Beowulf - the "best PQ" so far ??

Not even close (IMHO). AVC deblocking loop filtering (due to lower than optimal bitrate budget ;)) makes this one smoother/softer (edges + in particular textures) than I would wish for.

Even your very own screencaps demonstrate this quite clearly ->IMHO<-.

E.g. the Pixar titles definitely show better definition and high frequency detail. But hyperbole is fun, isn't it?

On the topic at hand:

At this point I expect Times Warner to switch to AVC - two interesting factors: how long will this transition take and will it happen gradually? And second what will Universal do - their Microsoft bonds are quite strong...

That's OK. IMHO.

You can choose Rats or Cars too.

If Beowulf looks crap to some then its OK too :)

That's OK. IMHO.

You can choose Rats or Cars too.

If Beowulf looks crap to some then its OK too :)

Beowulf looking like crap? Far from it... It is excellent indeed. But on a revealing setup there is "better" to be experienced.

I am looking forward to what Paramount will be doing in the near future with their upcoming encodings optimized for BD50. Flags of our fathers was a very telling example what is "left in the dark" (quite literally when looking at VC-1/PEPs performance regarding "shadow details" with this release ;)) even with an ~18MBit/s ABR encoding - which is quite high by HD-DVDs standards.

But surely I agree with you - BITRATE really became an obsession with some AVS members. Not even 25Mbps ABR AVC is "enough" now. Bitrate is just one, single factor in the "PQ equation" - and by far not the weakest link in almost all current releases.

When I see no more Mpeg movies I will be happy. I am personally a HD DVD supporter (even though it is dead:(), but to think the BDA or who ever is running everything Blu Ray would lower quality is stupid. I know Sony loves screwing consumers (so anything can happen I guess), but to get people to buy into HDM they first need to be blown away by the PQ. Many people notice a slight difference now, or just care don't enough, so one way to get more people on board is to get better PQ.

Blu Ray already has a major hurdle it needs to get over, price, it doesn't need another, PQ. So whatever codec is chosen as long as the PQ blows me away, then I will be happy, probably many others will be as well. Currently the only Blu Ray titles that have really impressed me are the Disney ones, all the others just didn't do it for me, but maybe it's just me. So Sony won the format war, so lets just hope HDM doesn't die so we can all just sit back and enjoy some HD goodness.

I am looking forward to what Paramount will be doing in the near future with their upcoming encodings optimized for BD50. Flags of our fathers was a very telling example what is "left in the dark" (quite literally when looking at VC-1/PEPs performance regarding "shadow details" with this release ;)) even with an ~18MBit/s ABR encoding - which is quite high by HD-DVDs standards.

If flags is the best example what BDs bitrates can do, then I see it proven that VC1 on BD25 will be good enough for most releases.

It will be verrry interesting the assessment on the PQ of some AVS members about I Am Legend. If I tell you the file size of that movie in VC-1 you would not believe its possible now to get that level of PQ.

Please tell Xylon.

If flags is the best example what BDs bitrates can do, then I see it proven that VC1 on BD25 will be good enough for most releases.

*cough*don't let them hear you say that*cough*

I Am Legend uses two encodes on the same disc doesn't it? Friggin slackers. Warner can't get seamless branching working yet?

*cough*don't let them hear you say that*cough*

I Am Legend uses two encodes on the same disc doesn't it? Friggin slackers. Warner can't get seamless branching working yet?

yeah what's up with that? two separate files from two separate versions.

Please tell Xylon.

You know it would be nice that the usual suspects don't know the files size before hand and just judge the PQ honestly without glancing at the bitrate meter every 2 seconds :D

Would that be interseting?

yeah what's up with that? two separate files from two separate versions.

And if I'm not mistaken the alternate version just has a different ending. The rest is the same. Is it that hard to do seamless branching? :confused:

You know it would be nice that the usual suspects don't know the files size before hand and just judge the PQ honestly without glancing at the bitrate meter every 2 seconds :D

Would that be interseting?

The problem is you already gave away some hints. And I guess the bitrate meter will be on anyway during the playback.

But other then that I agree with you.

It will be verrry interesting the assessment on the PQ of some AVS members about I Am Legend. If I tell you the file size of that movie in VC-1 you would not believe its possible now to get that level of PQ.

I haven't seen it myself yet but judging by initial reviews like this one I am not quite sure it serves your bitrate argument as well as you would like ;) :

http://avplay.avforums.com/index.php?showmediareview=9235

"Picture
Warner brings I Am Legend into the hi-def world with a 1080p image stretched across a gloriously wide 2.40:1 aspect. Encoded via VC-1, the picture is, to my eyes, slightly disappointing. Firstly, the image just doesn’t look as sharp as I expected it to. The film incorporates so many pure eye-candy shots of the deserted Manhattan that you just expect the frame to reveal endless detail upon detail as we look down upon Neville’s Mustang roaring up the street, or along the overgrown sidewalks – yet the picture remains slightly soft with regards to such finite revelations as windows, junked cars, street signs, billboards etc. Oh, you can still see such things, of course … but this just doesn’t possess much of that crystal pop that a brand new movie should exhibit aplenty. The three-dimensionality that I loved so much from the cinema print does not present itself here, with many of the stand-out (literally stand-out) moments remaining surprisingly flat. I’m talking here about Neville and Sam on the wing of the fighter; Neville standing on the roof of the car as Sam chases the deer; the great aerial view of the bridges going up; the charging Seekers on the pier and swarming towards Neville’s brownstone at the end; and the image of the leering leader of the infected as seen through the splintering toughened-glass in the lab. But what does stand out, before you think I’m going to continually slate this transfer (because I’m not doing that at all, folks), are individual shots that do achieve it, albeit fleetingly. Imagery like Neville’s face coming into close-up as he screeches to a halt at the roadblock during the deer hunt, or hanging upside-down with beads of blood and sweat dripping off his head can seem to project from the screen with the depth that we know a good 1080p transfer can bestow. But the picture still doesn’t look quite as highly defined as I’d hoped.

Ok, so this softer look compromises some detail, I feel, but there are still lots of interesting visual flourishes dotted about the frame that I hadn’t picked up on until now – such as the poster for The Green Lantern on the wall outside the DVD store and, more acutely, the smoking body for one of the other Seekers that had taken the plunge out of the window into the sunlight alongside Neville. Strangely enough, during subsequent viewings at the flicks, I even looked for evidence of the other two infected that fall alongside Smith and the baddie who is nibbling on his shoulder, yet could find none besides the main head-banger framed foreground, front and centre. Now, over to the extreme left, you can finally see remains of another. But comparing some shots with the SD edition, which I also have – images such as Neville and Sam stalking through the long grass near the start and the tattered and torn fur on a bloodied Sam later on, for examples - reveal almost as much detail and definition as the Blu-ray … which is why I can’t get so excited over this transfer.

Although contrast is excellent, I don’t think that the blacks here are as deep as they ought to be. Whilst the night-time evacuation scenes feature robust blacks and smoothly saturated dark midnight blues, the sequence with Neville entering The Dark Building drops the ball with shadows that just aren’t thick enough. At the flicks this scene was incredible and was something that I was really looking forward to seeing in hi-def, but the impenetrable gloom now seems several shades lighter and the impact of Neville’s torch loses some of its potent white glare as it cuts through. Also the shadows that the alpha-male steps out of to unleash his dogs drift a little more towards the grey side.

But, one of the big pluses is that colours are terrific. The bright red of the Mustang ignites the frame, the greens of the grass swallowing Times Square, the no-man’s land of a shaft of sunlight during the dog-attack, the black-and-tan shading of Sam, the hazy light that engulfs the home Neville is searching and the tins of food in the cupboard – the disc does well with its extensive palette across the board. The flames of Neville’s ring-of-fire defence system during the last act have a fiercely orange glow and the blue sky behind him as he plays golf off the wing of a jet on the USS Intrepid has a realistic sheen of late summer sunlight. The film has this summery outlook throughout, but it is not a necessarily brighter image than required. The hue is sort of dry and stifling, diffused with yellow which, of course, seems to tie into the less-than-healthy appearance of the infected. A shot in the Alternate cut shows the infection seeping under the almost-translucent skin of a body and this re-colouration looks fine. Flesh-tones are very good for the humans too and facially you can certainly see every pore on Smith’s face during tight close-ups.

Naturally the print is impeccable with only a microscopic hint of grain. Digital gremlins have been kept in check too, with no problematic edge enhancement, smearing, noise or artefacts creeping into the picture. So, although there is much to commend this image, I still don’t think that I Am Legend looks anywhere near as astonishingly crisp and sharp as a big new 1080p blockbuster should. There may be moments of razzle-dazzle now and again but, somehow, I expected more from this.

I should add that people who watched this disc with me thought the image was incredible in the main, although agreed that it was softer than they’d come to expect from Blu-ray."

Lack of definition...VC-1s deblocking filter hard at work - don't you just adore a "smooth" picture ;).

(btw I hate to quote "professional" reviews but you where asking for initial assessments - so here you go)

I Am Legend was extremeley soft in the theater when I saw it. It was a 2k DLP show but I kind of have my suspisions that the source was less than that. Not sure how the BRD stacks up to that.

I haven't seen it myself yet but judging by initial reviews like this one I am not quite sure it serves your bitrate argument as well as you would like ;) :

http://avplay.avforums.com/index.php?showmediareview=9235

"Picture
Warner brings I Am Legend into the hi-def world with a 1080p image stretched across a gloriously wide 2.40:1 aspect. Encoded via VC-1, the picture is, to my eyes, slightly disappointing. Firstly, the image just doesn’t look as sharp as I expected it to. The film incorporates so many pure eye-candy shots of the deserted Manhattan that you just expect the frame to reveal endless detail upon detail as we look down upon Neville’s Mustang roaring up the street, or along the overgrown sidewalks – yet the picture remains slightly soft with regards to such finite revelations as windows, junked cars, street signs, billboards etc. Oh, you can still see such things, of course … but this just doesn’t possess much of that crystal pop that a brand new movie should exhibit aplenty. The three-dimensionality that I loved so much from the cinema print does not present itself here, with many of the stand-out (literally stand-out) moments remaining surprisingly flat. I’m talking here about Neville and Sam on the wing of the fighter; Neville standing on the roof of the car as Sam chases the deer; the great aerial view of the bridges going up; the charging Seekers on the pier and swarming towards Neville’s brownstone at the end; and the image of the leering leader of the infected as seen through the splintering toughened-glass in the lab. But what does stand out, before you think I’m going to continually slate this transfer (because I’m not doing that at all, folks), are individual shots that do achieve it, albeit fleetingly. Imagery like Neville’s face coming into close-up as he screeches to a halt at the roadblock during the deer hunt, or hanging upside-down with beads of blood and sweat dripping off his head can seem to project from the screen with the depth that we know a good 1080p transfer can bestow. But the picture still doesn’t look quite as highly defined as I’d hoped.

Ok, so this softer look compromises some detail, I feel, but there are still lots of interesting visual flourishes dotted about the frame that I hadn’t picked up on until now – such as the poster for The Green Lantern on the wall outside the DVD store and, more acutely, the smoking body for one of the other Seekers that had taken the plunge out of the window into the sunlight alongside Neville. Strangely enough, during subsequent viewings at the flicks, I even looked for evidence of the other two infected that fall alongside Smith and the baddie who is nibbling on his shoulder, yet could find none besides the main head-banger framed foreground, front and centre. Now, over to the extreme left, you can finally see remains of another. But comparing some shots with the SD edition, which I also have – images such as Neville and Sam stalking through the long grass near the start and the tattered and torn fur on a bloodied Sam later on, for examples - reveal almost as much detail and definition as the Blu-ray … which is why I can’t get so excited over this transfer.

Although contrast is excellent, I don’t think that the blacks here are as deep as they ought to be. Whilst the night-time evacuation scenes feature robust blacks and smoothly saturated dark midnight blues, the sequence with Neville entering The Dark Building drops the ball with shadows that just aren’t thick enough. At the flicks this scene was incredible and was something that I was really looking forward to seeing in hi-def, but the impenetrable gloom now seems several shades lighter and the impact of Neville’s torch loses some of its potent white glare as it cuts through. Also the shadows that the alpha-male steps out of to unleash his dogs drift a little more towards the grey side.

But, one of the big pluses is that colours are terrific. The bright red of the Mustang ignites the frame, the greens of the grass swallowing Times Square, the no-man’s land of a shaft of sunlight during the dog-attack, the black-and-tan shading of Sam, the hazy light that engulfs the home Neville is searching and the tins of food in the cupboard – the disc does well with its extensive palette across the board. The flames of Neville’s ring-of-fire defence system during the last act have a fiercely orange glow and the blue sky behind him as he plays golf off the wing of a jet on the USS Intrepid has a realistic sheen of late summer sunlight. The film has this summery outlook throughout, but it is not a necessarily brighter image than required. The hue is sort of dry and stifling, diffused with yellow which, of course, seems to tie into the less-than-healthy appearance of the infected. A shot in the Alternate cut shows the infection seeping under the almost-translucent skin of a body and this re-colouration looks fine. Flesh-tones are very good for the humans too and facially you can certainly see every pore on Smith’s face during tight close-ups.

Naturally the print is impeccable with only a microscopic hint of grain. Digital gremlins have been kept in check too, with no problematic edge enhancement, smearing, noise or artefacts creeping into the picture. So, although there is much to commend this image, I still don’t think that I Am Legend looks anywhere near as astonishingly crisp and sharp as a big new 1080p blockbuster should. There may be moments of razzle-dazzle now and again but, somehow, I expected more from this.

I should add that people who watched this disc with me thought the image was incredible in the main, although agreed that it was softer than they’d come to expect from Blu-ray."

Lack of definition...VC-1s deblocking filter hard at work - don't you just adore a "smooth" picture ;).

(btw I hate to quote "professional" reviews but you where asking for initial assessments - so here you go)

LOL! Lack of definition?! Time to get those eyes checked :D

And yes I hate quoting "pro reviews". Too easy.

And if I'm not mistaken the alternate version just has a different ending. The rest is the same. Is it that hard to do seamless branching? :confused:

Three perfectly branched versions of Bladerunner on one blu-ray disc would seem to indicate that the answer is "no".

And that will force the PiP 60hz video to be converted to 24fps too.
And as has been said, they're converting proper 60i titles (I'd imagine documentaries/concerts etc.) to 24fps because they 'think' everyone prefers it (when that's not the case).

It would be easier for a player to reduce the frame rate to 24fps than to increase it with fake motion interpolation.

Sony has been guilty of this on a couple of concert titles I believe.

Hey! Appleseed is actually optimized for BD25!!!!:p

To be specific, it's optimized for BD25/HD30. This means it has the low bitrate of HD DVD and the size limitations of BD25. It's quite literally the worst of both worlds.

This is why it is so easy to despise Warner, but hopefully by May we will start seeing encodes which are optimized for Blu-ray only and this sort of crap can be stopped. At high enough bitrates VC-1 and AVC are hard to tell apart.

Three perfectly branched versions of Bladerunner on one blu-ray disc would seem to indicate that the answer is "no".

I am Legend and Blade Runner were done by different facilities.

There are at least three muxers in use for BD. Blu-print, Sonic and ULead. They are constantly evolving.

Hey guys --- a couple of questions. Was there any difference in PQ between Black Snake Moan on HD DVD vs blu-ray (same encodes?) Has anyone done any comparisons (if different encodes).

Also...Beowulf UK version on blu-ray is just coming out. I hear that it's VC-1 encoded. Anyone know if it's "optimized" for BD-50. It'd be nice to see the difference between the AVC encoded HD DVD and the VC-1 encoded BD....

There is more to Beowulf than just the codec. The BD version was rounded to 8-bit while the HD DVD used advanced dither techniques developed by Microsoft. (Don Munsil wrote the algorithms)

I expect the HD DVD to have smoother gradients because of the dither. If someone (Xylon?) wants to host a couple of images, I can provide some round vs. dither examples using Elephants Dream. I went back to the 16-bit EXR files. There is a massive difference between the two on animations.

If someone (Xylon?) wants to host a couple of images, I can provide some round vs. dither examples using Elephants Dream. I went back to the 16-bit EXR files. There is a massive difference between the two on animations.I'd very interested to see those...

Diogen.

There is more to Beowulf than just the codec. The BD version was rounded to 8-bit while the HD DVD used advanced dither techniques developed by Microsoft. (Don Munsil wrote the algorithms)

Why would the VC-1 version be rounded to 8-bit and the AVC version use MS techniques?

Why would the VC-1 version be rounded to 8-bit and the AVC version use MS techniques?

Because he doesn't know what he is talking about?

Because he doesn't know what he is talking about?Next time you want to imply that Stacey Spears doesn't know what he is talking about you might want to wait for some clarifications...

Diogen.

Next time you want to imply that Stacey Spears doesn't know what he is talking about you might want to wait for some clarifications...

Diogen.

Why do I need to wait for clarification? The US HD DVD version of Beowulf used AVC.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1304/beowulf2007.html

To assume Paramount used some super duper algorithms developed by Microsoft along with AVC is asinine. Last time I checked, Microsoft developed VC-1 and not AVC.

Do I need clarification that 2 + 2 = 4 too?

Why do I need to wait for clarification? The US HD DVD version of Beowulf used AVC.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1304/beowulf2007.html

To assume Paramount used some super duper algorithms developed by Microsoft along with AVC is asinine. Last time I checked, Microsoft developed VC-1 and not AVC.

Do I need clarification that 2 + 2 = 4 too?

Well, the conversion from 12-10bit to 8bit is often done before encoding starts. So its not unlikley that they used a seperate tool for the conversion then they used for encoding.

But just want to point out, that I dont know.

Why would the VC-1 version be rounded to 8-bit and the AVC version use MS techniques?

They were done by different facilities. While both have the same technology, from Microsoft, only one implemented a real-time application that uses it. (32 machines in parallel)

Deluxe did the HD DVD while GDMX did the BD. Deluxe uses xScaler (the algorithm) for virtually all of their HD production, which includes Disney, Pixar, Fox, Paramont, Universal and sometimes WHV (e.g. Blade Runner)

A lot of HD DVDs and BDs have used it. We gave the technology to pretty much anyone who wanted it. It is not built into the encoder, but stand alone. We deliver it as a DLL (DShow Filter) and it is up them to do something with it. There were some at MS that only wanted it used on VC-1. I was not one of them.

Because he doesn't know what he is talking about?

That is possible. The VC-1 encoder has been my primary focus/project for the last three years. I worked hand-in-hand with the compression facilities on VC-1 encoding. We worked with them on both HD DVD and BD titles.

Why do I need to wait for clarification? The US HD DVD version of Beowulf used AVC.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1304/beowulf2007.html

To assume Paramount used some super duper algorithms developed by Microsoft along with AVC is asinine. Last time I checked, Microsoft developed VC-1 and not AVC.

Do I need clarification that 2 + 2 = 4 too?I've seen some ignorant stuff on this forum, but this is near the top. It is laughable that you would make an assumption that wasn't true and then equate that to 2 + 2 = 4. More like you saying 2 + 2 = 5, since you were wrong in this case. I personally think you owe Stacey Spears an apology. You were the one who assumed here (and incorrectly).

As far as this subject, I hope that we can get some comparison shots so that if the xScaler algorithm shows improvement as far as banding with Beowulf, then somebody can put some pressure on GDMX to use it or at least something better than what they used.

--Darin

I was never impressed with Warner Blu-rays. They can switch to AVC for all I care. Less money in MS pocket.

as far as banding with Beowulf

I am not sure if there is banding in Beofwulf. I noticed the High Def Digest review mentioned it, but it was not clear if they went back to the HD DVD version to compare.

GDMX is one of the best compression facilities. They push back hard on master issues when it comes to banding. Some have complained about banding in titles since the launch but things would be a lot worse if it were not for their passion.

Like I said, I can provide some examples of the technology using Elephants Dream, if someone can host the images.

Why do I need to wait for clarification?Do you need help in cleaning egg residue from your face?

Ever heard what the word "apology" means?

Diogen.

I am not sure if there is banding in Beofwulf. I noticed the High Def Digest review mentioned it, but it was not clear if they went back to the HD DVD version to compare.

GDMX is one of the best compression facilities. They push back hard on master issues when it comes to banding. Some have complained about banding in titles since the launch but things would be a lot worse if it were not for their passion.

Like I said, I can provide some examples of the technology using Elephants Dream, if someone can host the images.

Stacey,

here is the quote from HDD you mentioned:

"Best of all, artifacting, noise, and compression issues don't hijack the proceedings. I did notice a bit of banding that I didn't catch on the domestic HD DVD, but I'm going to chalk it up to minor differences between my HD and BD players. Honestly, the infrequent bands were so inconspicuous that they hardly deserve a mention. All in all, this is a spectacular, reference quality transfer that makes for a great demo disc. This import is a no-brainer for fans who can't wait for 'Beowulf' to be announced for release on Blu-ray in the US."

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1420/beowulf_uk.html

I would be very much interested in direct-digital comparison caps that demonstrate the benefit of xScaler.

Banding on virtually all Warner HD DVDs wasn't the fault of MS. Cramming more than two hours of a movie, TrueHD, and an hour of extras were the reasons. With BD50 this should never happen again.
Long live VC-1.

Banding on virtually all Warner HD DVDs wasn't the fault of MS. Cramming more than two hours of a movie, TrueHD, and an hour of extras were the reasons. With BD50 this should never happen again.
Long live VC-1.

I'd say the problem is not the capacity, but the bandwidth (and peak bitrate).

Fade-ins and fade-outs are the bane of Warner titles.

The Fountain - fade-in at the beginning - Banding.
Corpse Bride - fade-out at the end - Banding.
Letters from Iwo Jima - fade-in on the black sands - Banding.

To name a few...

Banding on virtually all Warner HD DVDs wasn't the fault of MS. Cramming more than two hours of a movie, TrueHD, and an hour of extras were the reasons. With BD50 this should never happen again.
Long live VC-1.

If you dont do a proper downconversion of the material it wouldnt matter if you had a BD200 on your hands.

If you dont do a proper downconversion of the material it wouldnt matter if you had a BD200 on your hands.

Something tells me downconversion isn't the issue...

Here are the two images. Hopefully they show up, never used skydrive before.

I started off with the 16-bit EXR files from Blender. I converted both to 16-bit TIFFs in After Effects, with all processing disabled. I then used xScaler to convert to 8-bit RGB. Using dither for one image and rounding for the other. These have not been downsampled and have not been encoded.

The original 8-bit source files provided by them are available at: http://media.xiph.org/ED/1080-png/ You can confirm here that they suffer from the same banding, if not worse, in my example.

http://vljdmg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p58LfkY3AZuqfAzPeIoGcBshW-9S8uaqH88sYxrNFc3156hscmblVn4A6fsRRHVfKDGaxxxZAzZBAK4OLWLTQs A/ED_Dither.pnghttp://vljdmg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p58LfkY3AZupYBE8JQg7NgsJ6clHTGpQQa4ZIcx-2ErwQtoIp0lvlyT-5UVZYVKkw0l_-6gzwCVAcZ2_sLeA3KQ/ED_Round.png

Banding on virtually all Warner HD DVDs wasn't the fault of MS. Cramming more than two hours of a movie, TrueHD, and an hour of extras were the reasons. With BD50 this should never happen again.
Long live VC-1.

Banding is an encoding issue/problem or operator setup/configuration error not a bandwidth issue.

...Angelo

Wow! It's not just the banding in the ray of light, but look at the glowing orange pulley. The top one has a deeper color. In fact, the bottom image has slightly washed out colors overall.

Something tells me downconversion isn't the issue...My guess is that it is the issue more often. Although sometimes it may have been caused a while ago when things were archived a certain way (like 8 bit without a higher bit depth master existing).
Banding is an encoding issue/problem or operator setup/configuration error not a bandwidth issue.It can be any of those. It may be bandwidth less often, but it can be a bandwidth issue. For instance, low enough bandwidth that at least some dithering goes away and so transitions become sharper to the eye (I'm thinking of blues underwater or in the sky as areas especially susceptible to this). At the bitrates of these formats it may not be much of an issue, but at bitrates that will typically be used for downloads it could be a problem.

There is also the whole argument about whether codecs should just output what is input, but I am personally in favor of features like allowing the compressionist to fix up banding in the source the encoder is getting during segment re-encoding.

--Darin

I have started a new thead on the subject, did not mean to derail this one. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1011359

Banding is an encoding issue/problem or operator setup/configuration error not a bandwidth issue.

It can be an encoding issue. It may also be a pre-processing issue. Or it may simply be in the source, which would mean pre-processing somewhere else in the chain.

Bandwidth can come into play. In the example above, the image pans to the right as he walks across. It takes a pretty high bitrate to maintain a perfect gradient in the light.

Some of you people (not sspears) are making ludicrous statements. Yet somehow you forgot to mention "You just need to get your display calibrated/turn the contrast down."

It can be an encoding issue. It may also be a pre-processing issue. Or it may simply be in the source, which would mean pre-processing somewhere else in the chain.

Bandwidth can come into play. In the example above, the image pans to the right as he walks across. It takes a pretty high bitrate to maintain a perfect gradient in the light.

As for bandwidth I meant that HD does have enough bandwidth and shouldn't a problem. Or do you think HD DVD doesn't bandwidth to combat banding (not that it would matter since the format is dead)?

An excellent encoding facility will customize encoding rates for special scenes like your above image pans so banding doesn't show.

...Angelo

Main Concept.

Cinevision has an implementation based on the MCE, but is not, by any means 100% equal to the MC H.264 implementation, to Sonic's credit in this case :). If you look at the top 3 or 4 H.264 encoders for BD Applications that will be shown at NAB - Thomson, CinemaCraft, Sonic, and I'm sure others - nearly all of them use different base implementations should you consult their engineers. This is a clear sign that the singular directed development of VC-1 by MS can show that this VLC-based codec can best H.264 about as often as the reverse is true. H.264 is really good on paper, but cannot 100% of the time state a clear win no matter the implementation. Look at Disney and their jump from one to another. Lionsgate has some VC-1's as well. Clearly these studios are sane and approach both codecs on a project by project basis as probably Warner is as well.

-H

I don't know if it's me or not. But I played terminator 3 on bluray and it was in VC-1 avg about 10-12Mbps. Terminator 2 was using MPEG at avg around 20Mbps and I swear VC1 looked better.

I don't know if it's me or not. But I played terminator 3 on bluray and it was in VC-1 avg about 10-12Mbps. Terminator 2 was using MPEG at avg around 20Mbps and I swear VC1 looked better.

Terminator3 had a better source. The codecs gives very small differences compared to what a great source will.

I don't know if it's me or not. But I played terminator 3 on bluray and it was in VC-1 avg about 10-12Mbps. Terminator 2 was using MPEG at avg around 20Mbps and I swear VC1 looked better.
I think you'd have to compare the same movie and the same transfer with the different codecs to see which is better (or the better implementation of that codec).

Universal - Knocked Up - 133 Mins - VC-1 crammed with plenty of extras looks far better than the Superbad - 2 DISC EDITION - 118 Mins - high bit rate AVC. Knocked up is amongst the overlooked title for PQ and is ranked lower in the HD DVD Tier thread.

Both movies carry similar visual styles but Superbad looks Flat and Soft because of too much of over processing.

Before bashing me I request you to closely examine and compare the PQ on these 2 movies faithfully.

I am not sure how Knocked Up was shot, I suppose I could look, but Superbad was shot on a Panavision Genesis digital camera.

To be honest I was stunned after comparing Knocked up and Superbad. Though I don't have good knowledge about VC-1 or AVC all I can say is Crap In Crap Out.

Universal - Knocked Up - 133 Mins - VC-1 crammed with plenty of extras looks far better than the Superbad - 2 DISC EDITION - 118 Mins - high bit rate AVC. Knocked up is amongst the overlooked title for PQ and is ranked lower in the HD DVD Tier thread.

Both movies carry similar visual styles but Superbad looks Flat and Soft because of too much of over processing.

Before bashing me I request you to closely examine and compare the PQ on these 2 movies faithfully.

This has nothing to do with VC-1 vs AVC or bitrate differences. Knocked Up was shot on 35mm and mainly in very good light conditions - Superbad was shot Panavision Genesis HD (Digital) and the majority of it plays under difficult light (night scenes, especially though for digital).

I know that but just wanted to indirectly convey that codecs and bit rates are secondary to nature of filming and quality of the master.

I know that but just wanted to indirectly convey that codecs and bit rates are secondary to nature of filming and quality of the master.

That's certainly something we can agree upon ;)

But the "nature of filming" + (to a lesser extend) the quality of mastering are pretty much set - "pre-encoding-processing"+codec+bitrate+attention/skill of the compressionist are variables that can be optimized. Plenty of bitrate can make codec choice + compressionist attention "less significant".

There is more to Beowulf than just the codec. The BD version was rounded to 8-bit while the HD DVD used advanced dither techniques developed by Microsoft. (Don Munsil wrote the algorithms)
I expect the HD DVD to have smoother gradients because of the dither. If someone (Xylon?) wants to host a couple of images, I can provide some round vs. dither examples using Elephants Dream. I went back to the 16-bit EXR files. There is a massive difference between the two on animations.
Will the US BD use dithering?

I'd say the problem is not the capacity, but the bandwidth (and peak bitrate).
Fade-ins and fade-outs are the bane of Warner titles.
The Fountain - fade-in at the beginning - Banding.
.

The banding is also on the Fox AVC UK disk. So looks master related.

Will the US BD use dithering?

It depends on who does the US BD.

The banding is also on the Fox AVC UK disk. So looks master related.

IIRC, the Fox disc is MPEG-2. But it does look master-related.

It depends on who does the US BD.

It's probably a safe bet it's not going to be GDMX.

IIRC, the Fox disc is MPEG-2. But it does look master-related.
Correct. Wrong memory.

We gave the technology to pretty much anyone who wanted it. It is not built into the encoder, but stand alone. We deliver it as a DLL (DShow Filter) and it is up them to do something with it. There were some at MS that only wanted it used on VC-1. I was not one of them.

If i ever get a chance i will be buying you all the beers you can drink (offer is only valid for one evening/night, any beans you might spill about HD secrets will be kept :-))

Some of the best rated BDs in PQ are VC1. It is a good codec. It has more to do with the transfer than the codec.

I'd hate for this thread to be hijiacked into a VC1 vs AVC thread, but I hope Warner sticks with VC1 (high bit-rate of course, like New Line) as they've thus far had stellar PQ on the majority of their titles. If it ain't broke, don't fix it....

Hahaha...NO.

VC-1 and AVC probably has little to do with it, but Warner's releases have consistently had subpar PQ compared with releases from other studios.

Hahaha...NO.

VC-1 and AVC probably has little to do with it, but Warner's releases have consistently had subpar PQ compared with releases from other studios.

100% agree.