Sunny, I am not blaming you for any thing. I just mentioned what I noticed. I hope there are no issues with it playing on the PS3. If it plays fine on the player I really dont care about it not playing fine using a software player. Secondly I was playing the file on Linux, and Linux has a lot to catch up with regards to software players when compared to windows.

Is Kuruvi & Dasavatharam still going to be released in BluRay for this Christmas?

Sure you can unless the software used is very inflexible.
You have a 24fps DI. It means when the frames are played at 24 fps you get exactly the right speed for the film. If instead you play the frames at 23.976 you play it a bit slower. The speed difference is completely invisible to humans. You just encode the frames as they come from the DI, not dropping any, not repeating any, not making any new ones, while telling the encoder it has to be played back at 23.976. A reasonable encoder can do that. What has to be taken care of is the sound since it can not be played at 24 fps while the images are at 23.976. It would drift apart noticably within 20 seconds and get more distracting by the second. The sound has to be resynced to 23.976, whether you do pitch correction or not (pitch difference is minimal but absolute hearing might hear it).

I played this on a PS3 didnt see any drop or jerkiness it was fluid. I love this, I projected it using 1080p project it is just amazing. I just wish you guys had gone with TrueHD for audio instead of just AC3 of LPCM. Really loving this BluRay.

@Sunny Have there been any reviews of this BluRay?

I'm not an expert in these aspects, but isn't there one feature even on primitive TVs (these days) called TBC, Time Base Correction, that takes care of "23.98 vs 24", "59.97 vs 60" issues ?? And, even these 59.97 and 23.98 really go on to endless number of digits (dependent on data transfer frequency).

Isn't this 25 (PAL) converting to 60 or 30 the reason for field averaging ?? I hope they don't apply field averaging for High Def material (in that case I'll prefer SD Progressive).

Why TrueHD? Actually 'DTS-HD Master Audio' makes the most sense. For those who are equiped for 'DTS-HD Master Audio' they get the full lossless sound while even those with just DTS get atleast the core 1.5mbps DTS audio. This way all you need is one Audio format that covers everyone's needs.

I prefer LPCM. f you have the right equipment (and excellent hearing) then you can really experience the sound. Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA HD are both amazing. Gajini (which is being done for VGP) will have DTS-MA.

I'm yet to see a movie that utilises DTS-HD MA, 95% of the moves doesn't cross 5mbps but a Celien Dion music concert hits 9mbps.

Why is DTS-HD preferable? I thought LPCM was uncompressed.

Being compressed in itself is not bad or an issue and being uncompressed is not what makes the audio better. Being lossless is what makes the audio better. It is important to understand that 'Lossless' does not mean 'Uncompressed' and all 'Compression' is not 'Lossy'. In the computer software world, all zip, rar etc. files are compressed but are lossless. In other words when you uncompress them, you are able to retrieve an exact replica of the original without any loss in data. Similiarly, both 'DTS HD Master Audio' & 'Dolby True-HD' are compressed but are still fully lossless formats. You may wonder, that since LPCM is also lossless, then why not just stick to it, the answer to that is quite simply the fact that LPCM, due to it being uncrompressed, unneccesarily takes up far more space on the disc and that too without any advantage or gain in audio quality over DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby True-HD. The only reason to use LPCM would be to save on royalty costs involved with using the HD audio formats.

Blu-Ray HD Audio Options:

DTS-HD Master Audio:
Output via HDMI v1.3- 'Dolby True-HD' full lossless Bitstream (Digital) / Full lossless multichannel LPCM (Digital).
Output via HDMI (versions older than v1.3) - Full lossless multichannel LPCM (Digital).
Output via SPDIF/Coaxial - Standard 1.5mbps 'DTS' lossy Bitstream (Digital).
Output via Analog outs (If the player has inbuilt decoding of the HD audio formats) - Full lossless decoded 7.1/5.1 analog audio
Output via Analog outs - Downmixed stereo analog audio.

Dolby True-HD:
Output via HDMI v1.3- 'Dolby True-HD' full lossless Bitstream (Digital) / Full lossless multichannel LPCM (Digital).
Output via HDMI (versions older than v1.3) - Full lossless multichannel LPCM (Digital).
Output via SPDIF/Coaxial - NO digital Bitstream.
Output via Analog outs (If the player has inbuilt decoding of the HD audio formats) - Full lossless decoded 7.1/5.1 analog audio
Output via Analog outs - Downmixed stereo analog audio.

'DTS-HD Master Audio' takes the original master and splits the data into two sets of data, one is the 'core' lossy stream and the second is the balance of the original data. If your receiver/pre-pro does not support 'DTS-HD Master Audio', it simply decodes the 'core' and gives you regular 1.5mbps DTS. If the receiver/pre-pro supports 'DTS-HD Master Audio' it reads and adds the 'second stream' of data to the 'core' stream and recreates the original bit for bit recording. The 'core' part of 'DTS-HD Master Audio' can be passed via SPDIF, thus making 'DTS-HD Master Audio' fully 100% backwards compatible.

'Dolby True-HD' on the other hand, although lossless, is not backward compatible. 'Dolby Digital Plus' works similiar to 'DTS-HD Master Audio' and is fully backwards compatible with 'Dolby Digital', but it is not lossless and is only slightly superior to 'Dolby Digital'.

The difference between the two audio formats, is in the fact, that in the case of 'DTS-HD MA', the player will also extract & output the standard 1.5mbps 'DTS core' bitstream via the digital SPDIF/Coaxial output, which it cannot do in the case of 'Dolby True-HD'.

In conclusion, if it were not for economic politics, all we need is a single 'DTS-HD Master Audio' track on all Blu-Ray discs. Universal Studios, Fox & MGM have quite sensibly taken this approach and they offer only a single 'Primary language' track in 'DTS-HD Master Audio' on all their BDs. Why Warner insists on using 'Dolby True-HD' is a mystery to me, since they then have to also put a second 'Dolby Digital' track for backward compatibility. But then again, this is Warner we are talking about. In actuality in more cases than not, their solution is to simply do away with the 'Dolby True-HD' track and have a single lossy 'Dolby Digital' track.

By the way, in case your receiver/pre-pro is not equiped to decode the 'DTS-HD Master Audio' or 'Dolby True-HD' data, all Blu-Ray players can derive a full lossless multichannel LPCM and output the signal via HDMI. Do keep in mind that a LPCM track is still digital and thus cannot be sent via the analog outputs.

well said Sanju! If not DTS HDM, LPCM, is my second choince!

Other than the fact that it takes up too much space without any advantage, there is another problem with LPCM, you have to have a second Dolby or DTS track also for those who do not have HDMI in their receivers/pre-pro. 'DTS-HD Master Audio' is the only format that can singularly fullfill the needs of everybody and that too with the best audio quality. Ofcourse, sound quality wise, LPCM is as good as DTS-HD Master Audio.

Thanks for that explanation, Sanjay. It helps a lot. Blu-ray audio options are more varied than DVD audio options. Now I'm on the DTS HD bandwagon

BhavaniDVD.com has the Sivaji Blu-Ray for $29.99.

They also have a 10% off promotion and shipping is only $1.99.