This is topic dcp vs blu ray in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=001559
Posted by George Murray (Member # 6991) on 07-01-2013, 08:12 AM:
In terms of the quality of the content how much of a difference is there between blu ray and 2k dcp. Like if you put both contents on a 20 foot wide screen would you be able to tell a difference. I only ask because naturally you would assume that when a file goes from 130 gb to under 40 gb and much lower bit rates you would presume a significant loss in quality
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-01-2013, 08:42 AM:
Well, you'll certainly notice when the BluRay freezes up or starts stuttering ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Running BluRay this week and not happy.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-01-2013, 08:44 AM:
Doesn't matter to me. The DCP will (usually) work reliably and the Blu-Ray will not.
The real answer to the question is "it depends." You can make a DCP from a Blu-Ray, and the size will increase, but the quality will be no better than that of the original source material.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2013, 08:45 AM:
We have a 30 foot screen here and it is downright amazing how good a Blu-ray looks. Even a regular DVD looks very good.
In my opinion the biggest difference is in the contrast. DCP has better darks. On a 20 foot screen I bet 99% of the audience won't know you're showing a Blu-ray unless you tell them, or unless something else gives it away, like an on-screen display caused by the player showing up.
On the dependability issue, I've probably played at least 30 Blu-rays and or DVDs, almost all for private viewings after regular shows are over for the day, and I have never had one freeze up or skip yet. I suppose my time is coming!
Posted by George Murray (Member # 6991) on 07-01-2013, 08:50 AM:
Also why are the file sizes so much smaller than the dcp?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-01-2013, 10:20 AM:
On average the video from a DCP should look noticeably better than the same movie on Blu-ray. But that all depends on certain good practices being in place when the video is encoded to the DCP and Blu-ray platforms.
You also have to consider color bit depth on the DCP imagery versus that of the Blu-ray. BD is able to support "deep color" but I don't know of any titles that have actually used it.
quote: George Murray
Also why are the file sizes so much smaller than the dcp?
Video on Blu-ray is typically encoded in MPEG-4 AVC format. Some videos are encoded in Microsoft's VC1 format. A few use the less efficient MPEG-2 format.
Video on DCP really isn't video at all. It is a container holding many thousands of JPEG2000 compressed still images. This method doesn't allow for the various kinds of inter-frame compression tricks and techniques which are used in AVC, VC1 and MPEG-2 video streams. The imagery is also supposed to contain a limited number of transform tile blocks per image (only 1 in the master and hopefully no more than 3 in the DCP); home video formats can use dozens of transform tile blocks. Just make the picture macro-block to hell for all the viewer cares, right?
Anyway, the JPEG2000 format on DCP does not allow for compression levels anywhere near as severe as the video compression formats for home video & broadcast.
I'm accustomed to seeing a 2 hour movie on DCP have a file size of 150GB-200GB or even bigger. When I see a 2 hour movie on DCP drop down to the 50GB-75GB level I wonder just how much has been compromised in squeezing the imagery down to that level. Such a movie on DCP might not hold up quite so well to a side by side comparison with its Blu-ray counterpart. Alas, a studio that uses an unusually severe amount of compression in its DCP (such as WB) also will tend to use unusually severe amounts on compression on the Blu-ray -making a 2 hour movie not even fill up one layer of a BD-50 disc.
quote: Scott Norwood
Doesn't matter to me. The DCP will (usually) work reliably and the Blu-Ray will not.
What kind of Blu-ray player is being used?
I'm still playing movies using my Sony Playstation 3 "slim" model. I haven't had any problems with it. However, I guess it's not the sort of device that's geared for a movie theater booth.
Lots of "standalone" BD players are trash. They load discs very slowly. They exhibit all kinds of odd behaviors. My girlfriend's Samsung BD player emits this loud beep sound over the TV speakers whenever the disc is stopped, scanned in fast forward or reverse. It's very irritating. I updated the firmware and to no avail that beep is still there.
I hear Oppo makes a hell of a great Blu-ray player. It just hurts to spend $500 on a Blu-ray player.
Posted by Anhtu Vu (Member # 7689) on 07-01-2013, 12:34 PM:
There's no comparison...DCP of the same film will look/sound much better than its Bluray version.
Bluray video encoding is based on H264/Mpeg4 part 10 or AVC with average bandwith encoded in VBR between 12-32 Mbits/s versus 250 Mbits for DCP. This is without taking into account the quality of the Codec itself, H264 vs Jpeg 2000...again, no comparison J2000 is a much better codec.
Also let's not forget about sound quality...full 24 bits uncompressed @ 192 Khz for DCP vs AC3, DolbyTrue HD or DTS Master audio for BluRay. Technically the two latter are ''lossless'' but trust me, as a mixer, i definitely notice a difference between my original mix and the DTS Master or DolbyTrue HD stream decoded.
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 07-01-2013, 03:40 PM:
Mike,
When it comes to DCP the standard is very tight, when it comes to alternative content it's much more loose.
You possibly have the wrong video levels set. If you search for AVS-HD you can run the test patterns and check your black and white levels. I found they go with the player sometimes. I bet your black is not actually black! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2013, 06:09 PM:
quote: Anhtu Vu
Bluray video encoding is based on H264/Mpeg4 part 10 or AVC with average bandwith encoded in VBR between 12-32 Mbits/s versus 250 Mbits for DCP. This is without taking into account the quality of the Codec itself, H264 vs Jpeg 2000...again, no comparison J2000 is a much better codec.
All of that stuff might be very true, but to my own 34-year-veteran-of-the-industry eyes, it looks about 99% as good as DCP from the seats, at least when you sit a reasonable distance from the screen.
I haven't ever had a chance watch the same movie on a DCP and a Bly-Ray one after another to make an A-B comparison, but I stand by my earlier statement that all but the most knowledgable viewers would likely never know the difference.
Posted by Anhtu Vu (Member # 7689) on 07-01-2013, 08:40 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
All of that stuff might be very true, but to my own 34-year-veteran-of-the-industry eyes, it looks about 99% as good as DCP from the seats, at least when you sit a reasonable distance from the screen.
I haven't ever had a chance watch the same movie on a DCP and a Bly-Ray one after another to make an A-B comparison, but I stand by my earlier statement that all but the most knowledgable viewers would likely never know the difference.
To each his own i guess. I work as an on line editor and mixer for the film and broadcast industry. We also do Blu ray and DCP authoring for independent and feature film.
From my experience and also feedback from all of our clients, the difference between a Bluray and DCP of the same film is night and day....no comparison. Since we are responsible for the entire post-production chain of most films that come through our facility, we get to compare and see this side by side on a weekly basis....again no comparison.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-01-2013, 09:03 PM:
Maybe it depends on where you are doing the comparing. Technicians in controlled environments are in a situation quite different from a commercial theater. Also the difference between 2K and 4K theatrical projection might make the contrast more pronounced (we have 2K here and I've never seen 4K except at CinemaCon).
I'm not doubting your word, and probably with your trained eyes you could spot the differences in a nanosecond; but what I'm saying is the general public (which is who does about 99.999% of the movie watching) would not be able to tell.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-01-2013, 10:17 PM:
I'm with Mike on this.
As a broadcast engineer, I can listen to a radio station and tell you most of the things they're doing to squish, clip, press and form their audio into their licensed bandwidth. I'm not sure I could live in New York, given how aggressively broadcasters there adulterate their audio. Amazingly to me, some of the worst offenders have high ratings.
I've done DCP vs BluRay comparisons on my 86-foot drive-in screen. Yes, I can tell the difference. Mainly, colors are not as vibrant and black levels aren't so much so. It looks a little like a TV with the contrast turned up too much. To me, the audio mixes are less dynamic than what I normally hear on a DCP. That probably makes sense, given the home environment the bluray is intended to play in.
Can an engineer, who works with theatrical creation hear and see the difference? He'd better. That would be expected. Does this mean anything to the average viewer? Maybe, to some, but probably not to someone who considers bluray acceptable in any environment.
Would I run a bluray if I couldn't get a DCP? I guess, if I had to. The players don't scare me. I have a Sony here, and it's worked fine. I'd much prefer to put the content in my server though, so it can be run normally in a playlist with the rest of the content and control macros I use during a normal evening. For that, I'll probably wait until I get the chance to play with some of the conversion software out there.
Posted by Anhtu Vu (Member # 7689) on 07-02-2013, 02:03 AM:
Anybody from our concierge to our secretary could see the difference between the final DPX sequence vs the Jpeg2000 encoded sequence (for DCP) vs the Bluray version of the same film being projected in our cinema room. My 15 year old girl tells me every time the BLuray looks like a youtube video compare to the original DPX sequence ok, maybe she exaggerate a tiny bit, but you get the point !
My take on this whole debate......most ''average'' movie goers have much better eyes and hearing than you expect. The question one should ask himself is not wether they can see the difference but wether they care enough to pay more for the best possible screening and, as a venue, what's the lowest standard are you willing to accept.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-02-2013, 06:34 AM:
Personally, I find the difference between a BluRay image and a DCP image to be rather large. It isn't really a close call. I've found that as one goes beyond a 20-foot wide screen the differences grow geometrically.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-02-2013, 09:37 AM:
quote:
Bluray video encoding is based on H264/Mpeg4 part 10 or AVC with average bandwidth encoded in VBR between 12-32 Mbits/s versus 250 Mbits for DCP. This is without taking into account the quality of the Codec itself, H264 vs Jpeg 2000...again, no comparison J2000 is a much better codec.
Anhtu, you're comparing apples to oranges. You're claiming JPEG 2000 (a still image compression codec) to MPEG-4 AVC (a video compression codec) and claiming it's better. That's not really true since the two compression formats serve different purposes.
You could, in theory, encode a movie in JPEG 2000 and use compression levels severe enough to fit it onto a Blu-ray disc. But since JPEG 2000 doesn't support a variety of video compression features and can only work on one discrete image at a time it's going to be far less efficient at encoding/compressing a movie than MPEG-4 AVC.
You're oversimplifying what can be encoded onto Blu-ray. As I said earlier MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC and Microsoft VC-1 video formats can be used. The video imagery can be encoded in various resolutions and frame rates with any of them being interlaced or progressive scan. Bit rates vary wildly too. They can run at the compression levels as horribly severe as an iTunes "HD" streaming video: 720p at bit rates lower than a halfway decent SD DVD. Or they can run at bit rates up to 50 million bits per second.
The "video" on DCPs are not all encoded at the same compression levels either. Just look at the huge file size differences between one DCP to another. One movie may be over 200GB in size while another of the same duration may only be 50GB.
The 250 million bit per second data rate you mentioned is the peak, maximum rate allowed. JPEG 2000 imagery can and does run well under that. Also, that 250Mb/sec peak limit applies to both 2K and 4K video. So if a studio quadruples the pixel count and outputs the movie in 4K resolution they're also going to have to increase compression levels. And they do.
quote: Anhtu Vu
Also let's not forget about sound quality...full 24 bits uncompressed @ 192 Khz for DCP vs AC3, DolbyTrue HD or DTS Master audio for BluRay. Technically the two latter are ''lossless'' but trust me, as a mixer, i definitely notice a difference between my original mix and the DTS Master or DolbyTrue HD stream decoded.
That's inaccurate. For one thing Blu-ray supports LPCM high resolution audio (24-bit 96kHz surround and 24-bit 192kHz stereo). The DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD lossless formats also support those resolution levels.
While DCP may be able to support Linear PCM audio at high resolutions the reality of what is actually being copied to DCP virtual prints is different.
Virtually all movies on DCP have Linear PCM audio set at 24-bit 48kHz resolution or 20-bit 48kHz resolution, either in 5.1 or 7.1 channel layouts. 16-bit audio can be used too. Can anyone actually name a DCP that contained audio at a higher sample rate than 48kHz, such as 24-bit 96kHz?
24-bit 192kHz is a very tricky audio format that is very rarely ever used. All playback implementations I've seen of it have been strictly 2.0 channel stereo. For 5.1/7.1 surround the resolution tops out at 24-bit 96kHz. I've read articles about 24-bit 192kHz audio yielding inferior results to 24-bit 96kHz due to technology limitations in audio playback hardware.
Recorded/encoded audio is an area where home theater has had a leg up on commercial theaters for a long time. How the audio is played in a home listening environment is another matter, but the recordings on disc have often been more elaborate and/or higher in resolution than what the commercial movie theaters have been getting. This has been true on the Blu-ray format and it goes back to DVD.
Dolby Digital operated at higher bit rates in its home version versus that of the theatrical format. There were a lot more movies released with Surround EX style tracks on DVD than were released in commercial movie theaters. Blu-ray was doing quad-surround 7.1 audio years before d-cinema started supporting it. Blu-ray has also been taking over in the high end audio niche market. Lots of HD concert videos have been released on Blu-ray with 24/96 audio. A few movies have been released on Blu-ray with the same kind of high resolution audio. Some music acts such as Neil Young and Nine Inch Nails have released BD Audio discs with high resolution audio.
Dolby Atmos is the first audio format in 20 years that's actually tried to put commercial movie theaters on a level above home theater. But the rollout for Atmos is going painfully slow. The process is really expensive. And the marketing effort for Atmos hasn't been worth a damn.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-02-2013, 12:14 PM:
In my opinion, the difference really depends on the actual DCP and Blu-Ray. Both can be done wrong. It usually is in no way a night and day difference and in some cases might be even almost undetectable.
Obviously, when sitting close to the screen, MPEG artifacts are visible in most Blu-Ray content, especially in bright scenes with a lot of details and sharp edges. Motion-JPEG2000 isn't the best format for sharp edges, but it seems to do a better job than H.264/AVC. Also, colors in DCP are usually better, because they're far less compressed and JPEG2000 offers a broader color space (although that's not always used).
Regarding sound: There is no technical reason why the Blu-Ray version should be inferior to the LPCM version in the DCP...
Those Blu-Rays sometimes seem to get the "home theater" makeover, that's probably where things go bad.
I've created DCPs from Blu-Ray content and with a bit of tweaking, the result is quite acceptable, but nothing will beat a proper DCP created from a loss-less master.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby Atmos is the first audio format in 20 years that's actually tried to put commercial movie theaters on a level above home theater. But the rollout for Atmos is going painfully slow. The process is really expensive. And the marketing effort for Atmos hasn't been worth a damn.
At least you're helping the marketing effort a bit your own way .
I'm not certain if it is so much more expensive to mix a movie in Dolby Atmos. It will require adaptations to the mixing process for sure, but once you have your "Atmos Master", pulling 7.1, 5.1, 2.0 and other special mixes based on discrete channels (like IMAX) from it is just a matter of exporting it into those formats.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-02-2013, 01:02 PM:
For me a 2k DCP is a little less boring than a bluray but the bland lifeless images are certainly steady in either format!
Scope blurays really start to suffer artifacts compared to a flat title.
I miss the pulse of life from 35mm done very right. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
All this Digital projection has put me into a bored coma the last couple of years!
I hope I can keep awake for when 4k and more comes along because this current standard is like a bad dream.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-02-2013, 01:36 PM:
There's good & bad Blu-rays as well as good & bad DCPs. I don't think the aspect ratio has anything to do with it, other than the fact 'scope movies have fewer pixels to encode than taller movies in flat format.
Disc storage and file I/O technology has been improving in recent years, enough to a point I think the people in charge of DCP standards need to revise the maximum allowed bit rates. With bigger DCP files and more generous bandwidth limits it will be easier for DCPs to support deeper color bit depths and milder compression ratios (especially on 4K content).
Deep color bit depths may be necessary for things like the laser projection system IMAX plans to deploy. If the contrast levels are as great as IMAX claims the DCP imagery will need more gradial steps between absolute black and absolute white in the RGB color channels to reduce banding, noise, crush in the shadows and posterization in the highlights.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm not certain if it is so much more expensive to mix a movie in Dolby Atmos.
Dolby has plug-ins for Pro Tools that streamline the Atmos track creation process. If anything Atmos is doing more to preserve the layered, object oriented nature of a Pro Tools audio project rather than the "flattened" approach of collapsing all those separate audio elements into 5.1 or 7.1 tracks of LPCM audio.
The expense to which I refer is in the movie theaters. An Atmos installation requires a new CP-850 Atmos cinema processor, which by itself is really expensive. Then there's all the additional amplifiers, speakers and wiring that has to be added to an existing sound system if the existing speakers in the sound system are good enough to be used. An Atmos upgrade to an existing theater could cost well above $50,000, especially if the theater operator chooses to install Atmos in a more aggressive, maximum configuration. From what I understand Dolby personnel are installing and setting up new Atmos systems, at least for now. After the system is installed extra costs are going to creep in with maintenance. There's a lot more speaker drivers that can be blown.
The upshot: if a theater operator is willing to pay the extra bucks to install Atmos (and do it right by putting in more than a minimal upgrade above 5.1/7.1) he'll have theater audio that clearly bests the "laser aligned" audio boasted by those IMAX Digital houses.
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 07-02-2013, 02:11 PM:
On a proper common height screen,scope is zoomed out bigger with less pixels and brightness. Just like flat with 35mm on a common width screen.
On my screen the moire patterns disappear with scope and that's the best thing I can say about the scope aspect ratio via our Christie 2220.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-02-2013, 07:14 PM:
quote: Anhtu Vu
My take on this whole debate......most ''average'' movie goers have much better eyes and hearing than you expect. The question one should ask himself is not wether they can see the difference but wether they care enough to pay more for the best possible screening and, as a venue, what's the lowest standard are you willing to accept.
You just proved in this paragraph that you don't know anything about the movie theater business. It's not a question of deciding what standard to accept. It's about showing what's available. With about 99% of older movies, you can't get a DCP so you either have to show a Blu-Ray or a DVD, or not have a show.
Also your comment about "average moviegoers" is laughable. Obviously you've never stood in a theater lobby handing out passes after a show in which the left channel went out, or the surrounds didn't work, or (in film days) you had a scratched print, or whatever. At least half, or more of the people will be surprised that you are giving away the freebies and will tell you that "it sounded/looked fine to me."
One time I accidentally ran the 2-D version of a 3-D show and even then, out of a crowd of over 100 people we only got one complaint, and when we gave passes out at the end dozens of people said it looked fine to them.
quote: Bobby Henderson
the recordings on disc have often been more elaborate and/or higher in resolution than what the commercial movie theaters have been getting.
Ah, the dreaded "near field mix" that F Hudson was raving about rears its head again! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-03-2013, 01:22 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Also your comment about "average moviegoers" is laughable. Obviously you've never stood in a theater lobby handing out passes after a show in which the left channel went out, or the surrounds didn't work, or (in film days) you had a scratched print, or whatever. At least half, or more of the people will be surprised that you are giving away the freebies and will tell you that "it sounded/looked fine to me."
It’s a great gesture you’re actually handing out passes after a screwup, even if most people didn’t notice it, I would definitely appreciate it.
The vast majority of moviegoers doesn’t have a clue about the technical details involved in cinema. Even if they notice or have the idea that something is off, they will probably don’t know if it is supposed to be that way or not. So if the LF channel suddenly went silent, I’m quite certain many people will register that something is somehow different, but most of them will probably not be distracted by it or even be able to pinpoint the problem.
Obviously, if you point people to the problem, most of them will actually become aware of it. So if you would play a badly compressed trailer in H.264/AVC and the M-JPEG2000 version right afterwards and even point them to the differences, the differences will become quite clear to most people. But even then, there will be those, who will really not see the difference...
People seem to be more triggered by other factors than real quality. That’s what IMAX actually understood with their dreaded Digital IMAX format. They made the picture look “big” and bright, but didn’t bother about the resolution, as most people won’t even notice the pixels. They will notice the brightness although. As for the sound, their format isn’t any better than plain 5.1 LPCM, most Digital IMAX installations don’t even have the height channel anymore. What they did is boost the sound, make it sound really loud, with tons of bass. From the moment that laser-alignment-optimization crosscheck-trailer is running, you’re being hit by a wall of sound. I’ve been to plenty of 15/70 (aka real) IMAX presentations and the sound was never this loud. It doesn’t matter that the sound system itself is anything but sophisticated, people will remember that it was awfully cool, because it was freakin’ loud and you could feel it in your bones...
quote:
Ah, the dreaded "near field mix" that F Hudson was raving about rears its head again! [Big Grin]
I guess that Bobby was pointing at the fact that for example the maximum bitrate of the Dolby Digital AC-3 stream for DVD content is 448 kbit/s, whereas the 35mm version is stuck at a maximum of 320 kbit/s. So, in this regard the home theater offers a potentially better sound quality than the theater.
As Bobby put it, there has been little effort the last years, to give the theater a real technical advantage compared to home theaters. Blu-ray offers essentially the same resolution as 2K DCPs (although, usually at a lower overall picture quality) and uncompressed discrete sound channels are also available in both formats.
Posted by Gavin Lewarne (Member # 5397) on 07-03-2013, 05:51 AM:
a few weeks ago we had a film (I forget which) which was blatently a direct BluRay > DCP conversion. 45gb for a 120 minute feature, in 1920x1080 resolution so we had to make a new screen file for it.
Im sure the native bluray would have looked better in this instance.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 07-03-2013, 09:28 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
People seem to be more triggered by other factors than real quality. That’s what IMAX actually understood with their dreaded Digital IMAX format. They made the picture look “big” and bright, but didn’t bother about the resolution, as most people won’t even notice the pixels. They will notice the brightness although. As for the sound, their format isn’t any better than plain 5.1 LPCM, most Digital IMAX installations don’t even have the height channel anymore. What they did is boost the sound, make it sound really loud, with tons of bass. From the moment that laser-alignment-optimization crosscheck-trailer is running, you’re being hit by a wall of sound. I’ve been to plenty of 15/70 (aka real) IMAX presentations and the sound was never this loud. It doesn’t matter that the sound system itself is anything but sophisticated, people will remember that it was awfully cool, because it was freakin’ loud and you could feel it in your bones...
I will have to agree with you here, don't listen to Mike. The average person does not care about the technical aspects of "resolution" of a DCP. IMAX did get it right by making their product a very well marketed idea.
The average person will also never know that a surround or left channel was not working.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-03-2013, 11:19 AM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I will have to agree with you here, don't listen to Mike.
I'm actually not really disagreeing with Mike here and you don't to seem to disagree neither, at least not on this point. I think he roughly made the same observation I did: You can throw a lot of crap at average moviegoers before it's really getting back to you. He's running his own theater business, so I guess he's got some authority in this and some hands-on experience of situations were things didn't work out as planned, as he pointed out in his previous posts.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-03-2013, 12:13 PM:
I definitely agree on the "subtle" effect of something being "off" and people just don't get exactly what it is.
I also believe people are extremely adaptable and will "adjust" things in their mind to get the most satisfying experience out of what they're seeing/hearing. That's why you can go to a concert where the performer is a half mile away and still think you saw a great show, even though he was just a fly speck in the distance.
I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm not in favor of doing the very best presentation possible, even if people don't notice all the exact details of "why" it's good. The aim of the theater industry SHOULD be to have people exiting the movies going "wow, that was cool...what else can I see?" Sadly there are too many venues and companies that seem to have lost that aim.
Posted by Anhtu Vu (Member # 7689) on 07-07-2013, 02:51 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
You just proved in this paragraph that you don't know anything about the movie theater business. It's not a question of deciding what standard to accept. It's about showing what's available.
Mike...relax, take a pill my friend....This whole topic is about comparing the quality of a DCP to a bluray of same SAME film.
And i stand 200% bedind what i say....DCP vs Blu ray of the same film...DCP looks better by a mile, not even close.
I can't speak for everyone but, YES, one can draw the line as to what format is acceptable for screening and that's exactly what i did when i became in charge of our cinema room. Only DCP, HDcam SR and MOV/MXF file are accepted. The files must follow our very strict technical requirement. We do NOT take DVD or BLuRay.
Since establishing these norms, the quality and, especially reliability, of our projections improved dramatically. I've had nothing but praises from our clients.
quote: Mike Blakesley
One time I accidentally ran the 2-D version of a 3-D show and even then, out of a crowd of over 100 people we only got one complaint, and when we gave passes out at the end dozens of people said it looked fine to them.
Wow and you're proud of the fact that since nobody in your theater can see the difference you presume ALL movie goers are just as dumb and clueless ??? I guess it's because of assumptions such as these that projection qualities are going down the drain. We definitely have different standards!
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-07-2013, 03:13 PM:
I think several people need to take a chill pill.
With this mixture of self claiming sound and video "professionals" on here and ACTUAL theatre operators/managers - the point of this entire forum is to try and help each other - not to take swipes at each other.
Regarding the DCP/BLU-RAY debate:
We are in an interesting time. I say that because I am dealing with running older, "classic" films as of late. I have run both D.C.P. versions and Blu-Rays of various films. To be honest: Most of the older stuff that I am getting on D.C.P. from the film companies are simply converted Blu-Ray files. I, myself, have dabbled in converting Blu-Ray files into D.C.P.s and found it quite time consuming and annoying. If the Blu-Ray was poorly re-mastered, chances are the D.C.P. will look the same.
Here is the important thing regarding ALL presentations, regardless if they are Blu-Ray, D.C.P., DVD, or V.H.S. -SHOWMANSHIP . This is fast becoming a lost art. If I receive a Blu-Ray of a film that I am playing to a paying audience - I guran-damn-tee you they will NEVER know that it is a Blu-Ray. I go through an enormous amount of testing and set-up before the picture hits the screen. I am always certain that the audience is getting the best picture and sound that I can give them.
Anyways. That's my two cents..
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-07-2013, 04:29 PM:
quote: Anhtu Vu
Mike...relax, take a pill my friend....This whole topic is about comparing the quality of a DCP to a bluray of same SAME film.
Maybe you should also take one of them, or rather two...
quote: Anhtu Vu
And i stand 200% bedind what i say....DCP vs Blu ray of the same film...DCP looks better by a mile, not even close.
As has been pointed out here before:
1) It all depends on the source and the way the DCP or Blu-Ray has been done. There are plenty of examples of both being done wrong.
2) There are many people that will not know that you're showing them a Blu-Ray version. Maybe some people might notice the difference if you show them a DCP as a comparison, but usually, people don't get the privilege.
That being said, you should always try to give the audience the best possible presentation. If there is a DCP and that's better than the Blu-Ray, you obviously should go for the DCP. Also, DCPs are usually easier to play in most theater environments. That's why I've generated DCPs from Blu-Ray content. Note: that did not improve the actual quality in any way, rather the other way around, but I will assure you: nobody really noticed...
quote: Anhtu Vu
I can't speak for everyone but, YES, one can draw the line as to what format is acceptable for screening and that's exactly what i did when i became in charge of our cinema room. Only DCP, HDcam SR and MOV/MXF file are accepted. The files must follow our very strict technical requirement. We do NOT take DVD or BLuRay.
Besides from DVD, which usually contains just low res interlaced content which looks really ugly on decently sized screens, those other formats don't say shit about the quality of the actual contents. They're just container formats.
quote:
Wow and you're proud of the fact that since nobody in your theater can see the difference you presume ALL movie goers are just as dumb and clueless ??? I guess it's because of assumptions such as these that projection qualities are going down the drain. We definitely have different standards!
To the defense of Mike, no he obviously wasn't proud of it, it was a mistake and he pointed out that this is not the standard way he operates. He used this example to prove his point.
I've been to quite some shows that were messed up to some extend and nobody didn't seem to bother. I've once watched a reversed 3D show and nobody, even the people that worked there understood my issue.
So, it proves: A lot of moviegoers are rather "dumb and clueless", at least to a certain extend. That still is no reason to threat them that way:
- Even the "dumb and clueless" deserve to get the best possible presentation. Maybe they might not directly notice the difference, but I'm sure a bit will stick.
- There is a sufficient amount of moviegoers that does still care and know stuff, and a lot of them are frequent visitors.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-07-2013, 04:45 PM:
quote: Anhtu Vu
Mike...relax, take a pill my friend....This whole topic is about comparing the quality of a DCP to a bluray of same SAME film.
You just don't get it do you. My point is that A DCP IS NOT ALWAYS AVAILABLE. If you want to run a movie and you can't get a DCP you have to show a Blu-Ray, that's just all there is to it. Last year we had civic group who wanted a sponsored showing of Madagascar 3. The studio (stupidly, for sure) would not provide us a DCP but we played it on Blu-Ray, and the sponsors (and the kids) loved it. Would you have rather I said "Sorry, we can't get that in the premier format that we want to use, so you're screwed -- pick another movie, and by the way, it can't be a Disney."
quote:
quote: Mike BlakesleyOne time I accidentally ran the 2-D version of a 3-D show and even then, out of a crowd of over 100 people we only got one complaint, and when we gave passes out at the end dozens of people said it looked fine to them.
Wow and you're proud of the fact that since nobody in your theater can see the difference you presume ALL movie goers are just as dumb and clueless ??? I guess it's because of assumptions such as these that projection qualities are going down the drain. We definitely have different standards!
Where did I say I was proud of anything? You just keep proving over and over how naive you are about real people in real situations. If you read this forum at all, you should know that I'm as passionate about good projection (and good management) as anybody here.
First, you don't know how many people could see the difference. Very likely lots of people NOTICED there was a problem, they just didn't choose to say anything. We didn't get more complaints because most people here aren't complainers.
You apparently work in a specialized environment. I work in a real, normal, average (well actually, I think it's above average) movie theater in an average small town. As for people not knowing the difference...maybe they were so caught up in the movie they didn't know or care that things weren't flying at them.
Another possible reason we didn't get more complaints could be that our audience knows I'm there most every night making sure our presentation is as top-notch as possible. If something is a little off they just assume it will be taken care of, because in the vast majority of situations, that's what happens.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-08-2013, 12:06 AM:
Of course DCP will usually look better than Blu-rays, especially when it comes to image compression. Obviously this varies DCP to DCP and BD to BD, but I think it also depends on how well your projector is set up. The better it's set up, the more you'll notice the difference. But still, it would be fun to do blind tests with some people in this thread. Throw them in an auditorium, start playing some vidya and say "Tell me if this is Blu-ray or DCP if you want to live". Of course 9 times out of 10 they'll think it's a trick question and guess Blu-ray. But it would be silly to say that ALL DCP beats out ALL Blu-rays 100% of the time.
By the way, what the hell is up with Warner Bros? Why do they compress more? Do they feel by creating smaller DCPs that they are saving on shipping charges or something? "Well our movie is several gigabytes smaller than other movies of comparable length so it should weigh less and cost less to ship!"
quote: Anhtu Vu
And i stand 200% behind what i say.
That's impossible unless you clone yourself. It's like asking someone to give 110%. Can't be done because no matter how much they give, they'll always need to give 10% more than that. How cruel.
quote: Anhtu Vu
relax, take a pill my friend
quote: Dennis Benjamin
I think several people need to take a chill pill.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Maybe you should also take one of them, or rather two...
It's like I'm at a party and strange people are pushing new drugs I've never heard of to everyone.
Also, home sound mixes are almost always, according to our good friend F, remixed with idiotic near-field mixes. This should not be blamed on DTSHDMA or the fact that it's coming from a Blu-ray. F says that the studio personnel care super-hard about creating just the right home viewing experience so they make the sound engineers muck with things. Not to bring up an old argument, but they really don't care. That much is obvious. My point is that Blu-ray could be better than it is in many ways. But it's still not the ideal format.
Also, how many of your automations can handle a Blu-ray in a playlist complete with trailers, etc... playing it right from the start of the movie? No FBI warnings, no menus, no other nonsense several shows per day with minimal to no human interaction. To my knowledge, only one automation can do this.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-08-2013, 01:11 AM:
quote:
By the way, what the hell is up with Warner Bros? Why do they compress more? Do they feel by creating smaller DCPs that they are saving on shipping charges or something? "Well our movie is several gigabytes smaller than other movies of comparable length so it should weigh less and cost less to ship!"
Less bits is less weight, didn't you know? . But, maybe they try to save on bandwidth cost here for stuff like satellite distribution? Or maybe they're just ignorant?
quote: Joe Redifer
It's like I'm at a party and strange people are pushing new drugs I've never heard of to everyone.
Want some? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2013, 11:19 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I guess that Bobby was pointing at the fact that for example the maximum bitrate of the Dolby Digital AC-3 stream for DVD content is 448 kbit/s, whereas the 35mm version is stuck at a maximum of 320 kbit/s.
Let's not forget Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-ray are typically encoded at the maximum bit rate of 640kb/s. I can't remember if the dead HD-DVD format treated Dolby Digital the same way or dropped it to 448kb/s. The Dolby Digital Plus format could run at higher bit rates (up to 6.1Mb/s) as well as the low bit rates typical of Dolby Digital. Dolby TrueHD is lossless; IIRC it is derived from the Meridian Lossless Packing "MLP" format that was also used on the DVD Audio music format.
quote: Anhtu Vu
I can't speak for everyone but, YES, one can draw the line as to what format is acceptable for screening and that's exactly what i did when i became in charge of our cinema room. Only DCP, HDcam SR and MOV/MXF file are accepted. The files must follow our very strict technical requirement. We do NOT take DVD or BLuRay.
If you're going to turn up your nose at Blu-ray media why are you willing to accept .MOV or .MXF files? Video files in .MOV or .MXF can contain or be sourced from the very same kind of MPEG-4 AVC material commonly used on Blu-ray movie discs. If I shoot 1080p/24 video on my Canon 5D Mark II camera the MPEG-4 AVC encoded video file is stored in a .MOV wrapper. Additionally any .MOV file could be even more severely data compressed than the encode used on a Blu-ray. That's particularly true of something meant to be streamed across the Internet rather than distributed on a physical disc.
The primary reason why I would avoid Blu-ray disc use in a commercial theater booth comes down to the movie being difficult to cue and play quickly. Video compression levels on Blu-ray are typically more harsh and severe than what is used on DCP. But movies on DCP can be harshly compressed as well. The limitations in the still image based JPEG 2000 format don't allow file sizes to be squeezed down so much without costly image quality loss. So it's indeed possible for a 50GB movie on DCP to actually look worse than its AVC-based version on Blu-ray.
quote: Joe Redifer
By the way, what the hell is up with Warner Bros? Why do they compress more? Do they feel by creating smaller DCPs that they are saving on shipping charges or something?
My theory: it's an outdated "always do this in this way" policy handed down to employees from on high by some executive not bright enough in technical terms to know better.
Warner Bros. has been doing this low bit rate stuff since the 1990s. On DVD it was common for them to encode MPEG-2 SD video really low and encode the DD 5.1 tracks at 384kb/s while the other major studios were using higher video bit rates and DD 5.1 tracks at 448kb/s. WB has lots of BD-50 movie discs that would fit on a 30GB HD-DVD platter even though many of those movies were authored to BD years after the HD-DVD format died. In my early exposure to D-cinema I was used to seeing movie file sizes around 200GB. Then some WB movie comes in weighing only 60GB. I was left thinking "wtf, is that even possible?"
Satellite distribution is a good excuse for using smaller file sizes and maybe even true video compression formats like MPEG-4 AVC (hopefully at a higher bit rate at least typical of Blu-ray quality). But I think the encode-compression policy at Warner Bros. runs deeper than that. It seems like an ideology there: more compressed=better.
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-10-2013, 03:37 PM:
I did a bunch of research on this back in the day, which I posted on our site: Dolby Digital Sound on Blu-ray and HD DVD Explained
quote:
On DVD, Dolby Digital is limited to a bit rate of 448 kbps. Blu-ray is capable of transporting Dolby Digital at a bit rate of 640 kbps. (By comparison, Dolby Digital in movie theaters is limited to 320 kbps) On HD DVD, it is limited to a slightly higher bit rate of 504 kbps.
On Blu-ray, a Dolby Digital soundtrack is mandatory, while Dolby Digital Plus is optional. If a Blu-ray disc has a Dolby Digital Plus or Dolby TrueHD bitstream, there will also be a Dolby Digital track to ensure downward compatibility.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2