Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 292 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 8:30:11 PM PDT
No you idiot, learn how to read.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 8:34:26 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:50 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 8:36:36 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:51 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 8:49:07 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:51 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 9:07:23 PM PDT
bfore13 says:
"The days of swapping discs to watch a movie ended with Laserdiscs."

I didn't have Laserdics but there were a number of DVDs that I had to swap. I honestly can't believe that people have spent 9 pages arguing over having to get up and change a disk after 2 hours. And if you're pissed at the studio because you already bought the DVD EEs and the BD TEs then that's your fault for not waiting. Everybody knew that the BD EEs would eventually come out. That's why I never bought the BD TEs.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 9:12:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 31, 2011 9:26:49 PM PDT
"Tell me david, just curious and to learn one or two things, you display the tiff sequences in real-time or after rendering ?"

I'm not sure what your question is about "real time"...do you mean onscreen "viewport" images? You can switch between several OpenGL standards to preview in the viewport, and you can quickly render them out via hardware to get a sense of how the animation will be timed "in real-time". You can preview in wireframe, shadded, or fully lit modes (many programs now let you preview shadows and transparency, but you can get lag time if you're trying to preview the animation). To view a sequence of TIFFs, you'd of course have to see them once all of them are done rendering (which depending on the complexity of the scene and render settings, can take a very long time). Once you have the TIFF sequence, though, they're pretty fast to load and preview (both Soft and Maya have their own image viewers that load and preview sequences pretty effeciently). One of the other, more interesting things about the file format, is that raytrace processing seems to be quicker with 32bpc TIFFs that take up quite a bit more space. Compression seems more important for consumer devices (be it optical drives, internet,tv, etc). Even though bandwidths continue to increase, they're still way more limited compared to a workstation...so it's more important to have compression for supporting the device's bus/bandwidth and that can have a capable processor to decode and then handle the uncompressed data.

"Even 3DS can be viewed by viewers like GLC_Player I think."

There are quite a few free 3D viewers: for game development, they can either be based on OpenGL standards or Direct X. 3DS isn't used much. Collada is one of the more popular current formats now. I've created anatomical models for medical simulation: for hepatic simulation, they only use OpenGL standards. I started with OBJ and OSG (and using the Open Scene Graph viewer) to export and preview models....eventually the developers I was working with got into Collada (which seemed to be better about supporting both shaders and textures...and it lets you export animation and IK skeletons).

"Exactly. I think since Adobe CS3 it is possible to import PSD directly in Flash and work with the layers."

It was when Adobe finally decided to come out with a new version of Flash, after they had acquired Macromedia;) I think I remember being able to import flat PSDs into Flash even when it was Macromedia. I was mentioning AI, since vector formats seem most appropriate for web applications.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 7:55:15 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:51 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 8:04:49 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:51 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 9:36:50 AM PDT
<<"And i think also that the Studios are not angels coming with the Truth from the Heavens. So I don't have to believe them blindly. It is not a religion, but just a business...">>

Amen, brother tarek! You are very wise not to trust the studios!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 10:56:49 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
"If someone can prove to us that it is impossible to fit the E.E in one BD, then I don't think that we will be against that."

- That's been proven. 'Dances with Wolves,' a shorter film, was put on one disc and has compression noise. 'Return of the King' is longer, more effects heavy, and has better images that require more bitrate to preserve. It's really pretty obvious that if 'Dances with Wolves' had compression noise, 'Return of the King' would, too. I'm honestly not sure why this debate has gone on so long. The only issue with this set, which I mentioned in my first post, was the laziness of keeping the extras on DVD.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 11:26:56 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:53 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 11:29:05 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
A bad transfer does not = compression noise. Other artifacts can come from a bad transfer, but compression noise comes from compression - the type of compression that happens when you put such a long move on one disc. Now, you've been wrong in every discussion we've had thus far. It's seriously time to stop.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 11:36:14 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:53 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 11:37:27 AM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
It's really as if you keep ignoring the facts just so you can make unfunny first-grader jokes.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 12:11:09 PM PDT
"Is Maya more "user friendly" than 3DS Max ? "

No, Maya can be a steep learning curve for an artist. But it's one of the most popular programs for the film industry, because it has an open architecture and is easier for developers to pick up (who know C++). If you're looking for user friendly, I'd recommend Softimage. It's more capable then Cinema 4D, and it even has a visual scripting interface (known as ICE).

"If someone can prove to us that it is impossible to fit the E.E in one BD, then I don't think that we will be against that. We all want the quality. Or why did we switch from the DVD to the BD ?"

To get HD quality of course! I think instead of believing whether a lower bitrate is adequate, we should actually look at the reviews of the theatrical LOTR BD reviews. Seems like the movie that garnered less then 4 stars was FOTR: the BD master had noticable EE and DNR, as well as being the least bitrate (19mbps average). The other two movies are 23mbps, seemed to have been edited better, and garnered 4 stars.

Ideally the studio will do a better job of not EEing or DNRing the extended editions. It's only speculation until the set actually comes out as to whether the picture is an improvement, and what the average bitrate is. Ideally, I would hope that the BD master of these editions will be edited better and will have optimal compression for an image that deserves it. All I know is that 23mbps average for 240 minutes of footage just goes over the limitations of a BD-50 disc. Only way to know is wait and see when the set comes out, and if the movies get a bump up to 5 stars for picture quality.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 1:52:30 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:53 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 1:55:17 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
tarek, holyyyyyyyy crap. You really need to stop ignoring everything I've been saying. I already explained the facts. I also explained how bitrate is not the be-all end-all determinant as to what makes a good image. Having said that, if you were to cut the bitrate of 'The Brave One' in half, it would not look as good. Same goes for 'Return of the King,' if you were to take it from two discs and put it on one disc. This is common sense. Stop being so dense.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 3:54:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 1, 2011 5:54:16 PM PDT
"Speaking about the bitrate, I can cite a case where the bitrate was only 17.03 Mb/s and nevertheless it garnered 4.5 stars in both Highdef and Blu-ray.com : "The Brave One ""

Even though it appears this title was reviewed by different people, I've noticed blu-ray.com and Highdef sometimes share the same reviews. So I read through the review for The Brave One on blu-ray.com: the reviewer said that the visuals were pretty stylized and that colors were drab. The shots I see from the screen grabs look to have a blue color balance. The darker and more desaturated a picture, the less it needs a higher bitrate. With the images I see of The Brave One, it looks like it has some nice cinematography: the overall image is soft, but mid-tones aren't as contrasted as some HD material (that's what irks me about some prime time HDTV programs: which are super saturated and obliterate mid-tones). With Avatar, usually the scenes have a higher range of colors as well as having a full frame image. These sorts of variables really go into how much compression is acceptable. One of the lowest average bitrates that I know about are some of the Super Panavision movies. 2001, for example, has an average 13mbps (even though some scenes do go up quite a bit: VC-1 seems pretty good about variable rate). It also scored 5 stars in picture quality with both your sites.

http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/bdreviews/2001.htm

One of the most visually striking movies I have is Baraka: some of the scenes have quite a high contrast range, so I can see why it's 27.53 mbps (VC-1). If you take a look at a sample of BDs, you'll see how much they go over the place when it comes to average bitrate. I think that proves that you can't make generalizations and should just go by a case by case.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-movies-north-america/3338-blu-ray-movie-bitrates-here.html

Posted on Apr 1, 2011 4:17:32 PM PDT
AaronMK says:
Here is a forum post that gives a rare inside look at what goes on during the mastering and encoding phase that seems very relevant to what is being debated in this thread:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/274676/terminator-1-2/450#post_3572264

This is for Terminator 2: Skynet Edition, a title that was criticized for DNR. In short, it seems like this particular title had great mastering (even though it used an "old" master), but suffered its DNR damage during encoding to make it fit within a low target bitrate.

I have a hard time believing that splitting the discs could result from a decision to use an old master. The old master for the Extended DVDs has been mentioned, but they would still have to encode the thing. That would bring them right back to the decision of cramming it onto one disc or splitting it. Even if that master had a "split point" in it, would having to "join" it be such a factor in that decision? I guess this would be moot if they were using a previous encode, but what encode would they have that was split and at bitrates necessitating more than one blu-ray per movie?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 5:23:10 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Good read. I expect tarek to gloss over this part of the article: "The rule of thumb for compression is pretty straightforward: the more detail you want to preserve, the higher the bitrate has to be."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2011 5:25:28 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 1, 2011 5:45:25 PM PDT
"I have a hard time believing that splitting the discs could result from a decision to use an old master. The old master for the Extended DVDs has been mentioned, but they would still have to encode the thing. That would bring them right back to the decision of cramming it onto one disc or splitting it."

I'm pretty sure the master from which the BD is coming is from a 2k DI file. By the time LOTR was made, film editing was being done digitally. As your link suggests: there are people at the studios that then hand over digital files to other mastering facilities for BD and DVD transfers. T2 is an older title, and at the time of release was archived as a film print. The post indicates that the T2 masters used were from D5 tapes: they are an uncompressed 1080i digital format....I'm sure the studio had went ahead and archived in this format for future distribution of DVDs, HDTV programming, (and invariable HD media). LOTR is the newer process they refer to, which was probably archived on HDSR. Actually, I found one link that says that FOTR was HDSR and the other two are *the newest* transfer of DPX. While the source material for T2 is different then LOTR, there are the same issues of getting optimal quality for the feature while having to do a balancing act with compression if the feature is long, there are several audio tracks, or the studio wants to cram a lot of special features on the disc. I am sure these issues were considered when making the decision about how many BDs each LOTR feature should span.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDCAM

Posted on Apr 1, 2011 5:57:17 PM PDT
Georgedc says:
So what? i'm still buying.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 4:06:49 PM PDT
Tapfret says:
I seriously doubt that would make any difference. Frame rates are frame rates, whether its a a flashy animation or a guy standing there picking his nose (like Kevin Costner's acting). The source data might require more space, but the final compressed data would be the same, minute per minute.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 6:26:55 PM PDT
".... but the final compressed data would be the same, minute per minute."

No, that's not true. Especially with MPEG-4 codecs used on blu-ray, they are variable bitrate. The bitrate changes from second to second to accommodate how many different colored pixels there are. The simplest way for compression algorithms to work is that they look at how many pixels are the same color and then encode a color key and pixel map (so that it's telling the computer to fill so many pixels on the screen with X color, instead of writing out multiple numbers of X colors for each pixel). There are other techniques as well....but the main reason why blu-ray codecs have different bitrates is that an image with a high contrast range, takes up the screen, and has many colors will not be able to have the same compression as an image that's relatively low contrast and monochromatic.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2011 4:35:17 AM PDT
P. moore says:
dvd holds 4.7 GB and blu ray 50 GB an extra 45.3 GB, im sure they would fit on one disc but i think they do it because some people think if its on 2 discs it must be better sound and picture.One day people will wake up
[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