Are the following DVD movies single (DVD-5) or dual layer (DVD-9)?

Below is a list of DVDs whose reviews I have checked and/or I have
looked at the "DVD Details" in the IMDB and found conflicting
information regarding whether these are single or dual layer.

Please post if you know any of the following are incorrect:

Barefoot in the Park - DVD-5
Batteries Not Included - DVD-5
Big Jake - DVD-5
Cahill, US Marshall - DVD-9
Chisum - DVD-9
Comancheros, The - DVD-5
Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles - DVD-5
French Kiss - DVD-9
Major League - DVD-9
Man's Favorite Sport - DVD-5
Mister Roberts - DVD-5
Mr. Destiny - DVD-5
Much Ado About Nothing (MGM) - DVD-5
North to Alaska - DVD-9
Oscar (Stallone) - DVD-5
Return to Me - DVD-5
Rio Lobo - DVD-5
Simply Irresistible - DVD-5
Sons of Katie Elder - DVD-5
Teen Wolf/Teen Wolf Too - DVD-5
Thrill of It All - DVD-5
Truth About Cats and Dogs - DVD-5
Undefeated, The - DVD-9
Witness (Harrison Ford) - DVD-5

If you wonder why I care, the answer is I prefer to spend my money on
DVDs whose transfers show some effort, so I try to steer away from
DVD-5 releases unless they are dirt cheap. I've recently been offended
by some releases by studios such as Fox, Paramount, and Columbia
issuing transfers on DVD-5 of movies that needed much higher bitrates
because they wouldn't pay a little more for an extra layer. So they
"cheap out" by selling a single layer release and usually charging
full price like a normal dual-layer release while keeping the fact
it's single layer as quiet as possible.

For instance, I will buy the bare bones DVDs of the above John Wayne
movies only if they are DVD-9 and have a high bit rate. Thanks.

Joshua

"Joshua" <> wrote

> Please post if you know any of the following are incorrect:
>
> ..
> Man's Favorite Sport - DVD-5

Incorrect - DVD-9

John Howells

John Howells

(Joshua) wrote:

>If you wonder why I care, the answer is I prefer to spend my money on
>DVDs whose transfers show some effort, so I try to steer away from
>DVD-5 releases unless they are dirt cheap. I've recently been offended
>by some releases by studios such as Fox, Paramount, and Columbia
>issuing transfers on DVD-5 of movies that needed much higher bitrates
>because they wouldn't pay a little more for an extra layer. So they
>"cheap out" by selling a single layer release and usually charging
>full price like a normal dual-layer release while keeping the fact
>it's single layer as quiet as possible.
>
>For instance, I will buy the bare bones DVDs of the above John Wayne
>movies only if they are DVD-9 and have a high bit rate. Thanks.

By concentrating primarily (or solely) on how many layers a DVD has
is, I think, a mistake. While bit-rate is an issue, I've seen DVDs
with relatively lower bitrates that look better than some with
relatively higher bitrates. The source used is, I think, the most
important thing. A lousy source print transferred with an average
birtate or 9.2 is still going to look like crap.

-- jayembee

jayembee

"jayembee" <> wrote in message
news:...
> (Joshua) wrote:
>
> >If you wonder why I care, the answer is I prefer to spend my money on
> >DVDs whose transfers show some effort, so I try to steer away from
> >DVD-5 releases unless they are dirt cheap. I've recently been offended
> >by some releases by studios such as Fox, Paramount, and Columbia
> >issuing transfers on DVD-5 of movies that needed much higher bitrates
> >because they wouldn't pay a little more for an extra layer. So they
> >"cheap out" by selling a single layer release and usually charging
> >full price like a normal dual-layer release while keeping the fact
> >it's single layer as quiet as possible.
> >
> >For instance, I will buy the bare bones DVDs of the above John Wayne
> >movies only if they are DVD-9 and have a high bit rate. Thanks.
>
> By concentrating primarily (or solely) on how many layers a DVD has
> is, I think, a mistake. While bit-rate is an issue, I've seen DVDs
> with relatively lower bitrates that look better than some with
> relatively higher bitrates. The source used is, I think, the most
> important thing. A lousy source print transferred with an average
> birtate or 9.2 is still going to look like crap.
>
> -- jayembee

While the source is always an important fact in determing the output
quality, as crap in = crap out, if you have a flawless master print, let's
say it was 28 Days Later and the print is a digital transfer, so theres no
errors from encoding or transfering, yet. If we encode that to 4.8mbps and
add an extra or two, and put it out on DVD-5, it won't look as good as if we
encode that to 6.6mbps, add as many features as possible, and put it out on
DVD-9.

I've started to look at the actual bitrates (average) of movies that I own,
and even the ones I rent, to see what companies consistently put out
high-bitrate DVDs, and which put out far more low-bitrate ones than a
company should. From my minute, and therefore unscientific and unreliable,
sampling, I've found that New Line Cinema has put out more low-bitrates than
they should, and that FOX & Paramount have put out the highest bitrates
(recently, "The Hunted" has an average of about 6.6mbps, and "Fight Club"
has one just under 6.1mbps, and thats a 140 min movie!). Of DVD-5 discs, I
have seen 2 flippers that each side is DVD-5, one side is 16:9, the other
4:3, from 1996 is "Fargo," but thats rather early, so I hope Polygram has
grown up since then, and then Austin Powers 1 I have from New Line is a
flipper just like Fargo. The widescreen version of both of those end up
somewhere around 4.0mbps each (one is like 3.94, the other 4.06, with 4.06
being Fargo).

So, yes, source is important, but with good source, then bitrate is
important. If it is a bad source, then there should be some restoration
going on before they even think about turning it into an MPEG-2.

I've actually seen a DVD, retail, that was produced on DVD-5, and the
encoding was bad, not the source, but it was so obvious, I mean, there were
actually artifacts on a retail DVD! I cant remember the title, I want to
say The Bone Collector or Fallen, but I'm not sure.

Anonymous Joe

I'd love to have a measure of the average bitrate on DVD reviews, but
review sites generally do not list that. In fact, only a few review
sites list the number of layers. With the absence of that information,
I tend to make the assumption that dual layer DVDs will have a higher
bitrate, especially on Paramount DVDs which are so often without
extras.

For instance, I named off a bunch of John Wayne releases by Paramount
and Fox with minimal extras. I couldn't find conclusive/consistent
information if they were single or dual layer, so I'm not certain if I
want to buy those. My opinion is if they are not going to provide
extras, they should at least go at a high bit rate on a dual layer
disc. If they cannot do that and release a featureless DVD-5 such as
"Major League" whose transfer could've been improved by a higher
bitrate (in my opinion), then they do not deserve to get my money.
Unfortunately the studios are inconsistent.

I appreciate your reply, Anonymous Joe, but from the couple other
answers to my post it's pretty clear most people don't care about this
issue, and I'm on my own in determining the layers and guessing the
bitrate & quality. Unfortunately I find so many review sites praise
the picture (probably because they may no longer receive free review
copies if they trash a lot of them) that reading the "video" section
of a technical review is not always useful.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:43:02 GMT, "Anonymous Joe" <>
wrote:
>While the source is always an important fact in determing the output
>quality, as crap in = crap out, if you have a flawless master print, let's
>say it was 28 Days Later and the print is a digital transfer, so theres no
>errors from encoding or transfering, yet. If we encode that to 4.8mbps and
>add an extra or two, and put it out on DVD-5, it won't look as good as if we
>encode that to 6.6mbps, add as many features as possible, and put it out on
>DVD-9.
>
>I've started to look at the actual bitrates (average) of movies that I own,
>and even the ones I rent, to see what companies consistently put out
>high-bitrate DVDs, and which put out far more low-bitrate ones than a
>company should. From my minute, and therefore unscientific and unreliable,
>sampling, I've found that New Line Cinema has put out more low-bitrates than
>they should, and that FOX & Paramount have put out the highest bitrates
>(recently, "The Hunted" has an average of about 6.6mbps, and "Fight Club"
>has one just under 6.1mbps, and thats a 140 min movie!). Of DVD-5 discs, I
>have seen 2 flippers that each side is DVD-5, one side is 16:9, the other
>4:3, from 1996 is "Fargo," but thats rather early, so I hope Polygram has
>grown up since then, and then Austin Powers 1 I have from New Line is a
>flipper just like Fargo. The widescreen version of both of those end up
>somewhere around 4.0mbps each (one is like 3.94, the other 4.06, with 4.06
>being Fargo).
>
>So, yes, source is important, but with good source, then bitrate is
>important. If it is a bad source, then there should be some restoration
>going on before they even think about turning it into an MPEG-2.
>
>I've actually seen a DVD, retail, that was produced on DVD-5, and the
>encoding was bad, not the source, but it was so obvious, I mean, there were
>actually artifacts on a retail DVD! I cant remember the title, I want to
>say The Bone Collector or Fallen, but I'm not sure.

Joshua