new line just joined warner

[ridgerama]

looks like it was just a matter of time but another nail in the red camps coffin ?


http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/05/n...blu-footsteps/

lord of the rings in blu-ray cant wait

[Rasczak]

We know it's going to happen - it's just a question of the details now - are they planning to release HD DVD until June like Warner? The Lord Of The Rings trilogy was specificially publicised by the HD DVD camp so it's possible we may see a dual format release of this before then - I hope so as I would rather have that classic series with TrueHD audio rather than PCM.

But I guess we'll see - I expect this will be part of the CES Blu-ray fanfare.

[smashie]

one blu ring to rule them all!!

[MarekM]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

We know it's going to happen - it's just a question of the details now - are they planning to release HD DVD until June like Warner? The Lord Of The Rings trilogy was specificially publicised by the HD DVD camp so it's possible we may see a dual format release of this before then - I hope so as I would rather have that classic series with TrueHD audio rather than PCM.

But I guess we'll see - I expect this will be part of the CES Blu-ray fanfare.

if, then it will be DTS HD MA 7.1, as other NEW LINE releases..

[chelsea.tone]

My Precious

Tony

[Adam_uk]

Why would you want True HD over PCM?

I'd not buy the HD DVD even if it did come out.

New Line have some great titles- if only they would hurry up and release some!

[sdb123]

Originally Posted by ridgerama

looks like it was just a matter of time but another nail in the red camps coffin ?

Not really, as Warner own New Line.

[Jim Morrison]

As much as I'm looking forward to the LOTR films on Blu-Ray, it's Se7en that I can't wait to get my grubby little hands on.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by Adam_uk

Why would you want True HD over PCM?

PCM is wasteful. It's done as it means money doesn't have to be paid to Dolby. However, it means more space allocated to audio less space available to picture quality.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by Adam_uk

Why would you want True HD over PCM?

I'd not buy the HD DVD even if it did come out.

Future compatibility with AV receivers and off board decoding. Jury is out on whether there is any benefit as of yet but better to have the option than not IMHO.

[AML]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

PCM is wasteful. It's done as it means money doesn't have to be paid to Dolby. However, it means more space allocated to audio less space available to picture quality.

I have to dissagree here. These days all films are encoded with VC-1/AVC so theres plenty space left on any blu ray discs which is exactly why they use PCM, coz theres plenty space for it.

Besides I think PCM is probably better as theres no compression.

Some blu ray titles also have both True HD and PCM (like "300") so you can always choose. Truth is, its up to the makers make the discs as good as they can be. Both for pic and sound.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by AML

I have to dissagree here. These days all films are encoded with VC-1/AVC

Except Fox it seems who seem to have reverted to MPEG2 for their latest releases.

esides I think PCM is probably better as theres no compression.

There should be no difference between lossless and TrueHD/DTS HD MA. And this is certainly what we've seen so far on releases. The difference is players will decode and output TrueHD as PCM but can also output it as digital bitstream. The same option obviously doesn't exist for PCM only.

Some blu ray titles also have both True HD and PCM (like "300") so you can always choose.

The Fifth Element (Remastered) is another - and is a good indication that studios are starting to looking towards the lossless compressed formats for future kit. And dan good thing IMHO. I hope Warner's transition to Blu-ray only will be accompanied by TrueHD as standard on all their Blu-ray discs.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by AML

I have to dissagree here. These days all films are encoded with VC-1/AVC so theres plenty space left on any blu ray discs which is exactly why they use PCM, coz theres plenty space for it.

Fox still uses MPEG 2 a lot. So far 157 titles use it:

http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.ph...te&Codec=MPEG2

Originally Posted by AML

Besides I think PCM is probably better as theres no compression.

Dolby TrueHD is lossless compression. Nothing is thrown away, all the information is there. It's the difference between a Word document and a Word zipped document.

Originally Posted by AML

Some blu ray titles also have both True HD and PCM (like "300") so you can always choose.

This is done as TrueHD support is optional for blu-ray. As some players can't play TrueHD, PCM or something else has to be there as an option. Even more wasteful.

[the.godfather]

Even though we kinda knew already, yet more good news for the Blu-Ray camp! Can't wait!

[AML]

Ive said on other posts that theres nothing wrong with using MPG2 over AVC or VC1. As long as its done properly I think it can/should be used. (less compression)

The fact that Blu Ray has more space means that companies can choose what codec to use for video and audio.

I just hope it doesnt make them lazy.

Theres a good chance companies like Warner will use existing mpeg 2 transfers (used for DVD) and just raise the resolution/bit rate for Blu Ray. And since they dont have to use True HD (like they do with HD DVD) they might fall back to using existing DD tracks.

Bad for consumers but a good way to save on money for Warner. After all most consumers cant tell the difference since they dont have the hardware to take advantage of hi def codecs.

I guess one good thing about HD DVD is that there are standards they have to commit to. And warner going to Blu Ray means their hands arent tied any more. It means they can be lazy