Superbit DVD's

Hey peeps, just bought me a copy of Black Hawk Down, the superbit version, its basically a normal DVD with all the extra useless crap taked out that no one ever watches and then the rest of the DVD is pretty much high def as the rest of the space is given to higher res video and better quality audio. The image quality is even noticable on my 28" CRT. They play in normal DVD players so if you have one of these s****y SD-DVD players with HDMI or something I suggest you pick up one of these films as they're the damn closest you'll get to actual high def.

They can be picked up at www.play.com and have 27 different titles there if you search for superbit.

If anyone else has some of these do you notice the extra clarity?

Here's more info on superbit...and yes, its a Sony Columbia thing

http://www.sonypictures.com/cthe/superbit/what_is_superbit.html

 

Superbit has been around many years but the movie won't be at a higher resolution, there is just a higher average bitrate which for some movies as you testify can make a visual difference.

Personally I see it as pretty much of a con job, either the original release was a poor transfer or they penny pinched by offering the movie and extras all on one disk.

That being said they are cheap and if you are not bothered with extras they could be an attractive option.

 

practially hi def - lol!
it's marketing - nothing more, superbit dvds are just normal dvds with relatively high bitrates, nothing more, nothing less.
i watched my dvd of 70s sitcom love thy neighbour this afternoon - the bitrate was 9.2mbit constant - higher than any superbit i've ever had.

 

You mean apart from the actual hi-def films so many of us in the forum are already watching

 

superbit and Hi def are totally different. Chalk and cheese. Superbit are premium version from the Sony stable of DVDs, however there are many better examples of DVD encoding but they are the better Sony ones.

 

There are a few films I want, and they happen to be Superbit, which is a bonus!

 

Welcome to the biggest con in DVD retailing - Superbit.

The standard release of BHD is on a 2 disc set with the bonus features on disc two. There's plenty of room on disc one for a better quality picture. Sony simply choose to deliberately hold back on the quality so they can sell the title again with the name Superbit attached.

You'll find that Sony use far from "...the rest of the space..." on the Superbit discs anyway. Check out the technical specs on almost any of their Superbit titles and you'll find that there is plenty of unused space on the disc.

You also say "The image quality is even noticable on my 28" CRT." Of course it is - that's a small screen and anything will look good on it. You'll not see a jot of difference between the standard release and the Superbit version on a screen that size. I've compared Superbit and standard versions of the same titles on 32" and 36" screens using high quality feeds and connections and there's not a bit of difference. You'll only start to see a difference in quality when you get into projector sized images.

For the same money you could have got the 2 disc set with all the extras.

Incidentally, this post belongs in the the DVD Movies section not in the Hi-Definition forum.

 

I've never heard of Superbit before...
The concept though is one I've been ranting about for ages. I'm not a fan of DVD Extras and menu's etc, I'd rather see the whole lot disappear (or at least thrown onto a second disc) if it means I'll get a superior quality encode of the movie.

Shame it sounds like this isn't the reality though =/

 

Far from the reality, have a look here.

 

I'm not sure how they can be a con when they are usually cheaper. Superbit is all about using less filtering, that means a less soft picture. Filtering is normally used to stop compression artefacts, so with superbit they have to ensure the bitrate stays high enough not to show compression artefacts. There is NO point in using more disc space than you need, so that is why they don't all use up all the disc. Personally I like DVD's with all the crap removed, I hate ads and previews and I don't ever watch the extras.

 

It's very simple.

The reason they're a con is that they are a ploy to get you to buy the same film twice. Indeed it's a scam aimed at the very types that use these forums, the home cinema enthusiast who is likely to be more quality conscious than the casual punter. What you call "crap" -the extras on the disc- are one of the things that many movie fans love about the DVD format.

With Sony however, if you want the best PQ and all the extras, you need to buy twice. That's why it's a con.

Superbits are just ordinary DVDs and there is no reason that the standard release from Sony/Columbia can't be of the same quality. Other DVD companies release discs with just as little or even less filtering than Superbits, and of equal or better quality, and these are issued as their bog standard release, complete with extras. The don't hold back on the quality, deliberately tinker with the filtering to the detriment of the picture quality, and then release their "Super" version a few weeks later.

And if there's no need to use more space than you need, why not include extras on the discs? Because if they did then fans of the movie that want best PQ and the extras wouldn't have to buy twice and Sony would lose that extra sale.

The Spiderman Superbit release used less than half the available disc space!

 

Might I suggest that anyone wishing to continue this discussion follows the link on post #9 and replys there? This Forum is for High Definition Television and this topic does not belong here.


It will also save valuable bandwidth as the same debate won't be running on two seperate threads.

 

What you call a scam I call heaven, no ads, no extras, less filtering, simple choice of DD or DTS. What people fail to understand is the the lack of filtering is quite unique, 99% of DVD's are heavily filtered, even the ones people think look good. I wish all DVD's were superbit.

 

Is any of the above too complex to understand?

 

Not true, as I said the lack of filtering is fairly unique, it's far easier to get something looking good by filtering heavily first so they do.