Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 292 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:11:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:49 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:11:52 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:49 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:14:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 31, 2011 12:16:25 PM PDT
"Why am I loosing my time with you Jonathan ? ^^ "

Because you're refusing to accept the truth.

If you don't think images can be compressed and encoded like audio and video, then you've been burying yourself under a rock -- on purpose. It's the same principle. You can call it "interpolation filters" if that floats your boat.

You remind me of A/V guru when he first came in here, and EdM; red herrings is the tactic of the day. Sad thing is you've been around for a while.

You're regressing.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:16:41 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:49 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:18:28 PM PDT
Funny thing here is you like to attack people on irrelevant issues. Let me explain:

A/V guru says: "Do you seriously believe FLAC from an Ipod sounds as good as... [Cambridge CD player]"
tarek agrees: "No. Not from an iPod (very bad audio processing),. "

tarek accuses A/V guru of not knowing what FLAC is.

Jonathan A. Chang accuses tarek of purposefully using unsound logic to argue a point, sort of like a bad politician that doesn't cover his tracks.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:19:31 PM PDT
That is funny. You post 2 pics with obvious differences, then call anyone who can spot them liars. You're worse than A/V guru.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:23:57 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:50 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:40:37 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:50 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:47:38 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
I just want to chime in and say that it's hilarious that tarek has not accepted that we each saw a difference in the first set of pictures that had major size differences (due to the amount of compression), so he has now resulted in using a new set of pictures that have less of a compression difference (929 KB vs. 625 KB) in an attempt to prove that we didn't see a difference in the first set of pictures (1,14 MB vs. 0.4 MB), or that there will be no difference between 30mbps vs. 15 mbps. His lack of sound logic is astounding. And he still didn't admit that he was wrong about MPEG-2 vs. AVC, as I pointed out with the 'Memento' example. Wow.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 12:49:41 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:50 AM PDT]

Posted on Mar 31, 2011 12:51:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 31, 2011 12:54:48 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
LOL. Somebody can't handle the truth. And tarek, are you using multiple accounts on here or something? In less than a minute of most of your replies, somebody has clicked "Yes" that your posts have added to the discussion. You're either using multiple accounts or you have an anonymous fan who is extremely fast at clicking on this thread as soon as you've posted, seeing your reply, and coming to the conclusion that it adds to the discussion. Really interesting...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 1:30:55 PM PDT
A very small subjective difference that wouldn't bother me, I'd have to stare at it hard to see, unlike the first set you posted that had loss of color in the trees, mosquito noise all around the sky line. Since we're all being honest here, how about you be honest and admit that compression noise exists, instead of dodging around with non-answers and character assassinations?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 1:54:52 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:50 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 2:23:12 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 31, 2011 2:26:45 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
Why has this thread turned into a discussion about jpg compression? And who here (other than tarek) honestly believes that there will be no compression noise if 'Return of the King' (Extended Edition) were squeezed on to one disc, compared to if it were split up on to two discs?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 2:25:07 PM PDT
No, if you used a raw source, and compressed a jpeg to 43% of its size, it would be even more apparent than your highly compressed jpeg, with an even more compressed jpeg. Do the math.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 2:26:27 PM PDT
Then again, tarek can't see compression noise from a jpeg compressed 72% from another jpeg source. (0.4/1.4)

Posted on Mar 31, 2011 2:27:34 PM PDT
DeAd MiKe says:
^ True. Not sure why people keep thinking his posts "add to the discussion." He must have a lot of different accounts.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 3:11:30 PM PDT
I try not to pay attention to those -- just the anonymous peanut gallery that don't have anything to add themselves. The 2 people that thought "Move along Dead Mike. You're dead for me. ^^ " adds to the discussion must be necrophiliacs or something.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 4:50:04 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:50 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 5:48:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 31, 2011 6:13:33 PM PDT
"Codec = encoding / decoding. It is used for Audio and video .
For Graphics, we use the "Interpolation Filters" there is no decoding.

TIFF is an encapsulated format, just like PSD, and AI."

Actually, there is encoding/decoding with image formats that utilize compression (TIFF can utilize two compression schemes...in Photoshop, you can check "LZW" compression for example). Interpolation filters are used for scaling bitmaps (they try to average pixels to be able to "fill" more). While it is not as common to call single image formats such, many common image formats are codecs ("codec" is short for compressor-decompressor):

http://image-codecs.blogspot.com/

There are also "container" formats that allow for metadata.

You also seem to erroneously say TIFF is just a print format. The only format that I've used that seems to stay "print only" is EPS. TIFF is one of the most universal lossless image formats used in my field of 3D animation: EXR is starting to get more support, but TIFF has been the most universal image format (for textures, lightmaps, and rendered sequences) because it supports multiple layers (channels), metadata, as well as floating point HDR colorspaces.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 6:01:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 31, 2011 6:16:25 PM PDT
False assessment, tarek? Take 43% compression of a raw source. Versus 43% of a source that is already compressed 75% (arbitrary). Which one has a bigger difference? Anyone with a third grade understanding of math can figure this out. Why can't you?

The only thing you've proven to be able to do is make snarky personal attacks completely devoid of substance. If someone dangled a piece of paper in front of your nose with the word "FACT" written all over it, all you'd see is the blanks. I'd give you too much credit if I said you were trolling.

You're a graphic design artist by trade that doesn't know what encoding or compression is, don't know how to spot them, don't know why each file format are used the way they are, can't do simple 3rd grade math, and calls everybody who can do some of these things liars. I think that says more about you than any snarky, sarcastic, comment you can think of.

Posted on Mar 31, 2011 6:14:42 PM PDT
I use .tiff files to scan CD covers, so I could descreen, clean up some dust, and resize in Photoshop, and *encode* them into .jpg. Saying .tiff is only for print is like saying .wav is only useful for playback on a high-end system, nevermind recording or mastering.

If you were in charge of creating a component of a project, a poster or special effects, you would save the result in .tiff, not .jpg. Why? Because it's lossless and preserves layers.

If you were in charge is recording samples for a pop beat, you would do them in .wav, because it's lossless, and you need all the quality you can get to mess around with the waveform and dynamics. Only when everything is done do you compress it to .mp3 for distribution.

If you don't understand that as a "graphic design artist", then you need to get a new job.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 7:38:19 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:50 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 7:48:13 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on May 19, 2011 10:50:50 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 8:11:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 31, 2011 8:24:18 PM PDT
"When I said Tiff is a print format, it was just to point that it is a source file, just like PSD, AI or 3DS for your case is you work with 3DMax. You will never use it as a final format for "display". The only use of TIFF "as is", and not as a source file is for print works."

Eh no, I've never worked in 3DMax...my main platforms are Maya and Softimage (3DS is a very old format that Softimage has never supported, and Maya quit quite awhile ago). I also use several compositing programs...so I still render out TIFF sequences "for display" for my clients as it is one of the more universal formats (Most PCs have some editor that can read TIFF, as well as Final Cut workstations). I even have a few Windows Bitmaps that I sometimes draw up on my screen ^^ With earlier versions of Mental Ray (and Photoshop) I found that TIFF seemed to be the most compatible for 16bpc and 32bpc colorspaces. OpenEXR is starting to appear in more programs, but TIFF is one of the more prevalent formats for video/3D work. BTW, PSD has gotten some more support with programs: many 3D programs now can read PSD layers. Vector formats seemed to have almost fallen by the wayside (for web), but Flash vector conventions are very similar to AI's file format.
[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
 


Recent discussions in the Blu-ray forum

 

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