Blu Bits [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Blu Bits



pixelthis
10-05-2008, 11:50 PM
Have had a "Blu" player awhile now, heres a few observations
for your edification, information ridicule, etc.

BIT RATE, S**T RATE

More marketing BS, in order to save cash older titles arent using the full rate , and the rate of some is surprizing.
speed for instance is a pretty constant 25mbs.
Mosy surprizing is the highest bit rate I have seen yet, Cris Boti
live in concert.
Heres a guy blowing a horn, and teh bit rate is teh highest I have seen yet, 48MBS!!!
The LPCM is amazing, btw, best sound ever and that covers a lot of territory.
I HAVE BEEN A BIG sacd booster, but its almost dead, don't see how it
(or anything else) can compete with this.

RECYCLING CORPORATE STYLE.
I had one of those HD discs that play on the computer with a net connection, etc, TERMINATOR II.
The Blu VERSION is basically this disc. Like several older titles I have seen this is a current HD version recycled for the Blu format.
For instance, the same menu with the buttons "greyed" out, and the popup standard blu menu inserted over it. KINDA CHEEZY.
Total recall, same way.
Total recall is a total waste, BTW, they shouldn't have bothered, the bit rate is barely above that of DVD.
NExt up is the shining, even tho one of my favs I never bought it, the DVD sux big time, figure the Blu version cant be any worse.
Basically what I expected, slightly remastered (if at all) older versions
of older movies, however newer movies are simply amazing

DVD? FORGETTTABOUTIT
I was one of the ones posting on this board that purchase of something like an Oppo upconverter was an option to a new BLU
player, others have mentioned this option.
WELL, sorry, I was wrong, as was anyone offering this as an option.
Blu is evolution, not revolution, however the sound alone is worth the price of admission, the pic is a bonus. I AM SERIOUS.
Couldn't get my 5.1 channel to work properly, made the same
mistake on two installs, but once I got it going, well...


good god

I mean it, MR P and others weren't exagerating, this is good!!!
I love watching music vids and concerts, and this is the medium
for it, the sound is perfect.
And 1080p does make a difference.
And your regular DVDs upconvert nicely, better than a "regular" DVD
player, the wide bandwidth stuff is already in place, a plain jane
upconverter just cant compete.
And with the price as low as 249$ , nothing beats Blu for value, for that you get lossless audio, and 1080p at 24fps with no 3:2 pulldown.
Paying 300 bucks for a plain jane DVD player is quite silly, really.
And if you have 5.1 in on your receiver you're good to go, really,
all you need.

SIZE DOES MATTER
Resolution size anyway, as far as 1080p goes.
ESPECIALLY with 24fps.
Comparing my 1080p to my older 720p there is no contest.
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
If you are in the market for a new set, don't settle for 720p.
A really nice older set is probably worth keeping, but if you are in the
market, go ahead and pull the trigger for a 1080p.
Especially if you want the best there is.
My set is a bargain model, but peeps still give me a jaw drop
when they check it out.
And there are side benefits, like watching a 40yr OLD Cameron
Diaz date a much younger ASHTON in "Vegas".
SHE REALLY LOOKS FOURTY!
and the chintzy sets on some shows are fascinating also.

SO ON BALANCE
Blu looks like a good progression up from DVD, and a bargain to boot,
makes your old discs look great too.
AND UNLESS they promise a "remastering" dont bother replacing current DVD's WITH bLU VERSIONS, most likely after upconversion
you wont be able to tell the diff very much.
A PROGRAM NEEDS TO BE RE-AUTHORED in order to justify buying the "new" Blu version.

AND IN CONCLUSION
With Blu discs selling for 17 bucks or so (on sale at Circuit and target)
this is a good time to get a Blu player.
You will get the higher q usually built into early players of a format at a good price.
Don't pay over a 100 bucks for a "regular" DVDplayer, not worth the money, really.
Just my two cents...:1:

L.J.
10-06-2008, 06:22 AM
Huh? OK, Pix, time to lay off the coffee bro :1:

captjamo
10-06-2008, 02:17 PM
Good post, Pix, Enjoyed it, and agree.

kexodusc
10-06-2008, 02:54 PM
Yeah, people who argue against the merits of BluRay need to have their heads examined. When it's done even half-assed, there's no comparison to DVD. When you have over 50" of screen, you really appreciate the added resolution. I'm sure it's noticeable on screens much smaller too.

One thing I've been very surprised with - even the standard 640 kb/sec bitrate Dolby Digital is a big upgrade over the 448 kb/sec standard on DVD. I'm quite familiar with the impact of higher bitrates in other audio codecs: mp3, wma, aac, ogg, etc...This represents a 40+% boost in bitrate, and the sound quality is considerably better than I'd expect for that. More than you'd think. I wonder if the newest algorithms encode it better or something. I don't have any BluRays in duplicate of DTS DVD's but I'd love to do some a/b testing - I don't think it's far off.
Dolby always claimed their codec did more with less compared to DTS's 1.5 ...too bad they didn't insist on 640 kb/sec on DVD...given all the useless extras and sometimes DTS track, there's no excuse.
Anyway, anyone with a Dolby Digital receiver will notice improved audio quality with BluRay too...

pixelthis
10-06-2008, 09:27 PM
And 1080p is 360 better than 720p.
Standard def used to be about 380i!
This is a larger gap than has been previously put foward:1:

pixelthis
10-06-2008, 09:28 PM
Huh? OK, Pix, time to lay off the coffee bro :1:

coffee?
Just a few sips here and there...:1:

pixelthis
10-06-2008, 09:35 PM
Yeah, people who argue against the merits of BluRay need to have their heads examined. When it's done even half-assed, there's no comparison to DVD. When you have over 50" of screen, you really appreciate the added resolution. I'm sure it's noticeable on screens much smaller too.

One thing I've been very surprised with - even the standard 640 kb/sec bitrate Dolby Digital is a big upgrade over the 448 kb/sec standard on DVD. I'm quite familiar with the impact of higher bitrates in other audio codecs: mp3, wma, aac, ogg, etc...This represents a 40+% boost in bitrate, and the sound quality is considerably better than I'd expect for that. More than you'd think. I wonder if the newest algorithms encode it better or something. I don't have any BluRays in duplicate of DTS DVD's but I'd love to do some a/b testing - I don't think it's far off.
Dolby always claimed their codec did more with less compared to DTS's 1.5 ...too bad they didn't insist on 640 kb/sec on DVD...given all the useless extras and sometimes DTS track, there's no excuse.
Anyway, anyone with a Dolby Digital receiver will notice improved audio quality with BluRay too...

I GOT LAMBASTED by sir talky for proposing that regular DVD'S
sounded better on a Blu player, maybe its the "placebo" effect but it seems that way.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Maybe its a new way of decoding or something, but regular DD sounds pretty fantastic :1:

RoadRunner6
10-06-2008, 10:52 PM
And 1080p is 360 better than 720p.

Sorry, but this is not true in a comparative sense in that it is not a linear relationship. You might understand this (or maybe you don't) but it probably gives newbies here the impression that 1080p is a 50% improvement over 720p. That of course is not even close to being accurate. The perceived visual resolution difference is a somewhat slight improvement and at some distances not even detectable by normal human vision.

Comparing the raw numbers as you imply above is like saying an amp with 150 watts will sound 50% louder than an amp with 100 watts, instead of only about 1.5 dB's (barely audible) as is the actual case. For a reverse analogy, it is like saying that a 6.0 earthquake is 50% stronger than a 4.0 earthquake.

Many who get involved in the specs races don't always understand the true relationships. Those that compare 720p/768p to 1080p sets even with Blu-Ray from the same brand/series models are frequently surprised at the small observable difference at short to normal viewing distances.

RR6

kexodusc
10-07-2008, 03:45 AM
I GOT LAMBASTED by sir talky for proposing that regular DVD'S
sounded better on a Blu player, maybe its the "placebo" effect but it seems that way.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
Maybe its a new way of decoding or something, but regular DD sounds pretty fantastic :1:

Haven't noticed a big improvement on DVD's in the BluRay player, but then again, I haven't really checked for one either - but when I compared the Harry Potter, Cloverfield, and Spiderman Movies BluRay Dolby tracks to my DVD's the extra bitrate really shined through.

I know subsequent versions of the mp3 codec have constantly improved the mp3's sound quality, maybe Dolby Digital algorithms are a bit better now too. The added bitrate is allows for a lot more sonic information for sure. Maybe 640 kb/s is closer to the "sweet spot" that maximizes the effeciency of the codec - highest quality per bitrate? Whatever it is, I'm liking it.

Anyway, I'm hoping to find a new processor or receiver in the next few months, can't wait to try out Dolby TrueHD and all the new audio goodies.

GMichael
10-07-2008, 05:36 AM
Sorry, but this is not true in a comparative sense in that it is not a linear relationship. You might understand this (or maybe you don't) but it probably gives newbies here the impression that 1080p is a 50% improvement over 720p. That of course is not even close to being accurate. The perceived visual resolution difference is a somewhat slight improvement and at some distances not even detectable by normal human vision.

Comparing the raw numbers as you imply above is like saying an amp with 150 watts will sound 50% louder than an amp with 100 watts, instead of only about 1.5 dB's (barely audible) as is the actual case. For a reverse analogy, it is like saying that a 6.0 earthquake is 50% stronger than a 4.0 earthquake.

Many who get involved in the specs races don't always understand the true relationships. Those that compare 720p/768p to 1080p sets even with Blu-Ray from the same brand/series models are frequently surprised at the small observable difference at short to normal viewing distances.

RR6

A 1080p display is usually 1920x1080= 2,073,600 pixels.
A 720p display is usually 1280x720= 921,600 pixels.
That's more than twice as many. But it doesn't mean twice as good. That depends on how far away you are sitting and the size of your screen. If you are watching a 42" screen from 15 feet away, most people would not see much difference. If you are watching a 103" screen from 10 feet away, then it makes a huge difference.
It all depends on what you are doing with those pixels. Numbers alone don't tell the story.

Rich-n-Texas
10-07-2008, 06:50 AM
Well, you guys can argue the merits of 1080p vs. 720p all you want, but I'll tell ya what, I played my newly purchased copy of "Iron Man" last night... :yikes: , and I'm floored that my sub made it all the way through the movie. The opening scene scared the sh!t outta me (dropped some of my dinner on the carpet), PQ was...obviously... like nothing I've seen before, and I was even able to crawl out from behind the couch frequently enough to get a grip on the movie's content. I thought the world was coming to an end!

kexodusc
10-07-2008, 06:58 AM
A 1080p display is usually 1920x1080= 2,073,600 pixels.
A 720p display is usually 1280x720= 921,600 pixels.
That's more than twice as many. But it doesn't mean twice as good. That depends on how far away you are sitting and the size of your screen. If you are watching a 42" screen from 15 feet away, most people would not see much difference. If you are watching a 103" screen from 10 feet away, then it makes a huge difference.

I have a 102" screen, 10 feet away...and yes, 1080p does make a huge, huge difference in resolution and detail.
Just for giggles though, I have tried 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i as well. 720p is still pretty good looking, and far better than 480p. The jump to 1080p is at least that much improvement again.

480i can be painful now...especially if it's a compressed signal or bad recording to begin with...

L.J.
10-07-2008, 07:01 AM
Well, you guys can argue the merits of 1080p vs. 720p all you want, but I'll tell ya what, I played my newly purchased copy of "Iron Man" last night... :yikes: , and I'm floored that my sub made it all the way through the movie. The opening scene scared the sh!t outta me (dropped some of my dinner on the carpet), PQ was...obviously... like nothing I've seen before, and I was even able to crawl out from behind the couch frequently enough to get a grip on the movie's content. I thought the world was coming to an end!

It's OK, you can come out now!

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/scared/scared0016.gif

L.J.
10-07-2008, 07:02 AM
I have a 102" screen, 10 feet away...and yes, 1080p does make a huge, huge difference in resolution and detail.
Just for giggles though, I have tried 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i as well. 720p is still pretty good looking, and far better than 480p. The jump to 1080p is at least that much improvement again.

480i can be painful now...especially if it's a compressed signal or bad recording to begin with...

Is it just me or do most of your posts start with those words now :D

GMichael
10-07-2008, 07:03 AM
I have a 102" screen, 10 feet away...and yes, 1080p does make a huge, huge difference in resolution and detail.
Just for giggles though, I have tried 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i as well. 720p is still pretty good looking, and far better than 480p. The jump to 1080p is at least that much improvement again.

480i can be painful now...especially if it's a compressed signal or bad recording to begin with...

Std definition sports is the worst (not counting old movies or TV).

Feanor
10-07-2008, 07:16 AM
I have a 102" screen, 10 feet away...and yes, 1080p does make a huge, huge difference in resolution and detail.
Just for giggles though, I have tried 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i as well. 720p is still pretty good looking, and far better than 480p. The jump to 1080p is at least that much improvement again.

480i can be painful now...especially if it's a compressed signal or bad recording to begin with...

Well I guess you'd notice the difference between 720o and 1080p.

References I've seen suggest that, at my 9' distance, 46-47" is sufficient to exploit HD. For a poor guy like me the 35% price increase from 42" and 46" is significant, as is the difference between 720p and 1080p for either size. Any suggestions?

kexodusc
10-07-2008, 08:45 AM
Well I guess you'd notice the difference between 720o and 1080p.

References I've seen suggest that, at my 9' distance, 46-47" is sufficient to exploit HD. For a poor guy like me the 35% price increase from 42" and 46" is significant, as is the difference between 720p and 1080p for either size. Any suggestions?

Yeah...you can get yourself a 720p projector for around $1000 now, and build your own screen for under $200 easy (that's what I did). Beats paying $1500 for a 46" screen IMO.

Or who knows, maybe in a year or two 1080p projectors will hit the $1500 price point? I got mine for a bit under $2K.

kexodusc
10-07-2008, 08:46 AM
Is it just me or do most of your posts start with those words now :D
I don't have a 102" clue what you're talking about...:confused5:

kexodusc
10-07-2008, 08:53 AM
Std definition sports is the worst (not counting old movies or TV).
On my 51" tv I used to stretch the picture of most SD signals, found it far more enjoyable than the black bars, and the infinitesimal bit of distortion was offset by the larger pic.

Can't do that on the new jobber though. Still, it's not unwatchable in a 70" or whatever 4:3 square. But do you ever get spoiled with 1080i and 1080p...

captjamo
10-07-2008, 10:54 AM
Well, you guys can argue the merits of 1080p vs. 720p all you want, but I'll tell ya what, I played my newly purchased copy of "Iron Man" last night... :yikes: , and I'm floored that my sub made it all the way through the movie. The opening scene scared the sh!t outta me (dropped some of my dinner on the carpet), PQ was...obviously... like nothing I've seen before, and I was even able to crawl out from behind the couch frequently enough to get a grip on the movie's content. I thought the world was coming to an end!

You got BD-BW'd dude. Just remember you asked for it. Thanks for the excellent prelude. Now if I can just get home to view my copy. I'm more than ready now to do backflips from the sitting position. he he he!:lol:

GMichael
10-07-2008, 11:06 AM
On my 51" tv I used to stretch the picture of most SD signals, found it far more enjoyable than the black bars, and the infinitesimal bit of distortion was offset by the larger pic.

Can't do that on the new jobber though. Still, it's not unwatchable in a 70" or whatever 4:3 square. But do you ever get spoiled with 1080i and 1080p...

It's a good thing that even my crappy cable company has 50 channels of HD. I don't even bother surfing the std channels anymore.

Rich-n-Texas
10-07-2008, 11:22 AM
You got BD-BW'd dude. Just remember you asked for it. Thanks for the excellent prelude. Now if I can just get home to view my copy. I'm more than ready now to do backflips from the sitting position. he he he!:lol:
Adjust your sub when you get home cap'n. Trust me on this. :yesnod:

Mr Peabody
10-07-2008, 07:30 PM
I can't remember if I was using analog yet but I rented Pearl Harbor on BR and was disappointed it only had a Dolby track where the DVD was DTS. The BR did not sound as good as the DTS on SD.

I bought Wyatt Earp on BR for $13.95. I've never seen the DVD but the BR had excellent PQ. Newer movie than Total Recall though.

I don't know if they still have any but Circuit City was blowing out the Sony s300 for $199.00.

pixelthis
10-07-2008, 10:56 PM
A 1080p display is usually 1920x1080= 2,073,600 pixels.
A 720p display is usually 1280x720= 921,600 pixels.
That's more than twice as many. But it doesn't mean twice as good. That depends on how far away you are sitting and the size of your screen. If you are watching a 42" screen from 15 feet away, most people would not see much difference. If you are watching a 103" screen from 10 feet away, then it makes a huge difference.
It all depends on what you are doing with those pixels. Numbers alone don't tell the story.

Its the law of diminishing returns.
Of course 1080p isnt a 100% improvement in PQ, but there is a more
pronounced effect than most would tell you.
ITS JUST an overall pleasing picture, more "solid" and realistic.
Sanyo has cheaper 1080p sets because instead of 1920x1080
its 13 sumptin by 1080, only one I have seen like that:1:

pixelthis
10-07-2008, 10:58 PM
On my 51" tv I used to stretch the picture of most SD signals, found it far more enjoyable than the black bars, and the infinitesimal bit of distortion was offset by the larger pic.

Can't do that on the new jobber though. Still, it's not unwatchable in a 70" or whatever 4:3 square. But do you ever get spoiled with 1080i and 1080p...

Is your source upconverting to 480p?
If you change it to 480i you will have more options.:1:

pixelthis
10-07-2008, 11:01 PM
[QUOTE=Rich-n-Texas]Well, you guys can argue the merits of 1080p vs. 720p all you want, but I'll tell ya what, I played my newly purchased copy of "Iron Man" last night... :yikes: , and I'm floored that my sub made it all the way through the movie. The opening scene scared the sh!t outta me (dropped some of my dinner on the carpet), PQ was...obviously... like nothing I've seen before, and I was even able to crawl out from behind the couch frequently enough to get a grip on the movie's content. I thought the world was coming to an end!

pixelthis
10-07-2008, 11:02 PM
I AM IRONNNN MAN!!!

GMichael
10-08-2008, 05:18 AM
Is your source upconverting to 480p?
If you change it to 480i you will have more options.:1:
You should play around with it. Try letting your source do the upscalling, and then try letting your display have a crack at it. It's the only way to be sure of which one does a better job for your eyes. I've found that my projector does a better job of it than my DVR. But the PS3 does a better job of it than the projector. Time for some experimenting me thinks.

Rich-n-Texas
10-08-2008, 06:12 AM
Can someone tell me what pix is trying to say with that butt smiley? :confused:

Rich-n-Texas
10-08-2008, 06:16 AM
By the way, somewhere in a thread I stated that BD Live was a Disney thing. It's not. It's a Blue-ray Disk Association thing. I saw a TV commercial about Snow White on BD which included mention of BD Live and some of it's features, so I mistakenly assiociated it with Disney.

That is all.

GMichael
10-08-2008, 10:14 AM
Can someone tell me what pix is trying to say with that butt smiley? :confused:

My guess? That he's ready for you.

Rich-n-Texas
10-08-2008, 10:22 AM
I'm sure there's a long line ahead of me. Besides GM, you know how much I hate sloppy seconds. :nonod:

GMichael
10-08-2008, 10:37 AM
Second? I'm thinking triple digits by now. He's what, 105?

Rich-n-Texas
10-08-2008, 11:02 AM
I AM IRONNNN MAN!!!
Uhhh... How 'bout IRONNNN HEAD? :rolleyes:

GMichael
10-08-2008, 11:08 AM
Uhhh... How 'bout IRONNNN HEAD? :rolleyes:

Maybe that's why he bent over.

Rich-n-Texas
10-08-2008, 11:16 AM
Truthfully GM, I'm not sure if that's a male or a female butt, so we probably shouldn't jump to conclusions.

Your thoughts?

GMichael
10-08-2008, 11:26 AM
Are you thinking that he's a gal?

kexodusc
10-08-2008, 11:27 AM
Is your source upconverting to 480p?
If you change it to 480i you will have more options.:1:
It's not that, I have the options to stretch, but visually it just ain't pleasing to the eye. You blow up a poor signal too big and it just becomes unwatchable. We're only talking PBS and some bad local stations though, most are fine.

kexodusc
10-08-2008, 11:34 AM
You should play around with it. Try letting your source do the upscalling, and then try letting your display have a crack at it. It's the only way to be sure of which one does a better job for your eyes. I've found that my projector does a better job of it than my DVR. But the PS3 does a better job of it than the projector. Time for some experimenting me thinks.
MY STB is a terrible upscaler, I let the projector do that. Waaaay better. Same with my TV.

GMichael
10-08-2008, 11:39 AM
It's not that, I have the options to stretch, but visually it just ain't pleasing to the eye. You blow up a poor signal too big and it just becomes unwatchable. We're only talking PBS and some bad local stations though, most are fine.

And the picture is already big enough. When we first went to wide screen (on a 32" TV) the bars on the sides used to bother me. I paid for a bigger picture and they were not using it all. Pissed me off to no end. Now at 100+", it's big enough. Why stretch an already sub-par picture and make it worse? In fact, I wouldn't mind if those were coming in around 80" instead. I've seen that some HD channels already do this when the original was in std def. Bars on both sides, plus top & bottom. Makes the picture a little more watch-able.

pixelthis
10-10-2008, 01:29 PM
You should play around with it. Try letting your source do the upscalling, and then try letting your display have a crack at it. It's the only way to be sure of which one does a better job for your eyes. I've found that my projector does a better job of it than my DVR. But the PS3 does a better job of it than the projector. Time for some experimenting me thinks.

It also has to do with options.
My Vizio for instance wont do panoramic for progressive sources.
If you wanna do this option you need a 480i input.:1:

pixelthis
10-10-2008, 01:33 PM
Can someone tell me what pix is trying to say with that butt smiley? :confused:


You said you thought that "it was the end" so I showed you the end.
Dont get your hopes up chum, pixie dont roll like that.:1:

pixelthis
10-10-2008, 01:36 PM
By the way, somewhere in a thread I stated that BD Live was a Disney thing. It's not. It's a Blue-ray Disk Association thing. I saw a TV commercial about Snow White on BD which included mention of BD Live and some of it's features, so I mistakenly assiociated it with Disney.

That is all.

HEY, I just assume everything you say is wrong so dont worry about it.:1:

pixelthis
10-10-2008, 01:40 PM
MY STB is a terrible upscaler, I let the projector do that. Waaaay better. Same with my TV.

Would that be the one that puts out the 102' PICTURE?
(No need to thank me):1:

pixelthis
10-10-2008, 01:41 PM
[QUOTE=GMichael]Are you thinking that he's a gal?

pixelthis
10-10-2008, 01:51 PM
Are you thinking that he's a gal?


REDICULOUS.
As you can see by my pic its easy to tell what "sex" I am.
very miffed at you GM( does that stand for "girly man"?):1:

Rich-n-Texas
10-10-2008, 02:12 PM
Feel better now pix?

pixelthis
10-12-2008, 09:16 PM
[QUOTE=Rich-n-Texas]Feel better now pix?


YES!

pixelthis
10-12-2008, 09:21 PM
Actually I need to apologise for my lashing out at those who abuse me,
my little triade was completely unwarrented and uncalled for even tho those I was lashing out at were totaally OUT of LINE and somwhat
mean and awful and hurt my feelings and ...
Buying any of this?:1:

Rich-n-Texas
10-13-2008, 04:37 AM
8 consecutive posts with only one interruption. That's impressive.

GMichael
10-13-2008, 05:34 AM
REDICULOUS.
As you can see by my pic its easy to tell what "sex" I am.
very miffed at you GM( does that stand for "girly man"?):1:

Pat?:yikes:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-13-2008, 10:41 AM
More marketing BS, in order to save cash older titles arent using the full rate , and the rate of some is surprizing.
speed for instance is a pretty constant 25mbs.
Mosy surprizing is the highest bit rate I have seen yet, Cris Boti
live in concert.
Heres a guy blowing a horn, and teh bit rate is teh highest I have seen yet, 48MBS!!!
The LPCM is amazing, btw, best sound ever and that covers a lot of territory.
I HAVE BEEN A BIG sacd booster, but its almost dead, don't see how it
(or anything else) can compete with this.

Pixel, you really need a lesson in video compression. First, you do not need to use the entire bit budget to encode an image. Speed should show you this. 25mbps is quite high a bit rate to encode an image in MPEG-2. 22mbps is the sweet spot for MPEG-2 encoders, so 25mbps puts Speed in great territory.

Chris Botti is a 1080i sourced video which would require a lot higher bit rate to get the picture right. Speed is sourced from a 1080p master, so encoding a progressive image takes fewer bits than a interlaced image. Then there is the encoder sweet spot. Chris Botti uses AVC-MPEG-4, and with a interlaced image, its sweet spot is about 25-30mbps. Considering that the audio only takes up about 14mbps in the pipeline, and there are few extra's running up the bit rate, it looks like they opened up the bit bucket for the video without bothering to tweak the encoder for maximum efficiency. That is why you are getting 48mbps which is the peak bit rate for bluray video. It does not require 48mbps to encode a image using AVC. However the studio can open up the bit budget to get a max peak of 48mbps, as long as there is not too many audio tracks running, and no commentary running at the same time.

pixelthis
10-13-2008, 09:38 PM
Pixel, you really need a lesson in video compression. First, you do not need to use the entire bit budget to encode an image. Speed should show you this. 25mbps is quite high a bit rate to encode an image in MPEG-2. 22mbps is the sweet spot for MPEG-2 encoders, so 25mbps puts Speed in great territory.

Chris Botti is a 1080i sourced video which would require a lot higher bit rate to get the picture right. Speed is sourced from a 1080p master, so encoding a progressive image takes fewer bits than a interlaced image. Then there is the encoder sweet spot. Chris Botti uses AVC-MPEG-4, and with a interlaced image, its sweet spot is about 25-30mbps. Considering that the audio only takes up about 14mbps in the pipeline, and there are few extra's running up the bit rate, it looks like they opened up the bit bucket for the video without bothering to tweak the encoder for maximum efficiency. That is why you are getting 48mbps which is the peak bit rate for bluray video. It does not require 48mbps to encode a image using AVC. However the studio can open up the bit budget to get a max peak of 48mbps, as long as there is not too many audio tracks running, and no commentary running at the same time.


Thanks for the info, I do know a "bit" about encoding, but am not too familar with blu as of yet.
AND YES 25mbs is rather wide for video, true, but Speed is an action movie.
And while the pic is great its not that far off from a DVD.
All I am saying is that with such a high bandwidth would it hurt to use
some of it? Couldn't hurt.
ALSO the industry is underestimating the love some have for older movies. In other words a little remastering wouldnt hurt , especially for older flicks.
I(and others) have noticed that the newer the film the better looking it is on Blu, probably because the new ones are made with HD in mind.
To use a master authored for DVD just wont cut it, expecially since some of these masters are ten years old or older.
Truth is the upscaling my player does is so good that the difference
between my "regular" version of total recall isn't much different
than my BLU VERSION.
True the Blu version was only 13 bucks, but even that small cost
wasnt justified for the small difference in Q(although I admittedly only
watched it in 720p, haven't tried the 1080p yet)
Sadly a lot of "blu" discs just give a full res version of a DVD master,
which, while good, isnt fantastic.
And is this gonna continue?
Will I get a Blu copy of Cinema Paradisio or CHINATOWN and
not be able to tell much difference between them and a DVD?
On some they havent even changed the menu, just greyed out the buttons and "layered" a popup in front to meet the standard.
I KNOW THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE to get product out there,
and appreciate the selection, which is quite good for such a young format.
Just tell your cronies at the BDA that when it comes to the classics,
to stop and smell the roses and put out more effort.
Goonies and crap like that you can churn out, but I am about to buy
my first copy of the Shining, and would hate to think that it is jus a rehash of the botched DVD:1:

pixelthis
10-13-2008, 09:43 PM
And another thing you can tell your cronies at the BDA,
they have a geniune AUDIO format ready to go right in their greedy little hands.
LPCM is FRIGGIN AMAZING, I thought SACD was good.
IT WOULD cost next to nothing to put out a few 2 channel audio
BLU discs in lossless lpcm.
COULDN'T HURT.:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-14-2008, 09:08 AM
Thanks for the info, I do know a "bit" about encoding, but am not too familar with blu as of yet.
AND YES 25mbs is rather wide for video, true, but Speed is an action movie.

You have to consider this. The DVD of speed has been filtered before encoding which robs the DVD of all of the high frequency information which is where the resolution is. Not to mention it has an average bit rate of 6mbps compared to the bluray's 25mbps, unfiltered images.


And while the pic is great its not that far off from a DVD.
All I am saying is that with such a high bandwidth would it hurt to use
some of it? Couldn't hurt.

Actually the PQ of the bluray is far better than the DVD, even when it is upscaled. An upscaled image does not have any more information than a non upscaled video. The DVD just does not have the spatial information the bluray encoding has. It does not have the color information either. When you make these kinds of comparisons, you need to look not just in the foreground, but look in the backgrounds. The edges of images are much more defined on the bluray than the DVD.


ALSO the industry is underestimating the love some have for older movies. In other words a little remastering wouldnt hurt , especially for older flicks.
I(and others) have noticed that the newer the film the better looking it is on Blu, probably because the new ones are made with HD in mind.

You need to take a look at Blade Runner, or 2001. Also look a Passage to India, or How the west was won. These are older titles that have been remastered and look fantastic.


To use a master authored for DVD just wont cut it, expecially since some of these masters are ten years old or older.

You don't master for any format. You either use a DI(digital intermediary) that has been scanned at 2k(or in some cases 4k), or you go the film source itself. It is then scaled down(down rez'd) to fit the source. So quite a few high definition masters can be used on both DVD and Bluray.


Truth is the upscaling my player does is so good that the difference
between my "regular" version of total recall isn't much different
than my BLU VERSION.
True the Blu version was only 13 bucks, but even that small cost
wasnt justified for the small difference in Q(although I admittedly only
watched it in 720p, haven't tried the 1080p yet)

I would urge you to watch in 1080p. Down rezzing from 1080p to 720p is problematic for most all bluray players. And considering you are throwing almost half the information of a 1080p image away, I do not think this is a good way of judging image quality on bluray. Its best to go 1080p to 1080p, pixel for pixel


Sadly a lot of "blu" discs just give a full res version of a DVD master,
which, while good, isnt fantastic.
And is this gonna continue?

You cannot quantify this statement until you have seen ALOT of bluray disc. I have close to 450 of them, and 96% of them look much better than their DVD cousins. I have personally reviewed over 50 disc, and I could not find a single instance where the picture quality of DVD was equal to bluray.


Will I get a Blu copy of Cinema Paradisio or CHINATOWN and
not be able to tell much difference between them and a DVD?
On some they havent even changed the menu, just greyed out the buttons and "layered" a popup in front to meet the standard.
I KNOW THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE to get product out there,
and appreciate the selection, which is quite good for such a young format.
Just tell your cronies at the BDA that when it comes to the classics,
to stop and smell the roses and put out more effort.
Goonies and crap like that you can churn out, but I am about to buy
my first copy of the Shining, and would hate to think that it is jus a rehash of the botched DVD:1:

I would say to you is get your television calibrated. I think you are seeing more of a botched image by your television, than what is coming from the disc themselves. With the exception of MGM, most all studios are putting great care into their releases.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
10-14-2008, 09:14 AM
And another thing you can tell your cronies at the BDA,
they have a geniune AUDIO format ready to go right in their greedy little hands.
LPCM is FRIGGIN AMAZING, I thought SACD was good.
IT WOULD cost next to nothing to put out a few 2 channel audio
BLU discs in lossless lpcm.
COULDN'T HURT.:1:

Buy more disc Pixel. 5.1 16/48khz and 24/48khz PCM has been on most all Sony and all Disney discs from day one. Why put two channel PCM when you have 6 channel PCM? 2 channel PCM is for DVD, not bluray.

pixelthis
10-15-2008, 12:20 AM
You have to consider this. The DVD of speed has been filtered before encoding which robs the DVD of all of the high frequency information which is where the resolution is. Not to mention it has an average bit rate of 6mbps compared to the bluray's 25mbps, unfiltered images.



Actually the PQ of the bluray is far better than the DVD, even when it is upscaled. An upscaled image does not have any more information than a non upscaled video. The DVD just does not have the spatial information the bluray encoding has. It does not have the color information either. When you make these kinds of comparisons, you need to look not just in the foreground, but look in the backgrounds. The edges of images are much more defined on the bluray than the DVD.



You need to take a look at Blade Runner, or 2001. Also look a Passage to India, or How the west was won. These are older titles that have been remastered and look fantastic.



You don't master for any format. You either use a DI(digital intermediary) that has been scanned at 2k(or in some cases 4k), or you go the film source itself. It is then scaled down(down rez'd) to fit the source. So quite a few high definition masters can be used on both DVD and Bluray.



[QUOTE]I would urge you to watch in 1080p. Down rezzing from 1080p to 720p is problematic for most all bluray players. And considering you are throwing almost half the information of a 1080p image away, I do not think this is a good way of judging image quality on bluray. Its best to go 1080p to 1080p, pixel for pixel

WOULD BE INTERESTING TO TRY now that I HAVE A 1080P set.
I have been trying to say the same thing to buyers of 720p plasma
sets, who could have had an LCD for the same price in 1080p


You cannot quantify this statement until you have seen ALOT of bluray disc. I have close to 450 of them, and 96% of them look much better than their DVD cousins. I have personally reviewed over 50 disc, and I could not find a single instance where the picture quality of DVD was equal to bluray.

Keep looking, and quit preaching to the choir.
Let me expand, even on Blu discs that seemed the equal in res the total lack of artifacts has alone been worth the price in some cases.
Artifacts like rainbow edges, moire patterns, etc.
Even on "upscaled" dvds' there is a noticable lack of artifacts.
However they still dont measure up to newer releases.
DONT WORRY, I know that a Blu disc of anything IS BETTER THAN A dvd.
But in some cases they could be better.
Mainly, what I am saying (and I think we could agree) is that in a highq format like Blu as much care as possible needs to be taken


I would say to you is get your television calibrated. I think you are seeing more of a botched image by your television, than what is coming from the disc themselves. With the exception of MGM, most all studios are putting great care into their releases.

I dont have a problem with my sets picture, and wont pay 200 to 400 to calibrate a 900$ set, AND DONT NEED TO.
What you still dont get(and probably never will) is that a display
made up of TFT transistors is a lot more stable and needs less "tweaking" than most other, more fragil displays.
On CRTs you have to allow for the earths magnetic field , for gods sake.
On my set I adjusted the green color temp down a bit, cut the color a bit, turned down the backlight to 32 to improve blacks, and tne result ,
while not as "perfect" as a full calibration still looks amazing, whether
watching deinterlaced 1080i cable or Bluray or upconverted DVD:1:

Mr Peabody
10-15-2008, 05:37 AM
I thought resolution existed throughout the frequency response.

pixelthis
10-15-2008, 10:12 PM
I thought resolution existed throughout the frequency response.

Neither has anything to do with the other.
"Scan lines" is the number of lines in the pic. This is often confused with resolution.
With resolution you put up a test pattern with vertical lines, as you go
across the screen they get closer and closer together.
When you cant tell them apart, look at the number at the top,
thats the resolution of the pic.
There probably is a newer way of guaging this, but this is what I know.
Anyway there is 1,000 titles out there now on blu, they can slow down a bit and put decent menus and actually work on making this format as good as it can be.
Its like when CD got started, they just put masters cut for records on CD'S, and they sounded like crap.
Mostly because they had the dynamic range cut to fit the recording on a record, on a CD this stuck out like a crack ho in church.
Ironically the early CD disasters are what pushed a lot of audiophiles
away from CD.
I just don't want the same effect with this promising new format.
The "early adopters" are the highq crowd, the laserdisc crowd.
They are gonna have little patience with some of teh stuff being put out on Blu.
ALL I AM SAYIN.:1: