in the PQ/AQ between the Avatar TE and the Avatar Extended / Collector's edition?

If not then Dead Mike's argument that increasing the running time of a film MUST result in a noticeable reduction of PQ/AQ is false! The Avatar CE is also loaded with special features to boot.

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 1:42:30 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"Is there any noticeable difference in the PQ/AQ between the Avatar TE and the Avatar Extended / Collector's edition?"

- No noticeable difference in watching due to better compression, but the bitrate is also not the same, so you might be able to detect *minor* differences in screenshots. Also, the special features are on different discs. For both editions, the movie pretty much took up the entire disc.

Honestly, this isn't even really a debate. You could see the same thing in DVDs. Are you guys going to tell me that a 4 hour movie put on a DVD looks as good as a 90 minute movie? Obviously not, right? Why would you think differently about Blu-ray? Is it magic or something? You really think that the size of a movie being put on a limited amount of space has nothing to do with how good it will look and what compression artifacts may be noticed? Come on, guys. This is common sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 1:53:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2011 1:55:47 PM PDT
So by your logic EVERY movie should be split over 2 BD's in order to maximize PQ/AQ then? Or what about 3 discs? I'll be 3 discs would make it look REALLY good right?

The fact is that bit rate is NOT the only factor that determines the PQ/AQ of a BD. And isn't BD supposed to be SUPERIOR to DVD? If the only thing that BD can do is barely squeeze in a 1080P picture and lossless soundtrack of a movie or split it onto 2 BD's if the running time is over 230 min then it will soon be replaced by something better.

To be clear I'm not saying that BD sucks, I'm just saying that you are underestimating what it can do. Remember the early days of DVD's before Dual Layer DVD's were released? Nuff Said.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 1:57:12 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Are you purposely being dense? There is a such thing as "the point of diminishing returns." There's only so much quality that you can "see" from a 1080p encode of a movie before the extra bitrate becomes redundant. Splitting a 90 minute movie on 3 discs isn't in the same ballpark as splitting a 251 minute movie on 2 discs. Seriously, stop posting every silly idea that pops into your head.

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 1:58:06 PM PDT
Holy Moses, here is a review touting a 4hour - 2bd release with a video score of 20 out of 20

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewshd/bdreviews032811.html

With all the people complaining about 2 discs, I gather no one drinks beer or a 40 oz soda during their home video viewing. Are the same people who like to sit on their arse and watch a 4 hour movie straght through the same people who are whining about wearing 3D glasses? They are not happy unless they are complaining. Maybe they should try watching a 1988 vintage laserdisc & player combo where you have to switch sides every half hour.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 2:04:50 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 2:12:36 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Kenneth, are you deliberately ignoring what I'm saying just so you can keep repeating your asinine points?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 5:49:36 PM PDT
Kenneth, it's a disk space and video quality trade-off. While you might be satisfied with inferior video quality and 1 disk, I'd prefer superior video quality and 2 disk, for a 4 hour long movie. A typical movie is under 2 hours long, and although my standards are high, I'm not shooting for the moon here.

The concept here is simple: DeAd MiKe, and I, have higher standards than you when it comes to video. There's no use arguing about this further, we could say Intel and AMD both makes CPU?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 5:57:03 PM PDT
tarek, so what you're saying is they should disregard all other factors (such as video quality) and encode all blu-rays to maximize for one 50GB disk? If I have a poster in Photoshop that I want saved and it will take 900MB in high quality (10 out of 12), but since that wouldn't fit onto a CD, the solution to you is obviously that I should save it in medium quality (6 out of 12) to hit 650MB, and not to use a file splitter to save the poster over 2 CD's...

You know, because if someone is charging their client 2 CD's price for a high quality poster, somebody is getting ripped off! No... They would surely rather have a low quality poster over 1 CD and get a 30% discount...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 6:18:28 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:38 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 6:31:38 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
It's really not speculation. It's common sense. 100GB worth of movie compressed to 50GB is not going to look as good as the original 100GB movie. You really can't get that?

Just like a 50GB movie compressed to 25GB won't look as good as the original 50GB. Just like a 9GB DVD compressed to 4GB won't look as good as the original 9GB DVD. Have you never backed up a 9GB DVD on to a 4.7GB DVD? Clearly, there is a difference between the two DVDs in terms of quality once you get done. Just because *you* don't notice it doesn't mean *we* don't.

(I put it in simpler terms than it actually is, but hopefully, you will be able to understand the concept now.)

Posted on Mar 29, 2011 6:35:59 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:38 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 6:36:59 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:38 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 6:42:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2011 6:43:44 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"Absolutely false. You are confusing raw data and what the eye can perceive."

- False. You are confusing what you can (and can't) perceive with what the rest of us can perceive.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 6:44:40 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:39 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 6:49:58 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
It's fact. Are you really going to take the stance that a 9GB DVD re-encoded to a 4.7GB yields no noticeable difference? Are you really going to take the stance that bitrate is completely irrelevant when it comes to video quality? You are saying that there will be no difference what so ever between a 30mbps 'Return of the King' and a 15mbps 'Return of the King.' There's absolutely ZERO basis for such a ridiculous assumption. It's just plain incorrect.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 6:58:56 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:39 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 7:01:19 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
You really don't understand an analogy, do you? And here I thought that putting it into simple terms - something that even a child can understand, like "100 is more than 50" would help the situation.

If you can understand that a 9GB DVD re-encoded into a 4.7GB DVD won't have the same quality as the original 9GB DVD, why can't you understand the topic at hand?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 7:04:48 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:39 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 7:17:35 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
LOL my dude. I'm simply making an analogy. If you can understand the difference in quality between a 9GB DVD and a 4.7GB DVD, why do you not understand the difference in quality between TWO 50GB Blu-ray discs versus ONE 50GB Blu-ray disc? It's a simple, simple analogy. Anyone but you can understand it. By refusing to understand it, you are equating the MPEG4 AVC codec to magic since you are saying that if we slash the bitrate in half for 'Return of the King (say, from 30mbps to 15mbps),' that it is going to be the *exact same quality* as the 30mbps version. Utter, utter nonsense. What if we slashed it down to 5mbps (DVD quality bitrate)? Would you see the difference then? Yeah? But not 15? Stop being crazy.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2011 7:28:55 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:40 AM PDT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  35
Total posts:  292
Initial post:  Mar 21, 2011
Latest post:  Nov 16, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions