Re: I wish they'd release more using SuperBit DVDs

jayembee wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > BOTTOM LINE: They should be releasing more movies/tv shows in SuperBit
> > format.
>
> They do. They just don't call them Superbit. Superbit is trademark by Sony.
> "Superbit" is just a marketing scam, like "Special Edition".

..

"Superbit" was originally coined by Columbia, not Sony, and it's not a
scam. Removing all the extra material provides nearly twice as much
room for the Video, resulting in better quality. (Just as SP mode is
better than SLP mode on a VCR.)

Look at the difference yourself. The normal dvd is blurred, like a VHS
tape, where the Superbit version brings out the details:

http://www.videophile.info/Review/TFE/42_c1.jpg
http://www.videophile.info/Review/TFE/36_c1.jpg

troy

electrictroy@gmail.com

On 2 Oct 2005 05:56:28 -0700, wrote:

>
>jayembee wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > BOTTOM LINE: They should be releasing more movies/tv shows in SuperBit
>> > format.
>>
>> They do. They just don't call them Superbit. Superbit is trademark by Sony.
>> "Superbit" is just a marketing scam, like "Special Edition".
>
>.
>
>"Superbit" was originally coined by Columbia, not Sony, and it's not a
>scam. Removing all the extra material provides nearly twice as much
>room for the Video, resulting in better quality. (Just as SP mode is
>better than SLP mode on a VCR.)
>
>Look at the difference yourself. The normal dvd is blurred, like a VHS
>tape, where the Superbit version brings out the details:
>
>http://www.videophile.info/Review/TFE/42_c1.jpg
>http://www.videophile.info/Review/TFE/36_c1.jpg
>
>troy
If I am not mistaken, Sony Owns Columbia.

The Back of my Columbia Superbit DVD of Lawrence of Arabia (Which I
bought last week at Best Buy for $9.99) has 2 web sites listed.
www.SonyPictures.Com and www.superbitdvd.com between all of the
logos including DTS, Columbia Pictures, Columbia Tristar and the
various MPAA logos.

Fred

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> If I am not mistaken, Sony Owns Columbia.

You're not mistaken; Sony Acquired Columbia Pictures in 1989.

() wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> "Superbit" was originally coined by Columbia, not Sony, and it's not a
> scam.

Yes, it can be, since many non-"Superbit" releases have just as many bits
dedicated to video/audio encoding as some "Superbit" releases. The extended
versions of LotR trilogy are a good example...they have about 110 minutes
per double layer disc with nothing extra except a couple of very low bitrate
commentary tracks.

> Removing all the extra material provides nearly twice as much
> room for the Video, resulting in better quality.

"Twice as much" is definitely an exaggeration. Most double layer single-disc
DVD releases use at least 6GB for the main movie. Double-disc releases
easily give as much space to the main movie as a Superbit disc.

In one way, Superbit is definitely a scam in that they are almost
universally released after the first release that had the extras. Sony
could easily do a two-disc "Superbit" release in place of the original,
and put all the extras on the second disc.

> Look at the difference yourself. The normal dvd is blurred, like a VHS
> tape, where the Superbit version brings out the details:
>
> http://www.videophile.info/Review/TFE/42_c1.jpg
> http://www.videophile.info/Review/TFE/36_c1.jpg

Those aren't very stunning differences (in particular, both shots in each
pair have quality issues, just different kinds), and most of the difference
could be attributed to a different transfer, not lack of bits to do a
quality MPEG encoding. The change in the amount of edge enhancement is a
dead giveaway that a different transfer was used.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/BabyBlues/TVDistance.gif

wrote:

> jayembee wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BOTTOM LINE: They should be releasing more movies/tv shows in SuperBit
>>> format.
>>
>> They do. They just don't call them Superbit. Superbit is trademark by Sony.
>> "Superbit" is just a marketing scam, like "Special Edition".
>
> "Superbit" was originally coined by Columbia, not Sony,

Sony is Columbia's parent company.

> and it's not a scam. Removing all the extra material provides nearly
> twice as much room for the Video, resulting in better quality.

It's a scam, because the song and dance about how superior Superbit
is allows them to charge more for the Superbit editions. Not to mention
that they should be that quality to begin with.

If you have a player capable of displaying the bitrate, try checking out
some of your discs. Any disc with a bitrate over 9 qualifies as "Superbit"
(the max being 10). There are a lot of discs out there with that high a
bitrate that don't advertise themselves as being something worth
paying twice as much for.

> Look at the difference yourself. The normal dvd is blurred, like a VHS
> tape, where the Superbit version brings out the details:

Largely because the original transfers weren't very good.

-- jayembee

True maybe, but the superbit disk always feature a dts track on movies that
don't have it on the original disk which is a big plus in my book.

Jim

"jayembee" <> wrote in message
news:...
> wrote:
>
>> jayembee wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BOTTOM LINE: They should be releasing more movies/tv shows in SuperBit
>>>> format.
>>>
>>> They do. They just don't call them Superbit. Superbit is trademark by
>>> Sony.
>>> "Superbit" is just a marketing scam, like "Special Edition".
>>
>> "Superbit" was originally coined by Columbia, not Sony,
>
> Sony is Columbia's parent company.
>
>> and it's not a scam. Removing all the extra material provides nearly
>> twice as much room for the Video, resulting in better quality.
>
> It's a scam, because the song and dance about how superior Superbit
> is allows them to charge more for the Superbit editions. Not to mention
> that they should be that quality to begin with.
>
> If you have a player capable of displaying the bitrate, try checking out
> some of your discs. Any disc with a bitrate over 9 qualifies as "Superbit"
> (the max being 10). There are a lot of discs out there with that high a
> bitrate that don't advertise themselves as being something worth
> paying twice as much for.
>
>> Look at the difference yourself. The normal dvd is blurred, like a VHS
>> tape, where the Superbit version brings out the details:
>
> Largely because the original transfers weren't very good.
>
> -- jayembee

Jeff Rife wrote:
> () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > "Superbit" was originally coined by Columbia, not Sony, and it's not a
> > scam.
>
> Yes, it can be, since many non-"Superbit" releases have just as many bits
> dedicated to video/audio encoding as some "Superbit" releases. The extended
> versions of LotR trilogy are a good example...they have about 110 minutes
> per double layer disc with nothing extra except a couple of very low bitrate
> commentary tracks.
>
> > Removing all the extra material provides nearly twice as much
> > room for the Video, resulting in better quality.
>
> "Twice as much" is definitely an exaggeration. Most double layer single-disc
> DVD releases use at least 6GB for the main movie. Double-disc releases
> easily give as much space to the main movie as a Superbit disc.
>
> In one way, Superbit is definitely a scam in that they are almost
> universally released after the first release that had the extras. Sony
> could easily do a two-disc "Superbit" release in place of the original,
> and put all the extras on the second disc.
>
> > Look at the difference yourself. The normal dvd is blurred, like a VHS
> > tape, where the Superbit version brings out the details:
> >
> > http://www.videophile.info/Review/TFE/42_c1.jpg
> > http://www.videophile.info/Review/TFE/36_c1.jpg
>
> Those aren't very stunning differences (in particular, both shots in each
> pair have quality issues, just different kinds), and most of the difference
> could be attributed to a different transfer, not lack of bits to do a
> quality MPEG encoding. The change in the amount of edge enhancement is a
> dead giveaway that a different transfer was used.
>

it certainly encourages Sony to do crap releases so that SuperBit ones
look better. STEAMBOY is a perfect example. A title that really begs
for a beauteous transfer (as that's about all it has going for it) and
what do we get on the DVD? <4.5GB dedicated to the movie and some crap
extras, but all told, it still only takes up <7GB of space. They COULD
have upped the bitrate on the movie abot 20% and still kept the extras.

Hell, why BOTHER releasing a DVD when a person could rip the movie and
burn it and NOT LOSE ANY QUALITY?

-goro-

Goro () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> <4.5GB dedicated to the movie and some crap
> extras, but all told, it still only takes up <7GB of space. They COULD
> have upped the bitrate on the movie abot 20% and still kept the extras.

Yeah, that sort of thing really ****es me off. Once you go to two layers,
there is no financial reason not to fill the disc. If you don't have any
extras, then just crank the bitrate on the movie.

--
Jeff Rife | "In those days Mars was a dreary uninhabitable
| wasteland much like Utah, but unlike Utah, Mars
| was eventually made livable."
| -- Professor Farnsworth, "Futurama"

Jim Johnson () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> True maybe, but the superbit disk always feature a dts track on movies that
> don't have it on the original disk which is a big plus in my book.

Again, this is just a scam.

If they had split the original release into two discs (one for movie and
one for extras), they could have easily added the DTS track.

--
Jeff Rife | "Tragedy struck today in Sector Nine as rebel
| terrorists blew up the Death Star, killing
| thousands. The Rebel Alliance, a fringe group
| of anti-Empire fanatics, has claimed
| responsibility for the terrorist act.
| Fortunately, Lord Vader escaped without harm.
| Our hearts go out to the families of the
| victims."
| -- "NewsRadio"

"Jim Johnson" <> wrote:

> True maybe, but the superbit disk always feature a dts track
> on movies that don't have it on the original disk which is a
> big plus in my book.

No doubt. In fact, in one of my previous replies, I did say that
the DTS track was more of a draw for people than the
supposed increase in video quality.

More to the point is that the original releases could've had a
DTS track on them in the first place.

-- jayembee