What determines which video codecs a movie/tv company will use on a bluray?

[yoda313]

Same question for audio.

Why would a company use mpeg2 versus avc/h264 versus vc1?

Are there different licensing concerns with the different codecs?

Is it easier to encode using high def mpeg2 than any of the other formats?

And for audio is dts-ma more expensive to produce for then dolby true hd? What about the costs for pcm-lossless?

Are they all pretty much the same when it comes down to it and its a personal preference for the studio in question? Or are various codecs more suitable for something like say high action flicks versus dramas and stuff?

Edit - also how common is dolby digital at 640kpbs on blurays? I saw it on my tmnt 1 bluray disc - it was the main audio track. ITs the pressed original and it shows as dolby digital but doesn't show up as truehd. Does truehd have to be in the 1+mb/s range to be truehd?

[fritzi93]

I don't have any answers, but here are a few observations:

1) Early on, catalog releases were much more likely to be MPEG2. I haven't seen any recent releases in MPEG2, back catalog or otherwise. Not that there aren't any, but I haven't seen any. I would guess that to just get an old title out quickly, MPEG2 was the natural choice, being more familiar. Lots of those early transfers were no great shakes anyway. MPEG2 is of course less efficient than the other allowable codecs.
2) You used to see LPCM multi-channel pretty often on catalog releases.
3) If memory serves, I've seen a number of Blu-rays with LPCM *and* AC3 640 kbs for the main audio. Catalog releases again, mostly.

Seems to me that AVC is used more often than VC-1, whereas it used to be more equal a few years ago. New releases are going to have DTS-MA or TrueHD.

[Cornucopia]

Agree w/ fritzi93. MPEG2 for backward compatibility. AVC for technological efficiency. VC-1 because of politics. It's FASTER to encode MPEG2 (even 2pass) than the others.
There are also licensing/royalty costs (though those are usually subsidized in the cost of encoders, and fees paid to pressing plant).

For audio, it has a LOT to do with the amount of feautres designed in vs. bit-budget concerns, plus availability of assets.

With few exceptions, these are all reviewed and decided upon independently beginning (and subsequently throughout) EACH title project. Kind of like: what are we going to include in this month's issue of XXXX magazine?

Scott

[jman98]

On BluRay I mostly see MPEG-2 used today when DVD content is ported as is directly into a BluRay. Extras, for example, are often in MPEG-2. As fritzi93 pointed out AVC and VC-1 are more efficient (better quality at lower bit rates than MPEG-2) but you could use MPEG-2 if you want.

I think that LPCM was used early on because there were some issues either with playback support for HD audio or that the encoders were hard to get for those doing the authoring. I don't remember which it was.

Dolby ran roughshod over DTS in the DVD days by getting the standard to make AC3 support absolutely 100% required and DTS to be an optional "can't be the ONLY audio track on the disc" kind of thing with ZERO requirement for players to support DTS at all. BD standards mandate that Dolby and DTS HD audio codecs MUST without exception be fully supported by all players. DTS-MA has won the audio wars for BD discs. There is no doubt about that. Current major Hollywood releases will almost always have DTS-MA audio as the public apparently perceives this as higher quality, even though lossless is lossless so TrueHD can't be inferior to DTS-MA.

VC-1 seems to be a bit tricky to encode with as you have to deal with Microsoft, which is a bit of a pain. Microsoft has done about as bad a job as possible in making it convenient and easy to use VC-1. I have the impression (so I could be wrong) that cost is not really an issue with using VC-1 but that it's just hard to find tools that support it.

I truly don't know, but I would guess that DTS-MA is more expensive than TrueHD which is more expensive than LPCM.

I don't think AC3 at 640 is very common on BD discs, but it's certainly valid to use it. Based on the posts here some members of the public are already convinced that ANYTHING that doesn't say DTS is absolute garbage and they act like 640 Kbps AC3 is like making them listen to 64 Kbps MP3 sampled at 22 KHz or lower. People in general are pretty stupid when it comes to audio and there's a lot of BS you have to wade through, like the whole vinylphile idiot thing where those sad and pathetic people, a few of whom post here, are convinced that EVERYTHING that isn't vinyl is just trash. There are businesses who make a living selling ridiculously expensive tube amplifiers, record cleaners, and so on to support the vinyl idiots. So DTS-MA won the BD battle because the general public apparently perceives it to be of higher quality than TrueHD, even though it isn't and cannot be. This gets into the old issue of tests showing that louder sounds get perceived by people to be of higher quality than the exact same sound at a lower volume.

640 Kbps isn't a high enough value to support lossless audio. I don't know the exact amount necessary, but I'm sure it's over 1 Mbps as you suspect.

You may end up getting a few amusing responses to my post now that I've thrown down the bait for the DTS and vinyl lovers.

[Brad]

Since LPCM is plain uncompressed audio, it's the only video or audio format on Blu-ray unencumbered by licensing and patents. But the bitrates are massive wastes compared to lossless.

[Hikmet]

640 Kbps isn't a high enough value to support lossless audio. I don't know the exact amount necessary, but I'm sure it's over 1 Mbps as you suspect.

Actually, 1509 kbps DTS is compressed format and this is data lossed format, but human ear cannot understand this loss.

And, 640 kbps for 7+1 sounds equal to 160 kbps and 640 kbps 5+1 sounds equal to 212 kbps stereo sounds and this is acceptable quality audio and most people cannot understand this data loss.

This based for disc management and maybe sometimes licence problems. If you have most data, but less space or you want write this most data only one disc, then use H264 and AC3 or less bitrate DTS. I think, most people cannot happy 160 kbps stereo or 640 kbps multi-channel audio, because this is not a physiology situation, this is a psychologic situation.

My some friends never happy always. Example, for video games, buy most performance computer, video and audio card, but still cannot happy. Because, they are always only think technical issues and miss entertainment factor. This is a psychologic situation and hasn't a solution this issue.

Some amplificator outputs most quality for DTS, because this amplies makes for DTS audio standarts and DTS audios always good than other formats on this amplies.

[Ronaldinho]

I hope I'm not going too off-topic with this question, but, here goes...

Is it true that MKV does not support the VC-1 codec? And if so, does that mean that if I bought a blu-ray disc that was VC-1 encoded, then I wouldn't be able to rip it with MakeMKV? Because this is something I'm actually planning on doing...

Also, I don't know anywhere near as much about video and audio as most people do here, but I don't understand why movie companies would use anything else but H.264... Isn't it the best there is?

[yoda313]

@fritzi and cornucopia - thanks.

I seem to remember that my Final Fantasy the spirits within bluray having uncompressed and it was an early bluray - well one of the first I bought. I can't remember if it had mpeg 2 or not.

I'm fairly certain that my first generation Stargate movie bluray was mpeg2 and that was a relatively early bluray release too (the first edition bluray of the Kurt Russell movie not the anniversary re-release that I don't have yet and not sure I will get it).

It would seem to make sense that simple familiarity would have made hd mpeg2 a winner in the early days of bluray. That and lpcm without any licensing issues though as has been mentioned definitely a space waster.

VC-1 seems to be a bit tricky to encode with as you have to deal with Microsoft, which is a bit of a pain. Microsoft has done about as bad a job as possible in making it convenient and easy to use VC-1. I have the impression (so I could be wrong) that cost is not really an issue with using VC-1 but that it's just hard to find tools that support it.

Thats interesting. I am nearly certain both the Michael Bay transformers movies and the Matrix movies are vc1 - Matrix for sure I'd have to double check my transformers movies. I don't know how many others of my movies are vc1 but I don't think its that many.

I don't think AC3 at 640 is very common on BD discs, but it's certainly valid to use it. Based on the posts here some members of the public are already convinced that ANYTHING that doesn't say DTS is absolute garbage----------------
640 Kbps isn't a high enough value to support lossless audio. I don't know the exact amount necessary, but I'm sure it's over 1 Mbps as you suspect.

I guess the question that this brings up than is it really hd audio? Is simply being higher than 448kpbs that is used on dvds enough to make it hd? Or is this particular set (I'm referring to the 3 live action TMNT blurays that came in a 3 pack not the 4 pack box set that included the recent cgi movie with Patrick Stewart from a few years ago) not really hd audio?

Whats the threshold for hd audio or is it not so much a matter of bitrate but mastering? So technically speaking if its mastering could you really have hd audio at 448kpbs and it simply wouldn't be dvd compatible because of the audio codec not simply having a compliant bitrate?

640 Kbps isn't a high enough value to support lossless audio. I don't know the exact amount necessary, but I'm sure it's over 1 Mbps as you suspect.

So I guess it kind of bumps into my earlier question - is bitrate the necessary component for "hd" audio or is it the mastering? Can it be done at lower bitrates below 1mpbs?

I'd have to check out those discs again and compare it to something like my transformers disc and star trek discs which are dolby true hd and the tmnt 640 discs and any with dtsma on it. See what the bitrates are across the board.

Edit - oh and by the way the hd audio questions are pure curiosity. As I have mentioned before I still only have an sd digital audio amp. So this is just kind of semantics to me but curious nonetheless.

[fritzi93]

It does appear that DTS-MA has won out over TrueHD.

It's become an article of faith for its adherents that nothing else will do, and AC3 especially is regarded as crap. So much nonsense is put out these days on various sites (I won't name any), that you'll be shouted down if you disagree.

[jman98]

Is it true that MKV does not support the VC-1 codec? And if so, does that mean that if I bought a blu-ray disc that was VC-1 encoded, then I wouldn't be able to rip it with MakeMKV? Because this is something I'm actually planning on doing...

Also, I don't know anywhere near as much about video and audio as most people do here, but I don't understand why movie companies would use anything else but H.264... Isn't it the best there is?

No, it's not true. MKV has virtually no restrictions on codecs. VC-1 is unusual inside of an MKV container, but it's allowed. However, some playback devices may not have firmware that expects to see it and may not support it even though the spec allows it. I created an MKV file with Divx video and AC3 audio and I don't have any standalone playback devices that can correctly play it, even though both video and audio codecs are quite valid in an MKV container.

Unless some industry insider wants to post, we'll probably never know why VC-1 is used at all. I've got some BD discs that actually use H.264, VC-1 and MPEG-2 all on the same disc. MPEG-2 is for some extras made originally for DVD. H.264 is for the main video. VC-1 was used on some extras for BD only, but I have no idea why they used it instead of H.264.

[Brad]

"HD audio" is just a nebulous marketing term. I think it's only used on packaging in conjunction with a DTS-HD (which has lossy modes) or TrueHD (lossless) track.

[Ronaldinho]

Is it true that MKV does not support the VC-1 codec? And if so, does that mean that if I bought a blu-ray disc that was VC-1 encoded, then I wouldn't be able to rip it with MakeMKV? Because this is something I'm actually planning on doing...

Also, I don't know anywhere near as much about video and audio as most people do here, but I don't understand why movie companies would use anything else but H.264... Isn't it the best there is?

No, it's not true. MKV has virtually no restrictions on codecs. VC-1 is unusual inside of an MKV container, but it's allowed. However, some playback devices may not have firmware that expects to see it and may not support it even though the spec allows it. I created an MKV file with Divx video and AC3 audio and I don't have any standalone playback devices that can correctly play it, even though both video and audio codecs are quite valid in an MKV container.

Unless some industry insider wants to post, we'll probably never know why VC-1 is used at all. I've got some BD discs that actually use H.264, VC-1 and MPEG-2 all on the same disc. MPEG-2 is for some extras made originally for DVD. H.264 is for the main video. VC-1 was used on some extras for BD only, but I have no idea why they used it instead of H.264.

Okay, so if I rip a VC-1 Blu-Ray into an MKV container with MakeMKV, you think it's probably best to transcode it to h.264? I don't mind if I lose a tiny bit of quality if it will make it more suitable for playback on media players like VLC.

Also, I think this is right, but I just want to confirm it first with someone who knows more than I do before I go ahead and buy a whole lot of blu-rays...

If I rip an H.264 encoded blu-ray disc onto my computer with MakeMKV, would it be fine if I just left it as it is after MakeMKV has finished with it? So basically I wouldn't have to do any encoding afterwards and I would be able to keep full quality... Are there any known problems with doing this?

Note: I do not care about file size at all, I understand that the file will be huge after MakeMKV has finished ripping it. My primary concern is quality, and keeping the files as future proof as possible. Oh, and I only plan on playing the files on my PC, nothing else.

Thanks in advance

[Brad]

If you only care about playback in VLC then you can safely go straight from Blu-ray to MKV with MakeMKV regardless of the video codec.

[Ronaldinho]

Okay, great.

And just one more question, haha. I think this is right too, but I thought I'd better ask just in case...

Most, if not all, blu-ray discs are progressive right? Not interlaced? Because I hate interlaced video, and I always encode interlaced video to progressive, even if it does mean that I lose some quality, and I know that TV's and most Media Players can de-interlace for you, but I still just hate interlaced video...

So if they are all progressive then I know I can just rip them with MakeMKV and be done with it.

[Steve(MS)]

Ronald, software media players generally will play just about anything.
The only way to know is to try it to see.

[Ronaldinho]

Ronald, software media players generally will play just about anything.
The only way to know is to try it to see.

Yes, I know, but my question was, "are most blu-rays progressive"?

I know they can still play it whether it's interlaced or not, I just prefer all my video files to be progressive.

[Cornucopia]

Most? Yes, as most are created from MOVIE sources (which are 24p or 23.976p).

I don't get it - why get your panties in a bunch about interlacing?

Scott

[Ronaldinho]

Most? Yes, as most are created from MOVIE sources (which are 24p or 23.976p).

Okay, thanks.

I don't get it - why get your panties in a bunch about interlacing?

Because I play everything on my computer, and progressive is always best for playback on computers. I know that most media players can de-interlace during playback, but I just prefer all my files to be progressive. Simple as that. Maybe it sounded like I got my "panties in a bunch" because I used the word 'hate' a couple of times. I probably should have just said that I MUCH PREFER progressive video files on my computer.

Thanks for the response anyway

[Mr.Delusional]

@yoda313..........It's my understanding that Warner Brothers seems to make their default audio track the backup track and NOT the HD track. I believe you have to cycle through or force the HD track. (sorry I'm not used to using bb code here. time for me to hit the forums and learn)

[yoda313]

@yoda313..........It's my understanding that Warner Brothers seems to make their default audio track the backup track and NOT the HD track. I believe you have to cycle through or force the HD track. (sorry I'm not used to using bb code here. time for me to hit the forums and learn)

TMNT was New Line Cinema. Unless they released them through Warner Brothers? I know sometimes some movies get released through other companies at least they have more than one studio label on them for the disc release.

I'll have to pop it in again but I believe the 640 track was the only track on the tmnt bluray.

Thanks for writing in though.

[Brad]

All US New Line BDs were/are released by Warner. Until 2008 they were sister companies and then they merged.

As mentioned, the 1990 movie disc is one of many that defaults to the "backup" track but it does contain TrueHD. Normally I would call it a legacy track but it's actually a duplicate, since the TrueHD track itself has a 640kbps AC3 tagalong too.

[yoda313]

Ok thanks vaporeon800.

[jman98]

Most, if not all, blu-ray discs are progressive right? Not interlaced?

In North America, most are progressive, but NOT all. Foreign movies and TV shows are possibly interlaced, but you just have to check to see.