Transformer review: 30GB not enough

[navychop]

From this article, which is generally favorable to Transformers:

When audio specs for 'Transformers' were announced, there was a collective sigh of disappointment from early adopters when we learned that there would be no high-res audio tracks included on this disc. Given that this is such a flagship title for the studio, the decision was quite the head-scratcher.

Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.

Still, even with no high def audio, the reviewer gave it top marks for AQ and seemed quite pleased with the audio as is. Makes you wonder- does he see no value in the higher levels of audio quality? He left no space for better grades.

 

[vurbano]

Apparently there is enough space for great audio. DVDtalk just gave the movie 5/5 stars. I realize you bluebloods are pissed over transformers, but this is scraping the bottom of the barrell. Besides what good would great audio do for transformers on BD when you couldnt hear it over the noise of the PS3 fan?

 

[ONUOsFan]

I honestly couldn't care less about Transformers... but I do find it interesting that there are already space concerns with HD-DVD... it's pretty early in it's life cycle for that.

 

[vurbano]

I honestly couldn't care less about Transformers... but I do find it interesting that there are already space concerns with HD-DVD... it's pretty early in it's life cycle for that.

How are there space concerns when they are pumping out perfect PQ and AQ movies?

 

[Paradox-SJ]

Why is DD+ not considered HD Audio?

 

[vurbano]

Why is DD+ not considered HD Audio?

It is, this is just a line out of an article cherry picked by a disgruntled BD fanboy and blown up into some hair brained criticism.

 

[berck]

It is, this is just a line out of an article cherry picked by a disgruntled BD fanboy and blown up into some hair brained criticism.

From the article...

Note that although I'm giving this audio mix five stars, that doesn't mean I agree with Paramount's decision to forgo high-res audio on this title. Without a TrueHD or PCM mix to compare this one to, there's no way of telling how much better such a track might have been, but based on the upgrade I've seen with other titles, I'm guessing a high-res mix could well have trounced this one. That's not to take anything away from this truly exceptional mix, but this is one case where I think you truly can improve upon perfection.

 

[teachsac]

Besides Paramount and Universal have never used a lossless track. There is a lot of interactivity and cool features on this title. Let's see BD do that. Oh yeah, I forgot.

S~

 

[chicagofilms]

But it does bring up an interesting point. If Transformers has to cut corners, forget about movies like LoTR. Before you know it HD-DVD movies will be spanning 2 discs, just for the movie.

 

[chicagofilms]

Besides Paramount and Universal have never used a lossless track. There is a lot of interactivity and cool features on this title. Let's see BD do that. Oh yeah, I forgot.

S~

Does anyone actually use all these ballyhooed interactive features? I never have so much as used a weblink on a DVD. The only feature I've ever used (and often do) is commentary tracks. I'd prefer to have a better A/V experience watching the actual film than bells and whistles.

 

[diogen]

Why is DD+ not considered HD Audio?

DD+ at 1.5Mbps - exactly what Transformers uses - has been claimed by mixing professionals
to be as close to lossless in multichannel movie soundtrack implementation as it gets.
AVS Forum - View Single Post - Industry Insiders Master Q&A thread IV: ONLY Questions to Insiders

My experience has been that DD+ at 1.5 is transparent to the master.

Bitching about the absense of a lossless track is nothing but Blu-boys' talking points...

Diogen.

 

[vurbano]

Stop the FUD, From a post at AVSforum

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z
Again, how do you know that it "would kill the DD+ track"?

A professional Hollywood sound mixer has posted on this forum that DD+ at the 1509 kb/s bit rate (the one Paramount uses) is audibly transparent to the master.

I'll take the word of an experienced professional film sound mixer over some random anonymous dude on the internet any day.

Josh Z is think about ...

"FilmMixer" (Film Sound and Post Production Insider - Re-Recording Mixer, Hollywood, CA.) AVS Insider ...

... ONE such person that has compared the ...

1) Master
vs.
2) Lossless THD encode
vs.
3) 1.5 DD+ encode


... and he wrote ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer
AVS thread post #480

But I would be a fool and a liar if I told you that I could discern the difference between the master, a lossless THD encode and a 1.5 DD+ encode 9 times out of 10, even with my own tracks. That's why "just good enough" does it for me and I spend my energy on more important issues (like trying to save theatrical presentation from getting any worse than it is.)
__________________
Film Sound and Post Production Insider

Re-Recording Mixer, Hollywood, CA.

Let's examine AVS Insider "FilmMixer" for a second ...

1) He Is A Professional Film Mixer
.... a) Mixed around 90 films

2) Has 8+ years of experience with master films at 24/48 (digital films)!!!
.... a) Including "We Were Soldiers" (DD+ - DVDTalk HD Audio 5 stars)

3) He Has Far Superior electronics - than we own and could ever hope for

4) He has Far Superior Studio Monitors - than we own and could ever hope for

5) He has Far Superior Optimum Sonic Mixing Studio - which I know that none of us have!!! ...

... and based on the above 5-Points, ... Logic dictates that I would certainly take HIS WORDS as verbatim vs. some self-proclaimed audio expert who is nothing more that a HT consumer hobbiest.

He brings out another very good point in an earlier post ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer
AVS thread post #470

Unless you have heard the originals, or compared the master to a lossless encode to a lossy encode, all of these complaints are moot. Even if you are striving for the best absolute presentation possible.

AVS'ers get way too caught up on specs, with out any real practical experience, and that is what this thread is really for.

One of the titles that really changed my mind in the lossy vs. lossless debate was "Dreamgirls." I had heard the original masters on the mixing stage, and I can tell you that the HD DVD was pretty spectacular.

And even, as some point out, this is a "paper war backed on specs," the fact is that even if Paramount/DW was still in the BR camp, the BR release would probably only include a 640 DD track and no internet enabled features, so the spec war, IMHO, would still "favor" the HD DVD on this title alone, based on DW/Paramount's past performance.

My Amazon Status = Shipment #1: Shipping Soon!!! Can't wait to Watch My Paramount EXCLUSIVE "Transformers" HD DVD tomorrow night!!!

Phil

 

[ONUOsFan]

But it does bring up an interesting point. If Transformers has to cut corners, forget about movies like LoTR. Before you know it HD-DVD movies will be spanning 2 discs, just for the movie.

Exactly the point... the argument isn't whether they were able to get quality on this disc that was just as good as a lossless track could have been, it's why did they have to make the choice, and what does that mean for future releases?

 

[diogen]

Wasting 5 Mbps (6.5 vs. 1.5 for PCM and DD+, respectively) to appease the few that claim to hear the difference?

If you have the bandwidth (and can't use DD+, it's not mandatory!) - go ahead. But claiming it "enriches the movie experience" would be a stretch...

Diogen.

 

[navychop]

Why is DD+ not considered HD Audio?

Because DD 5.1+ is not 7.1.

 

[chicagofilms]

Wasting 5 Mbps (6.5 vs. 1.5 for PCM and DD+, respectively) to appease the few that claim to hear the difference?

If you have the bandwidth (and can't use DD+, it's not mandatory!) - go ahead. But claiming it "enriches the movie experience" would be a stretch...

Diogen.

It still doesn't bode well for future releases of movies that are bigger/longer than Transformers.

This is supposed to be the next gen format. "30GB is PLENTY of room!" And on one of the first highly anticipated titles, it had to make sacrifices. With an extra 20GB, they could have put PCM or one of the HD audio formats on there as well as DD and let us decide what really sounds better for ourselves. I own many DVDs and when I've played the DD track vs. DTS, I can usually tell an immediate difference while some of my friends can not. Does that mean there is no market for DTS?

IMO, it would be like releasing the film in 720p and then saying "It still looks amazing, and better than any DVD. You're not going to be able to tell the difference since your TV will upconvert to 1080p anyway." I know many people that still can't tell if something is HD or not but that doesn't mean there is no difference.

If I buy a 1080 TV, I want a 1080 source. Likewise, if I have the audio gear (and yes, I have the keen ears to go with it) to do 7.1 DTS-HD and TrueHD, I want the audio to use it as well.

 

[chicagofilms]

Because DD 5.1+ is not 7.1.

Thanks, forgot to mention that too.

DD 5.1 = 5.1 discreet channels
DD 7.1 = 5.1 discreet channels and 2 matrixed channels (like old pro-logic)
DTSES = 7.1 discreet channels
TrueHD = 7.1 discreet channels
DTS-HD = 7.1 discreet channels

So yet another flaw, they had to drop 2 channels of audio in addition to merely ditching HD audio.

 

[bsk116]

From this article, which is generally favorable to Transformers:

When audio specs for 'Transformers' were announced, there was a collective sigh of disappointment from early adopters when we learned that there would be no high-res audio tracks included on this disc. Given that this is such a flagship title for the studio, the decision was quite the head-scratcher.

Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.

Still, even with no high def audio, the reviewer gave it top marks for AQ and seemed quite pleased with the audio as is. Makes you wonder- does he see no value in the higher levels of audio quality? He left no space for better grades.

Hey Navy, I think you hit diogen and vurbano's nerve and did it without swearing and name calling

 

[bsk116]

Hey Navy, I think you hit diogen and vurbano's nerve and did it without swearing and name calling

Oh, and don't forget to list all of your blu-ray hardware and software on ebay, after all, beatboy says the format war is over now that 'Transformers' is available.

 

[navychop]

Hey Navy, I think you hit diogen and vurbano's nerve and did it without swearing and name calling

Yeah. Imagine that.