Efficiency of Audio Codecs

Elsewhere it was pointed out that in my earlier post I was counting in the bitrate of Dolby TrueHD the standard Dolby Digital core, and that this is strictly not necessary for TrueHD. The reason I do that is that I’m actually interested in two things: the relative efficiencies of DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD as codecs, and separately as real world implementations.

In the former, Dolby TrueHD is clearly more efficient. It uses a predictive algorithm for the audio, plus sample-by-sample tweaks to provide full precision. DTS-HD MA is somewhat similar, except that instead of a predictive algorithm, it uses the DTS core as the thing to be tweaked.

That was a sensible choice on DTS’s part, given the need to have the standard DTS-backup anyway. No doubt they would have come up with a more efficient algorithm, absent that.

The fact that standard DTS has a fixed bit rate means that it will always be somewhat inefficient, since the sound in sections of most movies would not need the entire available number of bits to be completely encoded.

I am also interested in the total real-world bitrate, which in the case of TrueHD includes the Dolby Digital element. In a fully equipped home theatre system, the DD part is a total waste of space since it is not used at all, but is provided merely to support legacy equipment. Still, it is there and needs to be counted as part of the package.

Posted in Audio, Codecs, Compression | Leave a comment

Disastrous Giveaway

Disaster Movie titleIn 2008 a spoof too far was released. Called Disaster Movie, it now resides at #22 of the Internet Movie Database ‘Bottom 100‘.

Now you, too, can share in the joy of this movie (not having seen any of them, I didn’t find it too bad, and certainly worth more than the 1.6/10 it presently scores). I have a copy of this disc on Blu-ray to give away. Legit disc, but no Blu-ray box or slick.

First to ask for it in comments gets it. I’ll email you for a snail mail address.

Pretty decent picture quality, too. See my Blu-ray vs DVD comparison for this movie.

I have a few other discs that I will be giving away over coming days, so it might be worth checking in occasionally.

Posted in Blu-ray, Giveaway | 3 Comments

XKCD and the Weird Ways of Windows

My weekly visit to Yet Another Weird Science Fiction Fan brought me to a link reminding me of the cartoon XKCD, which I haven’t looked at in quite a while.

Naturally I flicked through ninety or a hundred of them. As a long time Windows user, I thought that this one was particularly apt.

Posted in Computer | Leave a comment

The Same Encode, But Different

While coverting old posts to the new blog, I happened to re-read one I did on Superman Returns, back in July 2008, called ‘Wasting Digital Real-estate‘. In this I theorised that ‘it looks like an identical encode was used on the feature for both’ the HD DVD and Blu-ray versions.

Last night, I thought I’d let the computer confirm that. So I extracted the first thousand ‘I’ frames from each of the two versions — the HD DVD and the Blu-ray. Modern compression systems save space by only recording a small proportion of the film frames in (lossily compressed) full. The other frames are encoded as additions to or subtractions from those. Those complete frames are called ‘I’ frames, or ‘anchor’ frames.

I extract the frames from both formats using the same software, and save them to my hard disc in *.png format, which is a non-lossy compression format, using the same parameters. I figure that if the same frame from each format is identical for a goodly number of frames, then the video is almost certain the same as well. There is a small chance that the frames between ‘I’ frames differ, but it seems unlikely.

How do I check if the frames are the same? Simple: I use the DOS ‘fc /b file1 file2’ command. There are advantages to being old enough to have learnt about computers in the pre-Windows days!

If the result of this command (delivered in a ‘Command Window’) is ‘FC: no differences encountered’, then the files are identical bit for bit.

That was indeed the case for the first 28 ‘I’ frames of the thousand I extracted. But ‘I’ frames 29 and 30 were different. These occurred about 15 seconds into the movie, during the fadeout of the Warner Bros logo. In the following graphic, the top part is frame 29 from the HD DVD, and the bottom one is the frame 29 from the Blu-ray (I’ve trimmed the black area from them both):

Comparison of HD DVD and Blu-ray frames for 'Superman Returns'

Clearly the HD DVD frame is slightly later than the Blu-ray. But at frame 31, both are back in sync and all frames are identical. For a while, that is. Around frame 370 (3:22 into the movie) things go haywire and the frames are quite out of sync with each other, and thus unable to be compared.

But they draw back into line, sort of, by frame 399 for the Blu-ray (3:35 into the movie). Somehow by this time the HD DVD has had three extra frames go by, so the Blu-ray frame 399 perfectly matches, bit for bit, the HD DVD frame 402. From this point on, up to Blu-ray frame 1,000 matching HD DVD frame 1,003 (9:05), they are perfect matches. And perhaps further. That’s where I stopped my comparison.

What am I to make of this? I’ve generally assumed that Warner Bros has tended just to port the video element of its HD DVDs to Blu-ray. After all, the gross measures have been pretty much the same, and the video quality appears subjectively much the same.

But if that were the case then every frame would be identical between the two versions, not merely 97% of them. You can’t just add or subtract ‘I’ frames from an existing VC1 encode without doing major damage to the whole thing, because so many of the frames are dependent upon them.

So I suspect that the Blu-ray and HD DVD were independently encoded from the same HD digital master, presumably by software built into the respective authoring packages, with the same settings applied.

The small differences then would be due to the idiosyncracies of the authoring software.

At a guess, anyway.

I’ve previously taken Warner Bros titles to be simple ports, as in this examination of Corpse Bride. But the frames I compared in that comparison may have just been part of the 97%, or whatever it was for that movie.

Posted in Blu-ray, Compression, Disc details, HD DVD, Video | 1 Comment

New Posts, Old Posts

I have been gradually adding old entries from the old blog to this one. As you can see to the right, the Archives now extend back to June 2008. I still have five more years to go to get back to 2003. Each entry has to be transferred manually, but most of the formatting and graphics transfer reasonably well with a simple copy and past. I do have to tweak some of the blockquotes, because WordPress likes to add unnecessary tags which, weirdly, mess up the font it uses.

Posted in Admin | Leave a comment

A Letter to a PR Company

Today I sent an email in the following terms today to a PR company for a large TV manufacturer:

Meanwhile, I know you guys have just started this account, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to make a suggestion. How well a TV performs is in large part a function of how well it has been cared for.

I am uncertain whether this TV performed in a way truly representative of the model because it was so very poorly packed. The carton was held together with the courier’s branded tape (did it fall apart in their custody?) It is clear that there are supposed to be at least six foam blocks holding the TV in place. Two of the corner ones were missing so it was not held securely. The desktop stand was lodged between the inner and outer cartons, held from falling out only by the aforementioned tape.

The manual was on a CD ROM which was sitting in the bottom of the box, out of its sleeve, being pressed down by the weight of the TV. Fortunately it was still readable, which is a testament to the robustness of the CD ROM.

I think I’ve managed to pack it up about as securely as can be managed. Because of the missing foam sections, the desktop stand doesn’t seem to have a proper place, so it is resting within the box. I hope it all gets back to you in one piece.

Incidentally, there was a second remote control in the box that doesn’t appear to do anything.

This was for a $3,000+ LCD TV.

Posted in Admin, Equipment, Rant, Testing, Video | Leave a comment

Black to Grey

Hmmm. Jez Ford has drawn my attention to this article on CNET, which says that the black levels of Panasonic plasma TVs become less black over time. It’s all a bit vague, but it seems to be saying that the TV has a long-term operating profile programmed into it to optimise picture quality according to the changes in the physical characteristics of the plasma cells.

I suppose that if the plasma cells do change in their performance as they are used, then it’s appropriate to optimise the picture for those changes. Presumably the cell changes are due to some kind of generalised burn-in (plasma burn in, in the sense of leaving visible after-images, hasn’t been a problem with Panasonic TVs for some years).

It would be nice if there were some indication of how much brighter the blacks will become over that time.

One thing I always feel a little guilty about with reviews is that all I can really talk about is how well something operates when it is new. For all I know every product (except for the ones I own) burst into flames after six months of use.

I simply can’t think of a way around that.

Posted in Equipment, Testing, Video | 2 Comments

Australian Teletext Long Gone

Last few TVs I’ve reviewed haven’t seemed to be able to access Teletext. For good reason: it has gone. Apparently since 20 September 2009. I should have researched this earlier.

I can’t say I’m surprised. It never had a big penetration in Australia, at least until the introduction of digital TV. But by then the Internet was becoming very common in the Australian home. The tiny amount of information available on Teletext, clunkily accessed, simply couldn’t compete.

Posted in DTV, Equipment, HDTV | 5 Comments

More bitrates

In my post below I noted that The Box has both DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD encodes. I added The Broken as well. In both cases, the TrueHD encode seemed more efficient space wise: significantly in the case of a 24 bit encode, and very slightly in the case of a 16 bit one.

In comments Craig pointed out that Close Encounters of the Third Kind also has both forms. In fact, it has three of them since there are three different versions of the movie (via seamless branching). All are 5.1 channels and 24 bits, but the Dolby TrueHD’s core of standard Dolby Digital is only 448kbps rather than 640kbps.

For the Original Cut, the TrueHD comes in at 3667kbps (=3219+448) while the DTS-HD is 3768kbps. For the Special Edition it’s 3652kbps vs 3760kbps. For the Director’s Cut (Spielberg’s final word on the subject), it’s 3639kbps vs 3743kbps. So, once again, TrueHD is slightly more efficient, although not by very much. Had a 640kbps core been used in the TrueHD, it would have gone the other way.

Finally, also from Icon Film Distribution is a New Zealand/French co-production called The Vintner’s Luck. This has both lossless forms, 16 bits only, and 448kbps only for the TrueHD core. Total for Dolby TrueHD is 1646kbps, while the DTS-HD MA audio is rather more at 1780kbps.

Posted in Audio, Blu-ray, Disc details | Leave a comment

The Box – Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio?

… or both. The latest Richard Kelly movie, The Box, will be appearing on Blu-ray in Australia from Icon Film Distribution on 10 March 2010. Last night I examined the disc and found it to be the first disc I have seen with the audio in both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, both 24 bit, 48kHz, 5.1 channels.

For the moment, while I try to confirm this, I am going to assume that they are both encodes from identical sources.

If that is the case, it makes their average bitrates quite interesting. According to BDInfo 0.5.3, the average for the Dolby TrueHD version is 3525kbps, not counting the 640kbps Dolby Digital core, so the total load is 4165kbps.

The average for the DTS-HD MA version is 4519kbps, including the 1509kbps core. So Dolby TrueHD would seem to be more efficient, even carrying the dead weight (for those of us with fully capable gear) of the DD core.

Possible reasons? The DTS core, which forms part of the total DTS-HD MA system, is constant bit rate. There may be sections where its capacity exceeds that needed to completely and losslessly encode the entire audio track.

Perhaps, but this seems to be unlikely to make a huge difference because with this movie the DTS is apparently 24 bits deep. If so, then it is unlikely that it could losslessly encode all but the most inactive sections of the sound track.

(By contrast, the commentary is also presented in DTS-HD MA, albeit with 16 bits and 2 channels. This has a 1509kbps DTS core, but the whole average bitrate comes to just 1589kbps, so only an average of 80kbps was needed to bring the core into perfect alignment with the original signal. That would imply large parts of the DTS core being under-used.)

So it could well be that Dolby TrueHD really is more efficient than DTS-HD MA, at least with 24 bit material.

Update (1:42pm): Icon Film Distribution has confirmed to me that ‘both HD tracks on The Box were created from the same 5.1 audio master.’ Also, it fully intends to include both the lossless audio versions on discs where there is sufficient space, as part of its desire to ‘make our BD’s as “feature laden” as possible not only with special features but also technical features.’

So it looks like we’re going to have more movies to compare DTS-HD MA with Dolby TrueHD (although, as its ‘preferred audio format’, DTS-HD MA will be used if there is space for only one).

Update 2 (4:54pm): I’ve just scanned The Broken, also from Icon Film Distribution, and this also has both audio formats, albeit in 16 bit rather than 24. The total bitrate for TrueHD stream is 1173+640kbps, equals 1813kbps, or very slightly less than the DTS-HD MA bitrate of 1,819kbps.

Posted in Audio, Blu-ray, Disc details | 8 Comments