![]() You're not understanding how the DV encoding system works for disc. Will they publishers do it stupid users and we buy again and again? Read FEL ok, but I see 4:2:0 10 bits only in BDinfo. Perfect, but it means that there is not much good release now And there's also another side to it, that of the DV layer being corrupted which can show as momentary 'ghosting' in the DV output, which can be seen on the UHDs of JAWS and BTTF part II. As Pete said, StudioCanal's DV discs that use FEL often have a very poor encode for the HDR10 base layer and while the DV rebuild can mollify some of these problems it's not ideal for people who only have HDR10 playback. In Dolby's own documentation they make it quite clear that it needs more quality control to make sure that all the layers are working correctly to provide the desired effect, and the trouble when you have this dual-layer system is that more moving parts means that problems can and do occur. This is then downrezzed into a 1080p stream which needs to be encoded alongside the HDR10 layer, all the while making sure that the combined A/V bitrates don't exceed UHD specs. They then have to run an analysis pass which compares the HDR10 encode to the DV master to determine the 'difference data' that needs to go into the FEL. ![]() Then they do the compression of the HDR10 layer. First they have to hive off the HDR10 layer using the Dolby downconversion tools. Peter said it: it requires more time and thus expense to master in FEL. If FEL is obviously better, why would some authoring houses use MEL? Is it a matter of cost? Is the data size significant in that they would have to compromise in compression bit rate for the film in order to fit it on the disc?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |