QueenZone discussion #576080
Queen, DVD-Audio...and then Blu-Ray? (long post ahead!)
| inu-liger 29.06.2005 05:39 |
WARNING: Steel yourself, this is valid I know everyone knows about the two DVD-Audio releases of ANATO and The Game, so I won't go into discussion on those two. But I thought of something interesting: With the advent of Blu-Ray in the near-future, do you think that Queen (or Brian and Roger) would re-mix their albums in high definition surround sound? I'm not saying that the current DTS 96/24 technology sounds bad - in fact, it sounds awesome on a full-blown surround sound system! But I thought I would post some technical specs for something coming up in the very near future, specifically Blu-Ray, and to begin with... DTS 96/24 and normal DTS both use the same bitrate of 1.524Mbps, so there's not too much special anything about the 96/24 version of DTS, other than it using special algorithms in the data to tell certain home theatre receivers/decoders to enhance the audio using special filters (as far as I know; I've never officially read DTS Entertainment's specs on the technology itself, as I don't really like reading specs for anything, let alone a manual even, so I'm sort of exaggerating here). And with current DVD standards, Dolby Digital can only go up as high as 448kbps, which is nowhere even near DTS, and certainly much more compressing than DTS (hence Brian's decision not to include Dolby Digital options on Queen's DVD releases). Well, that's going to change with Blu-Ray (and HD-DVD as well, if I am not mistaken, though I refuse to support the DVD Forum on their HD-DVD technology, since it is practically already inferior to Blu-Ray). Newly released specs / white papers have recently listed the required and optional audio formats for Blu-Ray (while virtually no specs exists for HD-DVD, so I can't comment there). While DTS and Dolby Digital are included, there are new versions of the two that have been developed specifically for high definition audio to go along with the high definition video (which itself can be encoded with any of the 3 HD codecs created for the format itself!), along with the PPCM (or MLP) technology which I believe was previously limited to DVD-Audio. The specs for the new (and current) Dolby Digital and DTS codecs are as follows: DTS - 5.1 (48/24 & 96/24) - 1.524Mbps DTS-HD - 8 channel (48kHz & 96kHz) and 6 channel (192kHz) - 24.5Mbps Dolby Digital - 5.1 - 640kbps Dolby Digital Plus - 7.1 - 4.736Mbps Dolby Lossless - 8 channel (48kHz & 96kHz) and 6 channel (192kHz) - 18.64Mbps LPCM - 8 channel (48kHz & 96kHz) and 6 channel (192kHz) - 27.648Mbps And that concludes the list. So basically, to highlight a few points: -DTS will still rule when it comes to sound quality and performance, due to their higher bitrate (as opposed to Dolby; it strikes me as strange that Dolby didn't make their specs higher than DTS, as they are rivals with DTS Entertainment. Huh) -Dolby now introduces a frequency higher than 48kHz for the first time in any of their codecs and products (previously, the only frequencies for encoding were 32, 44.1 and 48 kHz) -These will be backwards compatible with current home theatre systems by special down-conversion, so as to not turn people off (who don't want to end up buying a whole new system all over again) And how this could apply to Queen is that, since Blu-Ray is almost ready to come out later this year, Brian and Justin Shirley-Smith could mix their future 5.1 surround sound releases in even higher definition, and not just that, but also in 7.1 too, which would personally excite me. And not just that, but along with DTS, they COULD also employ the Dolby Digital Plus and the Dolby Lossless codec options as well, so that people WON'T have to gripe about not being able to play their DVD's because of lack of Dolby Digital options. Of course, at the same time, since we KNOW how much Queen Productions like to recycle things over and over again, they could, while they're at it, re-releas |
| Mr Drowse 29.06.2005 07:27 |
Can't think, can't talk, my head's full. :( |
| Fenderek 29.06.2005 08:16 |
I don't know- I just want them to do those albums in DTS 5.1 a bit quicker than they do... :) Just want ADATR this Xmas! :) |
| Adam Baboolal 29.06.2005 09:19 |
I'm sorry but it sounds like you think that bigger is better! I don't care for -the next big thing- to come along. We already have formats to work with and that's DVD-A and Sony's Super Audio Cd. If people like cds and ignore those above mentioned formats what's the chance of Blu-ray being any different! I think it's too over the top to really handle this new bluray technology. Too early and too expensive too, I'm sure. As for your snubbing of HD-DVD, I find that a little bit like jumping the gun. I'm also guessing you never heard the news that they were in talks to come together? Unfortunately, that has ended - link Sony wanting to avoid another betamax/vhs type war?! Yeah right. Hasn't stopped them in the past. Peace, Adam. |
| john bodega 29.06.2005 11:42 |
I just want GHIII. |
| Adam Baboolal 29.06.2005 14:48 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I just want GHIII.Here, here! |
| Penetration_Guru 29.06.2005 14:53 |
I said at least a year ago that if they didn't get a move on the format would be outdated and they'd have to start again. But I didn't abuse anybody, so it went unnoticed... |
| danielbuzz69 29.06.2005 18:59 |
Adam Baboolal wrote: Sony wanting to avoid another betamax/vhs type war?! Yeah right. Hasn't stopped them in the past. Peace, Adam.True True Sony are forever going their own way with things. Mini Disc, Memory Stick, Blue Ray, UMD to name but a few. They also have their own compression for music file downloads ATRAC? I can't quite remember the name. Sony is just a power hungry company. I'm all for Technology moving forward but I think our current formats still have alot of life left in them |
| inu-liger 29.06.2005 19:00 |
Barry © wrote: Dark have you heard about a DVD system they tested, 4 layers on the DVD that holds 100GB?Yes. That is Blu-Ray technology there, not DVD technology. If I remember correctly (you can actually check it out at link ), they're going to introduce these discs as early as 2008. The advantage of Blu-Ray over DVD and HD-DVD is that the ultra-violet laser technology allows for multi-layered discs, as opposed to the red laser DVD technology, which only allows up to two layers at most. (Although the developers of HD-DVD have announced a triple-layered disc for that format, which I will discuss later in this post) So in the future, many layers can be added to the discs. The only limits is how thick the disc itself is, in terms of space that can hold the layers. And the (main) reasons I'm snubbing HD-DVD in favour of Blu-Ray are as follows: 1) Blu-Ray is designed right off the spot to be both a consumer video and data format, AND a recordable & recordable re-write for the purpose of recording HDTV content at even higher bitrates than is necessarily needed at least to record the content from certain HDTV providers and services. Not just that, but dual-layered discs ARE included for recording and commercial purposes as well, something that HD-DVD has not announced yet. The DVD Forum, which is developing HD-DVD, said that there will NOT be any dual-layered recordable media for their format developed (which doesn't surprise me, since they've screwed up so many things in the past...), but that there will only be a single-layered recordable disc made available for recording on. Unlike the Blu-Ray developers, they seem to have no interest in making good discs to record high definition content on. Which brings me to point #2: 2) Blu-Ray currently has 3 sizes, GB wise, for each of the single and dual-layer disc types. The single discs range from 23GB to 27GB, while the dual-layer discs are exactly double that (something DVD was never meant to be able to achieve), so in other words, the dual-layer discs can go up to 54GB at most for now, until the quadruple-layered 100GB discs are made ready to mass produce a few years from now. HD-DVD on the other hand, have only one size for all 3 versions of their disc (layer wise). The single layer discs, which I need remind you will be the ONLY type be also made available for a recordable format, are 15GB, while the dual-layered and triple-layered discs are 30GB and 45GB respectively, so the last two barely go above the single layered Blu-Ray discs. Now, I should bring up a couple of points: 1) HD-DVD will be slightly cheaper to mass produce, since the current DVD replicators apparently only need some "tweaking", while Blu-Ray will need some money invested upfront to set up more replicator lines, so Blu-Ray might have a disadvantage there, even though they intend to keep costs within near that of current DVD production costs (hopefully our gov't's won't levy the discs by per GB...) 2) But on the other hand, the Blu-Ray Disc Association has many more times the number of companies and movie studios for members supporting the format, which include Sony (as mentioned above), Walt Disney / Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Apple, 20th Century Fox, and many more. (Complete list is available at link under Supporting Companies), so there's an even more huge advantage for Blu-Ray, since the DVD Forum only have literally a few members supporting their HD-DVD disc format. And another point to add to the above: People are actually more informed about Blu-Ray because all the public official specs are AVAILABLE online at the Blu-Ray Disc Association website (linked above), while the DVD Forum website has nary an obvious link to anything information-wise on the HD-DVD format. The only thing I know personally is that HD-DVD might use the |
| Fenderek 30.06.2005 04:50 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: But I didn't abuse anybody, so it went unnoticed...LMAO |
| Adam Baboolal 30.06.2005 10:40 |
Maybe I'm on my own here, but... who cares? These things are so far down the line that us Queen fans needn't get excited about releases for the two reasons I highlighted: 1. Too expensive for a good while after release and... 2. We fans are too clever and realise that the Queen footage can never look that much better on these new formats! You see, Dvd is fine for a lot of people. Only the die-hards need apply for the newer formats. I can't get excited about these things unless we're talking about using bluray consumer discs for backing up my data on home computers, e.g. video and audio projects. Past that, dvd will suffice for my home video footage. And films? Dvd will be fine for that too. There's only so much scaling and higher bitrate explosions they can make before it's hard to see the difference (point). And for music? No chance. None at all. Sorry. :P Peace, Adam. |
| drowsy 30.06.2005 10:56 |
I'd like to make a serious, intelligent, valid point..... However my eyes have glazed over with all the techno talk and I have only a vague idea what you're actusally talking about, Inu-liger, sorry. (I also apologise for bothering to write such an irrelevant and pointless post) |
| inu-liger 30.06.2005 22:32 |
Adam, I should point out that it is way more than "a few extra megabytes" as you suggested (or at least implied). Compared to DVD, which can go up to a maximum of 9.8Mbps, Blu-Ray can go up to 40Mbps alone for the video! So there's at least an increase of 4 times in quality alone! And HDTV only broadcasts about little over 20Mbps, so if that alone looks great on its own, imagine what Blu-Ray will do for movie film releases (especially those shot on 33mm film)! |
| inu-liger 30.06.2005 22:36 |
Plus I should point out as well that Queen COULD have made their DVD releases look at least a little bit better looking if they DIDN'T use the low bitrate of approx. 5.36Mbps for all their official DVD releases (except LATB, which uses a slightly higher bitrate surprisingly) Even the WWRY DVD, which Queen don't own, looks WAY better than the GVH1/2 DVD's, and that DVD was shot using the same format (film) as most of Queen's videos. And THAT DVD uses about little over 7Mbps for the bitrate. If you want the exact numbers for all the DVD's I mentioned, just let me know. |