Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
This is the sort of garbage argument I warned against weeks ago.

That was bound to happen. Making the nimber of contributions and votes cast public was a really really bad move.

I had hoped this would not be the case, but yet again, the undeniable fact is that humans will find anything to discredit someone else, especially when they might not have any argument of their to counterbalance it.

You know, if people stopped replying to A_S, there'd probably be much more chances that he'd go away, than by rubbing contributions statistics and voting numbers to his face.

Quoting Lithurge:

Quote:
I'm proud of my 89 votes.

You should be more proud of your 1500+ contributions 

With my puny 80, I guess my opinion will not mean much around these parts 

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
Quoting stefc:

Quote:
FACT: Most of the first blu-ray releases are very shoddy MPEG2 encodes.

The MPEG-2 encode was not shoddy.  According to the experts, they were using the D4 master to encode the title from.  The D4 is about 1/4 the quality of the film itself.  That lower resolution was made painfully obvious when played back in the only BD player at the time Samsung BD-P1000 (with noise reduction turned on high).  That made ALL BD titles look "soft" until the firmware fix came out and the Panasonic BD player hit the market.  Most reviewer did not go back and revisit any of their older reviewers of those titles.  So, titles like Underworld: Evolution, S.W.A.T., Species, Silent Hill, Dinosaur, Ultraviolet, etc. got lower PQ reviews than they deserved.  Other titles such as The Fifth Element, House of Flying Daggers, and Stargate were victims of bad masters...not shoddy MPEG-2 encodes.

That why that's not a fact.

*BZZZT*
WRONG
Thank you for playing

1. There is no D4 tape format.
2. There is a D5 tape format which is commonly called "uncompressed" HD. In reality every HD tape format has signal compression built in. There is no current HD tape that is not compressed. Here are the stats of HD tapes

D5
10-bit 4.3:1 Compression using DCT compression
4:2:2 color sampling
210Mb/s

HDCAM-SR
10-bit 2.7:1 Compression using Mpeg-4 Studio Profile compression
4:4:4 or 4:2:2 color sampling
440Mb/s

HDCAM
8-bit 7.7:1 Compression using DCT compression
3:1:1 color sampling
140Mb/s

DVCPRO HD
8-bit 6.7:1 Compression using DCT compression
4:2:2 color sampling
100Mb/s

HDV
8-bit Approx 60:1 compression using Mpeg-2 compression
4:2:0 color sampling
25Mb/s

The reason why most early HD discs used Mpeg-2 is because at the time there were very few hardware encoders for the other video codec options. And at the data rates that I have seen of between 18-22Mb/s for the BD discs using Mpeg-2 encoding, that's a worse data rate that HDV which is considered the lowest quality HD format out there. Most broadcasters will not accept HDV tapes as masters. DVCPRO HD is usually the minimum accepted.

Quoting cmaeditor:

Quote:
*BZZZT*
WRONG
Thank you for playing

1. There is no D4 tape format.
2. There is a D5 tape format which is commonly called "uncompressed" HD. In reality every HD tape format has signal compression built in. There is no current HD tape that is not compressed. Here are the stats of HD tapes

D5
10-bit 4.3:1 Compression using DCT compression
4:2:2 color sampling
210Mb/s

HDCAM-SR
10-bit 2.7:1 Compression using Mpeg-4 Studio Profile compression
4:4:4 or 4:2:2 color sampling
440Mb/s

HDCAM
8-bit 7.7:1 Compression using DCT compression
3:1:1 color sampling
140Mb/s

DVCPRO HD
8-bit 6.7:1 Compression using DCT compression
4:2:2 color sampling
100Mb/s

HDV
8-bit Approx 60:1 compression using Mpeg-2 compression
4:2:0 color sampling
25Mb/s

The reason why most early HD discs used Mpeg-2 is because at the time there were very few hardware encoders for the other video codec options. And at the data rates that I have seen of between 18-22Mb/s for the BD discs using Mpeg-2 encoding, that's a worse data rate that HDV which is considered the lowest quality HD format out there. Most broadcasters will not accept HDV tapes as masters. DVCPRO HD is usually the minimum accepted.

I said "according to the experts" there is a D4 master those early films were encoded from...not according to me.  D4 was mentioned by several people in the field.  If this is wrong, I apologize.  I will ask those people why they used that term and report back.  Yes, the Japanese regard the number 4 as unlucky.  Maybe in the US, people counted from 1 going up but did not skip over 4 and went to 5, so maybe D4 is really technically a D5 master.  Either way, it is not the point. 

If anyone else that wants to know more about this... [a]href="http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:_165NEEf800J:www.danalee.ca/ttt/video_recording.htm+Sony+D4"+analog+cassette&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a"]look here (under Digital VTR Formats).

You have broken down the VTR tape formats nicely.  Thank you for that, but you have said absolutely nothing about why MPEG-2 encodes were "shoddy" or not.

What we DO know is that Ultraviolet, Underworld, and Tears of the Sun reportedly used those same bitrates, facilities, process as House of Flying Daggers and others.  The only thing that really varied was the source it was encoded from.  Logically, that would lead one to believe it was not the encode but the source.  Would you not agree?

Quoting stefc:

Quote:
Now you are getting comical with your drivel. Are you trying to tell me that Dolby are lying when they say TrueHD is a 100-percent lossless audio codec? TrueHD is actually a lossy codec that doesn't sound as good as the master because of its lossy compression and Dolby have just made it all up hoping no one will notice. Do you not see how staggeringly stupid that is as you type it?

I would think it would be staggeringly stupid to go by what you read over what's been observed, but that's just science.  I'm just telling you (and others), that there is a difference.  A difference detected means that it is not truly lossless.  Please try not to be sooo emotional over this.

Quote:
Does that possibility that the digest reviewer's setup may not be decoding the sound properly never enter your tiny mind?

His professionally set-up system for reviews, min personally set-up system, and others set ups?  I can't that would be a logical assumption.

Quote:
Has the sound been converted properly to PCM by the player and sent to his amp over hdmi 1.1?

Dude, if you read my post, this is even noticed on the same disc.  Remember when I wrote that this has been noticed on "Stomp the Yard".  That is a Sony release with both LPCM and TrueHD on the same disc.  This is not a localized issue with one system.

Quote:
You give the theory that if TrueHD bitrates are lower than PCM it can't sound as good

That's not my theory.  Read my post again.

Quote:
- PCM IS UNCOMPRESSED, SO THE BITRATE IS GOING TO BE HIGHER, THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA!

Of course, if you are encoding the same track (i.e. 16-bit TrueHD vs 16-bit LPCM).

Quote:
What would be the point of a lossless compression codec if it needed the same bitrate to sound the same?

Very true. 

Quote:
At that point there is no compression happening and you might aswell use an uncompressed audio track!

True, again.  The point is maybe TrueHD tracks need to encoded at a higher bitrate to truly be lossless.  Obviously, not pushing the encoding up to the point of matching a LPCM track, but higher.

If bitrates are pushed down too far for a lossless track, at some point it has to become lossy.  That's just common sense...nothing more.

Quote:
Or is it because TrueHD is not mandatory in the BD spec, and only a handful of BD discs include it, then it can't possibly be the same quality as PCM can it?

This is just crazy talk.  Why would someone be jealous of a compressed audio track when they have an uncompressed audio track?  And, from what I've personally heard of TrueHD, I would only favor it over regular DD at this point.

Remember this...anything HD DVD specs can do, Blu-ray's specs can do equally as well or better.

Quote:
What staggers me even more is that in your own world you are still convinced that someone on this board is interested in what you type...

I know I'm in the lair of HD DVD, but not everyone in this forum ignores facts.  Not everyone in this forum his ignored that about 90% of my predictions have come true.  Not everyone in this forum ignores scientific methodology.  I endure this abuse to get the truth to them.

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:

Quote:
Quoting cmaeditor:

Quote:
Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
You have broken down the VTR tape formats nicely.  Thank you for that, but you have said absolutely nothing about why MPEG-2 encodes were "shoddy" or not.

What we DO know is that Ultraviolet, Underworld, and Tears of the Sun reportedly used those same bitrates, facilities, process as House of Flying Daggers and others.  The only thing that really varied was the source it was encoded from.  Logically, that would lead one to believe it was not the encode but the source.  Would you not agree?

I guess you glossed over this  bit huh:

...the data rates that I have seen of between 18-22Mb/s for the BD discs using Mpeg-2 encoding, that's a worse data rate that HDV which is considered the lowest quality HD format out there.

Then why did Underworld: Evolution, Ultravoilet, Terminator 2, Tears of the Sun, etc. get a high PQ rating using those bitrates and MPEG-2?  That's what you didn't answer.

I have no idea what movie you are talking about that was supposedly mastered from "D4" I went back to the first posting that started this, which was just a list of "Facts". care to point out to me the movie that had the "shoddy" master? Or care to provide a link to this discussion of a "D4" master being used? I was just pointing out that Mpeg-2 is not an efficient codec to be using for HD masters at that bit-rate. The artifacting problems that occur on HDV at 25Mb/s are well known.

The following quote is from an Article written by Adam Wilt of DV Magazine.

"...HDV looks very good for scenes of low to moderate complexity and unhurried motion. But a lot of high-frequency detail and/or abrupt, complex motions cause noticeable degradation in the form of posterization, blocking, and pseudo-random noise.

Unlike DV, where the most noticeable artifact is localized "mosquito noise" around areas of high detail, HDV's artifacts can permeate the entire frame, and are scene dependent in their characteristics....".

cmaeditor,

Here is the response from a film tech guy I asked (about the House of Flying Daggers and the Fifth Element being encoded from a lesser source)...

Quote:
What I know if I'm not mistaken is paidgeek said that the Blu-ray master was made (scanned) from a 35mm film element (probably a print or interpositive) derived from the Digital Intermediate.

So it's at least these steps most likely:

ONEG (original 35mm camera negative) -> 2K Digital Intermediate -> 35mm film out -> 1080 scan

Then the 1080 scan was compressed into Mpeg2 for Blu

In CD digital audio terms it would be like an ADAD CD and then the CD was converted to mp2

In the best of cases it should have been just AD, and that Digital Intermediate AVCed at 27 Mb/s for max quality Blu


I think the HOTFD trailer in Volver looked slightly better than the Blu movie but it's not a night/day difference.

Watching the Blu in 1080p at 2PH like I watch 35mm Scope movies in a theater, HOTFD just looks like a Technicolor Scope print shown on your average foreign film theater. (I've said this many times)


I think people have forgotten the difference there was between 70m and 35mm photography (there is a difference, and it's visible, and 70mm looks better of course, specially at 2PH. But it's not enough of a difference that the public demands it and Hollywood saying the "show me the money" by photographing movies in 70mm. They stopped shooting 20-30-40 years ago!) So the Best BD compared tro the less good ones would be like more or less like comparing 70mm vs 35mm prints or something.
(actually with the state of theater projections these days, i'm happy with most Blu-rays.

What I mean HOTFD is like a 35mm print in a theater, and in comparison the best Plus maybe something like Bond or Pirates HOTFD is seeing the 35mm print and others may be closer to seeing the actual negative projected in 35mm (if you could see and projects negatives.) (which is was a Digital Intermediate basically manage to do, if they do it at 4k: make a virtual projectable original negative clone, in positive)

If you see the fettastic top Tier lists most are CGI generated transfers, so they're reaching closest the 1080 potential because the render is like a virtual negative.

same stuff happens with the Fifth Element, current Blu musta been made from a 1080 scan from a print made from the DI made from the negative. (similar if not the same steps to HOTFD).
The next TFE might be done from the DI? or a new "DI" (a digital scan) made from the original neg from France. I don't expect earth shaking differences. but probably the ewe hate digital noise crowd will see a difference. (the original neg can have according to my calculations near 10dBs less noise (grain) than a theatrical print, so it's either less grainy, or you can make it sharper than the print and normal grain.

Quoting cmaeditor:

Quote:
The restoration done on all the James Bond movies for the Ult. Collection, will allow Sony to make masters of any resolution up to 4K for the forseeable future. I would not be surprised if they don't already have the HD masters ready to output for the blu-ray edtion of the collection right now.

Yep, this is what made me NOT buy the Ulitmate collection.... I just knew there would be a High Def version released (and if it is only a BluRay version... guess I will have to get a BluRay player, but just because of the lack of space, would love not to have any more boxes under the screen - so "if" a HDDVD version "was" (unlikey) released... I would prefer that - and for NO other reason)