1080p
44.72GB
DD5.1, DD2CH, DTS
Eng Ara Tam Tel subs

{staff, please migrate over to server - DONE!}

may be it is shots, detail not on par with 1080p though.

These stills are rubbish. We need proper ones.

One more...



Ali

you can almost see the camera crew in the reflection of her heye

I’ve just finished watching the blu-ray on my Kuro. The source seems to be from DPX ---> recorded to D5 tape ---> which was encoded to blu-ray. Saturation and contrast/black levels look good. However, the picture quality still has some problems (e.g. colour banding, aliasing). I'm not sure if this is linked to either the AVC encode, or the D5 source?

Another major let down was a lack of a lossless HD soundtrack. A 24bit audio master does exist. So why wasn’t a Dolby True HD or DTS-HD MA BD track created?

Despite its problems some portions of the film looks stunning in HD and is miles better then the digital Jpeg2000 and 35mm positive versions released for cinema.

Aliasing is never an AVC issue since it's not compression related. It's part of the DI or added later when resampling DPX to 1080p HD. Banding is usally created when converting 10 bit DPX to 8 bit video and not adding proper dithering where necessary. It can also be created or made worse by bad compression. Finally display issues can add banding when none is in the source.

Why do you think that 2K JPEG2000 sources are a lot inferior? They have higher bit rates than any Blu Rays. Not as high as D5 or HDCAM SR, but high enough for looking very well on BD.

JPEG 2000 source (on Indian films) is quite inferior as 90% of them are made from Negatives - instead of DPX file. This is to ensure it meets the release date (as working with DPX takes more time to render). Since this BD used a DPX to D5 source it looked miles better then the JPEG 2000 source I saw on cinema (which was full of wear and tear)

I don't quite understand. If there is a JPEG2000 it's usually made from a duplicate negative made from the DI? Or the camera negative? And at the same time there are also the DPX from the DI but they are not used for digital cinema releases? Only for producing the duplicate negative?

JPEG 2000 is made from camera negative. DPX is used to make prints. Its the only way to ensure both the Digital and normal theatrical showings are released at the same time. (Indian producers have crazy deadlines for release dates. However, this is slowly changing. Labs are advising producers to use DPX for JPEG 2000.

In that case the camera negative is used twice, once for DI (DPX) and once for JPEG2000? The mind boggles. How do they make sure the color grading is the same on both? How do they deal with all post production on the DI (sfx etc.) that are NOT on the camera negative??? These parts of the JPEG2000 come from the duplicate negative??? If the DPX are ready in time for prints which take additional time for normal lab processing, why is there no time for turning DPX into JPEG2000? This can be done fully automated. Where is the problem?