| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | What's with language. That does not re-inforce whatever point you are trying to make.  for you. | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
|
| Registered: May 14, 2007 | | Posts: 455 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Prof. Kingsfield: Quote:
I am with those that have said, good thought, BUT there are far bigger and more important fish to fry FIRST, some of which have been waiting for years. Well said. Oh what a can of worms that has been opened. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 85 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks for the supportive and additional ideas. I'm sure they will trickle into an update to DVD Profiler. Please keep considering what would be important to amend to the Video details, it's not about giving higher or lower priority to these updates in the grander scheme of desired and needed changes to DVD Profiler. I really believe in the importance of bringing the Video details "to time".
An oversight on my behalf: 3D for home cinema will make use of H.264/MPEG-4/MVC (Multiview Video Coding), which will be backwards compatible with 2D-screens and -players because it simply ignores the information in the second channel. The catch? MVC needs, logically, about 50% more storage room for the second channel which brings down the visual quality of your 2D presentation compared to the blu-ray disc (if BD50) without 3D counterpart. In that way I would prefer a 3D presentation to be available on an éxtra disc. | | | | Last edited: by MatrixTom |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Keep in mind most movies don't actually fill the disc. |
|
| Registered: May 9, 2007 |  Posts: 1,536 |
| | Posted: | | | | So we need a field to track the amount of empty space on the disc?  | | | | Hans |
|
| Registered: December 10, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,004 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote:
So we need a field to track the amount of empty space on the disc? No, I'm just saying 3D won't necessarily cause a loss in quality. The ultimate cut of Watchmen is upward of three and a half hours and looks fine. No 3D movies are anywhere near that length. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Staid S Barr: Quote:
So we need a field to track the amount of empty space on the disc? I wouldn't put it past them. ROFL | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 85 |
| | Posted: | | | | The yea's have it  I can imagine many would like to see at least "stereoscopic 3D" to be included today, in whatever form. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | Although I have zero blu-rays, I see the point of including a field "progressive/interlaced". There are a lot of dvd/br companies that don't know the difference, put the wrong specifications on the cover (or none at all), or (zee vorst krime of zem all) release interlaced versions of movies that have perfectly fine 1080p HD-masters. As the regular blu-ray contributors on this forum are quite the derriere-ly retentive bunch  , the accuracy from this database would be higher than yer average retailerwebsite (amazon, play, bol.com, frs.nl). |
|
| Registered: March 19, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 6,018 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think that resolution and progressive/interlaced are the most urgent ones for Blu-ray (it could be set automatically for NTSC and PAL DVDs, respectively).
To have the codec would be nice, but I can live without it.
2 vs. 3D will - I think - most likely already be expressed in the Edition field (although perhaps not always). OAR would be very useful to have, but might not always be easy to trace.
Colouring: yes please! |
|