Jump to content

I wish they'd release more using SuperBit DVDs


theaveng
 Share

Recommended Posts

I get annoyed when I spend money on a movie like Lord of the Rings, or $110 on Star Trek, and I see visible compression artifacts marring the picture. That shouldn't be... I should be getting the highest quality possible, not something that looks inferior to my 20-yr-old Super VHS tapes or Laserdiscs.

 

BOTTOM LINE: They should be releasing more movies/tv shows in SuperBit format. Or alternatively for tv shows... only 2 episodes per disc, not 4. At the bottom is a quick graphic that shows why SuperBit is better (because you get more video per disc). And an article that describes/shows regular dvd versus SuperBit: Link

.

 

If given the choice, I'd choose Superbit every time.

 

 

troy

 

 

 

chart.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... all those pie charts show is that you don't get added features on SuperBit disks, and audio takes up less space... assuming they're in actual proportions.^^'

 

It simply looks like a matter of choice in encoding bitrate and whether or not extras are put on the disk... kind of strange to give it a special name when the codec is the same... it's still MPEG2, right?

 

Edit: It's like calling 128 kbps mp3's 'mp3' and 160 kbps mp3's 'SuperSound' or some other strange name... just like those are both still mp3, these 'SuperBit' DVDs seem like normal DVDs with the extras dropped, the encoding bitrate increased to fill the space, and a simple menu thrown on.

 

In saying that, I totally agree with you ^_^... less extras, higher bitrate encoding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see myself being all for Superbit, if they didn't strip away commentary audio tracks along with the other bonus material only to turn around and throw on additional audio tracks for half a dozen languages because they've got some extra space left to fill. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DVD's are so cheap, especially commercially pressed DVD. Why the heck not just use more discs (or double sided, double layer discs - DVD-18). 18 GB per disc should allow decent quality without dropping the extras or reducing the audio quality (like Sony's so called "SubperBit" DVD, a meaningless marketing buzzword).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with taz, they should use the larger dvds, that way we can have best quality plus extras. Or like some released have the extras on a seperate disc.

 

 

theaveng, maybe the artifacts you see are in your eyes ;) or perhaps those releases you have bought have been pirated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It simply looks like a matter of choice in encoding bitrate and whether or not extras are put on the disk... kind of strange to give it a special name when the codec is the same... it's still MPEG2' date=' right?[/quote']

 

The added features are moved to disc # 2. "Superbit" is merely how the marketing people let the customer know "this is not an ordinary DVD". (Same as "extra rich" means you're getting better ice cream than normal.) With Superbit, you get almost twice as much video data, and that provides a better picture. It truly is "super" in my opinion.

 

Superbit (details visible) versus Normal (blurred):

42_c1.jpg

 

 

Superbit (windows visible) versus Normal (blurred):

36_c1.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not completely convinced yet because the material the web site showed and the pictures above don't show enough difference for the small area captured. However, those last two photos look somewhat promising (not in the windows you mentioned where the difference to me was noticable but not really less appealing in the lower bit version) but in the big silver fusalage or what ever it is. The circles in the metal show somewhat better in the superbit version and thats the kind of detail I would be interested in keeping when a film is transfered to DVD. Although I would still like it to be clearer than either of the two photos above. The bluriness however may just be the original quality. The wierd thing is the Fifth element shots on the web site you linked to. There must be something lost in what is displayed over the web because the non superbit version looks better to me. I wouldn't mind seeing some original Star Wars shots of ships and the like compared. Maybe we would see some difference there. Or another movie with high levels of detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate is probably moot at this point with Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD technology reaching retail shelves this winter. These discs will hold more data and allow higher definition video as a result. The only question is which format will win out and which will be the new Betamax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the difference to be insanely negligible. I mean it has to be zoomed in to see the differnce, and on top of that the differences zoomed in are very very very mild. I have to stare at the two images for awhile to notice any difference. I'm more concerned with better audio on more dvd's, that gets skimped sometimes. Or drastically increasing the video quality so it is noticeable easily. Which may happen with these new medias coming out. Personally i can't wait for the holodiscs that are going to replace them. A TB of space on a disc will leave room for uncompressed video and audio :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find the difference to be insanely negligible. I mean it has to be zoomed in to see the differnce....

 

Or viewed on a wall-sized projection screen... which is the intended market - videophiles w/ home theaters. Removing all the extra material provides nearly twice as much room for the Video, resulting in better quality. (Just as SP mode is better than EP mode on a VCR.)

 

The idea of Superbit would apply to HD or Bluray-DVD too. You can have a single HDTV-quality disc, half-filled with movie & half-filled with extras -or- a Superbit version that is ALL movie. The latter would have the better picture.

 

 

What's a holodisc?

 

troy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummh how about no? I can't see any difference from what you showed. Besides it would cost more to add an extra disc. The companies want to make has much money has possible. Adding an extra disc would be an extra cost (ever noted two disked movies costing more then a 1 disc). Anyway the extra detail doesn't warrant it. The picture quality isn't 2x better. Hell most of the improvement can be noticed by going close to the screen and staring at it. THE DIFFERENCE ISN'T NOTICABLE IF YOU WATCH IT LIKE A NORMAL PERSON.

 

If Peter Jackson did a superbit Lord Of The Ring The Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition (Even though the picture quality was really good for me) then i wouldn't buy it. It was £25 for 4 discs (i got it cheap ;) buy buying it a year after it came out) the cost would be £50. Hell no. Besides i love my audio commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question... what's the size of the TV you show it on. If it's 21-25 inches, then you probably don't need SuperBit. If it's 40 inches or more, or you watch it on a high res. monitor, then Superbit would be very helpful ^^

 

Gaah... I really hate that word, 'SuperBit'... it's so pretentious for something that's just a tweak and a trademarked menu ;p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Yeah, as with most things, a lot depends on the monitor.

 

Blow up a image to 62" or 110" then every little bit of image quality counts. Of course, it's such a great experience watching stuff on a big screen, I'm cool with it)

 

Question... what's the size of the TV you show it on. If it's 21-25 inches, then you probably don't need SuperBit. If it's 40 inches or more, or you watch it on a high res. monitor, then Superbit would be very helpful ^^

 

Gaah... I really hate that word, 'SuperBit'... it's so pretentious for something that's just a tweak and a trademarked menu ;p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's a holodisc?

 

troy

 

Holographic Versitile Disc, or HVD, is a technology that is getting released later this year.

 

How it works vs a dvd or even a blu ray dvd is this:

 

DVD- Uses the surface, by burning pits into the surface. To read, the laser bounces off the shiny part, and reads the pits in this manner.

 

HVD- Splits a laser into a reference beam and a read/write beam, then recombines them inside the material of the disc. By making the entire thickness of the disc hold data instead of the surface, you increase the speed of reading and writing the disc immeasurably, as well as increasing the capacity of the storage medium to insane ammounts.

 

If this tells you anything, the standard single layer DVD holds 4.7GB

The New Blu Ray DVD is holding 25GB, or about 5 regular DVDs in the space of 1

The HVD is currently releasing with a 300GB, or nearly 64 standard DVDs

Within 2 years, they plan a refined version of HVD, taking it to 1.6TB, or about 3400 standard DVDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...