Ghandi audio issue

[dflgjsdj]

The only audio track actually available is the Director Commentary. Selecting that feature to be on or off has no effect. I did a sanity check and the original disc doesn't have that issue. I don't recall seeing this issue on any other BDR'd disks.

Using the latest ver. of BDR
Output: BD-9 full movie ISO file output, via imgburn of course.


Setup:
English audio track, no subtitles. Only checked boxes:

English only options but elected
limit one track for each language (both)
Do not convert DTS to AC3 (apparently no DTS in movie anyway)
Do no reencode AC
3

[jdobbs]

BD-RB reads the available audio tracks from the CLPI file. If that is the only track available -- then the issue is in the original. Make sure you have the correct playlist selected if doing movie-only.

[dflgjsdj]

1) I did this using the Full backup option - i.e. no manual track deletion

2) The original disk certainly doesn't have this problem (nor a ripped ISO version of it).

[drmih]

@jdobbs

It couldn't be the same issue as The Last Emperor which was DTS-HD XLL 2.0. I never managed to do that without losing the English main audio to bd-9 and eventually just did it to bd-25 untouched. Ghandi would be of a similar age and perhaps is only 2.0.

[jdobbs]

I'll see if I can find a copy of Ghandi and repeat the issue.

[setarip_old]

@dflgjsdj

Hi! English only options but elected
limit one track for each language (both)
If you do NOT limit the audio to one track, does this yield a video with BOTH the "normal" audiostream and the "commentary" audiostream?

[jdobbs]

@dflgjsdj

Hi!
If you do NOT limit the audio to one track, does this yield a video with BOTH the "normal" audiostream and the "commentary" audiostream? Of course... I missed that completely. That just means that the first english track is the commentary and the primary track is being eliminated.

[dflgjsdj]

I'm more than happy to give it a shot. Obviously, that will take a while.

Thanks

[dflgjsdj]

Yup! That was it. Great.

BTW, since I'm here, nice program. A BD-9 full backup is nicer than an original DVD (vs Bluray).

[jdobbs]

Yup! That was it. Great.

BTW, since I'm here, nice program. A BD-9 full backup is nicer than an original DVD (vs Bluray). Thanks. Yeah -- and you'll probably also find that making a movie-only DVD from a Blu-ray disc will look better than a commercially released DVD. It's all due to the outstanding quality of X264 and HCEncoder.

[dflgjsdj]

What I'm about to write has nothing to do with a bug report which, as posted elsewhere, means that I probably shouldn't post this so feel free to ignore it or tell me not to do it again:

I'm an engineer who specializes in Machine Vision but it's been a long time since I've messed with compression and I'm certainly not up on codecs. That being said, from what I've seen, i.e. subjectively, is that often the BD9 compressed movies look better (well, at least to me) than the 30+gb original bluray in that all the real information seems to be there (including the high frequencies - e.g. hair, face wrinkles, etc) but not the high frequency noise (e.g. speckles). My conjecture is that H264, and probably other modern codecs, are very sophisticated in their determination of what's high frequency noise vs high frequency information and so as you increase the compression the codec does a great job in getting rid of the noise but not the info and that the standard compression used for Bluray, i.e. as it is on the original bluray discs, is actually too high in that it keeps the noise to no good effect.

Of course, if this is true, the question becomes "Why was the bluray disc created? Why not just redo the DVD with better codecs?" The only answer I can think of is that it's a dongle; something needed to help market the product (i.e. to help convince people of superiority).

Note, I guess at some point you could have enough content on a bluray where a 9GB would be noticeably inferior but I have yet to encounter that case.

[setarip_old]

@dflgjsdj

Hi!

Actually, your perceived difference may be the result, if I remember correctly, that "jdobbs" has color saturation goosed up a little...

[jdobbs]

What I'm about to write has nothing to do with a bug report which, as posted elsewhere, means that I probably shouldn't post this so feel free to ignore it or tell me not to do it again:

I'm an engineer who specializes in Machine Vision but it's been a long time since I've messed with compression and I'm certainly not up on codecs. That being said, from what I've seen, i.e. subjectively, is that often the BD9 compressed movies look better (well, at least to me) than the 30+gb original bluray in that all the real information seems to be there (including the high frequencies - e.g. hair, face wrinkles, etc) but not the high frequency noise (e.g. speckles). My conjecture is that H264, and probably other modern codecs, are very sophisticated in their determination of what's high frequency noise vs high frequency information and so as you increase the compression the codec does a great job in getting rid of the noise but not the info and that the standard compression used for Bluray, i.e. as it is on the original bluray discs, is actually too high in that it keeps the noise to no good effect.

Of course, if this is true, the question becomes "Why was the bluray disc created? Why not just redo the DVD with better codecs?" The only answer I can think of is that it's a dongle; something needed to help market the product (i.e. to help convince people of superiority).

Note, I guess at some point you could have enough content on a bluray where a 9GB would be noticeably inferior but I have yet to encounter that case. It's possible that the original R&D's intent for the large size was so that MPEG-2 could be used for HD -- which would need that much. It certainly isn't needed for AVC or VC-1. In my humble opinon you've hit the nail on the head -- it's all about sales (especially with the "HD audio" hype).

[dflgjsdj]

Just an FYI:

http://www.rockmyspace.info/image-upload/uploads/1/killbillbrvsbr9vsdvdface.png
http://www.rockmyspace.info/image-upload/uploads/1/killbillbrvsbr9vsdvdclub.png
Notes:

Captured in VLC. It's the only tool/player I have around that seems to have a capture.
There was no precise time info so the frames might not be the same exact ones. (I had to select the frame it by eye)
I can't speak to whatever VLC did as part of rendering
The DVD one (top) was resized, via bicubic interpolation, to 1920x1080 to facilitate the comparison but obviously that isn't really fair except that players have to do something akin to that to render the 720x480 DVD (or whatever) on a 1920x1080 screen.
Maybe the effects are dependent upon codec. I think this was an H264, which is the same as the BD9, but I can't say whether the relative quality would change if the original had been, say, VC1