Okay I wasn't planning on doing a V for Vendetta comparison but I feel there were too many posts describing it as awful or amazing without much to back up the opinions.

First, Xylon's own DVD vs HD DVD comparison (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10525808#post10525808) is here (the HD DVD and Blu-ray encodes for this movie are identical).

Xylon, you've stated that "bitrates and master source goes hand in hand" which I'll be the first one to agree with, but it seems you either missed the artifacts in this movie or felt they weren't important. So I'm wondering which it is? :)

From this closed thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1034399):
V for Vendetta is may not be as sharp as ______ or look "3D" as _______ , but I find this transfer excellent and consistent. No annoying artifacts to complain about. No distracting EE or DNR to worry about.

Thats my review for this BD disc BTW :)
Is the PQ consistent? Any visible noise? Compression artifacts?

So what is exactly wrong with V for Vendetta PQ? Anyone?

I'm a bit late, but I have an answer. :) (unfortunately...) But before that here's the BDInfo.


Total Video
Title Codec Length Movie Size Disc Size Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio Track Secondary Audio Track
----- ------ ------- -------------- -------------- ------- ------- ------------------ ---------------------
V for Vendetta VC-1 2:12:32 22,824,474,624 27,375,237,016 22.96 12.53 Dolby TrueHD 5.1 1376Kbps (48kHz/24-bit) DD AC3 5.1 448Kbps




PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name: 00003.mpls
Size: 22,824,474,624 bytes
Length: 2:12:32 (h:m:s)
Total Bitrate: 22.96 Mbps
Description:

FILES:

Name Size Length Time In Time Out
---- ---- ------ ------- --------
00003.M2TS 22,824,474,624 2:12:32.361 0:00:00.000 2:12:32.361

VIDEO:

Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
VC-1 Video 12526 kbps 1080p / 23.976fps
VC-1 Video 969 kbps 480p / 23.976fps

AUDIO:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Dolby TrueHD Audio English 1376 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 24-bit / 1376kbps (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48kHz / 448kbps)
Dolby Digital Audio English 448 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 448kbps
Dolby Digital Audio French 448 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 448kbps
Dolby Digital Audio French 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps
Dolby Digital Audio German 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps
Dolby Digital Audio Italian 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps
Dolby Digital Audio Japanese 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps
Dolby Digital Audio Spanish 640 kbps 5.1 / 48kHz / 640kbps
Dolby Digital Plus Audio English 192 kbps 2.0 / 48kHz / 192kbps

SUBTITLES:

Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
Presentation Graphics English 43 kbps
Presentation Graphics English 51 kbps
Presentation Graphics Danish 31 kbps
Presentation Graphics Danish 41 kbps
Presentation Graphics Dutch 32 kbps
Presentation Graphics Dutch 43 kbps
Presentation Graphics Finnish 32 kbps
Presentation Graphics Finnish 43 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 31 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 0 kbps
Presentation Graphics French 43 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 44 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 46 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 0 kbps
Presentation Graphics German 52 kbps
Presentation Graphics Italian 41 kbps
Presentation Graphics Italian 44 kbps
Presentation Graphics Italian 0 kbps
Presentation Graphics Italian 50 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 30 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 0 kbps
Presentation Graphics Japanese 41 kbps
Presentation Graphics Norwegian 38 kbps
Presentation Graphics Norwegian 45 kbps
Presentation Graphics Portuguese 43 kbps
Presentation Graphics Portuguese 47 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 42 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 0 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 36 kbps
Presentation Graphics Spanish 48 kbps
Presentation Graphics Swedish 34 kbps
Presentation Graphics Swedish 38 kbps

CHAPTERS:

Number Time Name
------ ---- ----
1 0:00:00.000 Chapter 1
2 0:02:24.310 Chapter 2
3 0:09:07.880 Chapter 3
4 0:11:00.409 Chapter 4
5 0:16:26.986 Chapter 5
6 0:21:56.648 Chapter 6
7 0:25:01.500 Chapter 7
8 0:30:09.808 Chapter 8
9 0:35:37.468 Chapter 9
10 0:40:37.435 Chapter 10
11 0:43:14.258 Chapter 11
12 0:48:02.713 Chapter 12
13 0:49:40.978 Chapter 13
14 0:54:11.081 Chapter 14
15 0:56:39.562 Chapter 15
16 1:00:31.294 Chapter 16
17 1:04:47.049 Chapter 17
18 1:09:41.177 Chapter 18
19 1:12:07.489 Chapter 19
20 1:18:49.725 Chapter 20
21 1:21:13.034 Chapter 21
22 1:26:01.656 Chapter 22
23 1:29:20.688 Chapter 23
24 1:32:08.356 Chapter 24
25 1:36:21.275 Chapter 25
26 1:39:28.462 Chapter 26
27 1:44:17.584 Chapter 27
28 1:48:50.357 Chapter 28
29 1:52:03.717 Chapter 29
30 1:53:57.664 Chapter 30
31 1:57:51.564 Chapter 31
32 1:59:35.334 Chapter 32
33 2:04:38.471 Chapter 33
34 2:12:32.110 Chapter 34



A few mouseovers for the regular comparison. Detail is slightly above 720p; almost invisible difference at 100%.
0-12-02;00 - DVD vs BD (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-12-02;00_1.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-12-02;00_2.png)
0-38-06;12 - DVD vs BD (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-38-06;12_1.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-38-06;12_2.png)
0-57-58;09 - DVD vs BD (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_1.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2.png)
0-57-58;09 - BD vs BD->1280x720 (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2-2_1280x720.png)
0-57-58;09 - BD vs BD->720x480 (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2-3_720x480.png)
0-57-58;09 - DVD vs BD->720x480 (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_1.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2-3_720x480.png)

Now for the bad... For one thing it seems to me that the low bitrate softens/enlarges the grain in some parts, but I don't really have good examples of this so I'm going to focus on the demonstratable compression artifacts that appear throughout the Chancellor scene from 11:00 to 13:00.

Perhaps you saw the blocking on the BD pic already? I found it was hard to really get it across with any screenshots, but over-sharpening the image in Photoshop makes imperfections that are present obvious.

0-12-02;00 - DVD oversharpened vs BD oversharpened (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-12-02;00_1-oversharpened.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-12-02;00_2-oversharpened.png)

And so you can get an idea of how that frame should look, here's one of the other frames from above oversharpened. It's still got some blocks compared to shots from other movies but it's way more filmlike than the first image.

0-38-06;12 - DVD oversharpened vs BD oversharpened (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-38-06;12_1-oversharpened.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-38-06;12_2-oversharpened.png)

Again, getting screenshots that really showed how this blocking affects the movie wasn't possible as the effect is more visible in motion. So I decided to try something different. I've created 3 video clips that can be downloaded here:

V for Vendetta blocking - 1 - 1040x480 Huffyuv.avi (http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/V for Vendetta blocking - 1 - 1040x480 Huffyuv.avi) (19.8MB)
V for Vendetta blocking - 2 - 780x480 Huffyuv.avi (http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/V for Vendetta blocking - 2 - 780x480 Huffyuv.avi) (14.2MB)
V for Vendetta blocking - 3 - 780x480 Huffyuv.avi (http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/V for Vendetta blocking - 3 - 780x480 Huffyuv.avi) (34.9MB)

They are AVI files losslessly compressed using the Huffyuv (http://www.free-codecs.com/download/HuffYUV.htm) codec. To save space and make display easier I cropped them down from the original 1920x1080 with no resizing so if you view them at 1:1 you'll be getting an exact portion of the full frame as it would be displayed on your monitor.

Hopefully from the videos you can see how the blocks pulsate and cause unnatural motion. The DVD version of the first clip actually looks more realistic in terms of movement!

Thanks msgohan. Let's add more fuel to the fire. :)

Thick banding can easily be seen in the skylines on the overture scene. I will report more artefacts later.

To me V & Batman Begins are just resolution enhanced versions on Blu-ray that look only slightly better and detailed than upscaled DVD which many won't accept.

The blocking/oversharpening pics are interesting. I'm not familiar with the history of this discussion (and I don't want to get this thread locked), but can somebody inform me of whether or not the blocking was noticed/visible in the HD DVD transfer as well? I would assume so, but I don't want to assume :o

Brandon

I think V For Vendetta's transfer was very acceptable when it was released(October of 2006). It is not acceptable at the time of this writing though. Why Warner just dumped this old encode on to Blu-ray after almost two years is beyond me. What is disappointing is that this movie probably won't get a new release on Blu-ray for many years.

No one would have cared about the transfer had Warner made a dual release. 18+ months time and dumping this old filtered blocky encode is totally unacceptable.

OP can you do one of these for Batman Begins?

I have some screenshots of noticeable blocking artifacts in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix if anyone is interested.

OP can you do one of these for Batman Begins?

It'll be a few weeks before I get it, but I'll at least post some screenshots for another DU test of it if nothing else. I don't have the DVD for comparison.

I have some screenshots of noticeable blocking artifacts in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix if anyone is interested.

I'm always interested. :) Surprised at the lack of response to this topic though, I guess most people are happy with the overall presentation.

I have some screenshots of noticeable blocking artifacts in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix if anyone is interested.

It's here. I almost went into an argument with you but you proved me wrong. Anyways that was a nice catch by you and it helped me in learning more about macroblocking.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12865110#post12865110

Here's the question... What are the conclusions that some of you are drawing from this. It's obvious Warner screwed up...

The question is -- what do you believe this is evidence of (aside from bad care)?
It's a bad encoding job? Evidence of artifacts because of low-bit rate... "Filtering".

The question is -- what do you believe this is evidence of (aside from bad care)?
It's a bad encoding job? Evidence of artifacts because of low-bit rate... "Filtering".

This encode was probably created close to 2 years ago and should have been refreshed. Today the codecs are better, the tools are better and the compressionists are more experienced.

Its interesting to see how different studios are handling the release of former HD DVD exclusive films on BD. Universal has apparently created fresh encodes for the Mummy movies rather than recycling the older VC1 ports. Now granted, the Mummy franchise - especially with a new film hitting soon - is likely to generate more sales than V For Vendetta. However, the BD version of Batman Begins is certain to outsell the Mummy movies and Warner has not bothered with a fresh encode for that release either.

So basically we've got a case of Warner cutting costs.

When looking on the V for Vendetta shots, I would say they have used very somber lighting for the movie. If you dont use alot of light, the footage comes out very flat.

As for Universal making reencodes, I think it is because you cant port, some of their previous encodes.

This encode was probably created close to 2 years ago and should have been refreshed. Today the codecs are better, the tools are better and the compressionists are more experienced.


I agree but I watched the movie last night on a 60" TV and it looked pretty good/clear for the most part.
Definitely well above upconverting the DVD.

Also, I did a comparison on my 40" LCD and I found the blu-ray only slightly better than upconverting the DVD.
This was of course at 8 feet away but the blu-ray version was still noticeably better/clear.

Although this encode was not that great, I believe on larger TV/screens, the difference is more noticeably better than when viewing on a smaller TV/screen.

Okay I wasn't planning on doing a V for Vendetta comparison but I feel there were too many posts describing it as awful or amazing without much to back up the opinions.

First, Xylon's own DVD vs HD DVD comparison (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10525808#post10525808) is here (the HD DVD and Blu-ray encodes for this movie are identical).

Xylon, you've stated that "bitrates and master source goes hand in hand" which I'll be the first one to agree with, but it seems you either missed the artifacts in this movie or felt they weren't important. So I'm wondering which it is? :)

From this closed thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1034399):





A few mouseovers for the regular comparison. Detail is slightly above 720p; almost invisible difference at 100%.
0-12-02;00 - DVD vs BD (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-12-02;00_1.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-12-02;00_2.png)
0-38-06;12 - DVD vs BD (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-38-06;12_1.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-38-06;12_2.png)
0-57-58;09 - DVD vs BD (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_1.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2.png)
0-57-58;09 - BD vs BD->1280x720 (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2-2_1280x720.png)
0-57-58;09 - BD vs BD->720x480 (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2-3_720x480.png)
0-57-58;09 - DVD vs BD->720x480 (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_1.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-57-58;09_2-3_720x480.png)

Now for the bad... For one thing it seems to me that the low bitrate softens/enlarges the grain in some parts, but I don't really have good examples of this so I'm going to focus on the demonstratable compression artifacts that appear throughout the Chancellor scene from 11:00 to 13:00.

Perhaps you saw the blocking on the BD pic already? I found it was hard to really get it across with any screenshots, but over-sharpening the image in Photoshop makes imperfections that are present obvious.

0-12-02;00 - DVD oversharpened vs BD oversharpened (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-12-02;00_1-oversharpened.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-12-02;00_2-oversharpened.png)

And so you can get an idea of how that frame should look, here's one of the other frames from above oversharpened. It's still got some blocks compared to shots from other movies but it's way more filmlike than the first image.

0-38-06;12 - DVD oversharpened vs BD oversharpened (http://horn.hdtvtotal.com/hdtvtotal/scripts/waggle/waggle.php?hd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-38-06;12_1-oversharpened.png&sd=http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/0-38-06;12_2-oversharpened.png)

Again, getting screenshots that really showed how this blocking affects the movie wasn't possible as the effect is more visible in motion. So I decided to try something different. I've created 3 video clips that can be downloaded here:

V for Vendetta blocking - 1 - 1040x480 Huffyuv.avi (http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/V for Vendetta blocking - 1 - 1040x480 Huffyuv.avi) (19.8MB)
V for Vendetta blocking - 2 - 780x480 Huffyuv.avi (http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/V for Vendetta blocking - 2 - 780x480 Huffyuv.avi) (14.2MB)
V for Vendetta blocking - 3 - 780x480 Huffyuv.avi (http://chidragon.thedessie.com/bdcomp/vfvcomp/V for Vendetta blocking - 3 - 780x480 Huffyuv.avi) (34.9MB)

They are AVI files losslessly compressed using the Huffyuv (http://www.free-codecs.com/download/HuffYUV.htm) codec. To save space and make display easier I cropped them down from the original 1920x1080 with no resizing so if you view them at 1:1 you'll be getting an exact portion of the full frame as it would be displayed on your monitor.

Hopefully from the videos you can see how the blocks pulsate and cause unnatural motion. The DVD version of the first clip actually looks more realistic in terms of movement!

That is a lot of work and Photoshop enhancements ;) oh and AVI movie files :eek:

No transfer is perfect. Every one should start to remember that. Its the discernable, in your face, you must be blind if you are not seeing it, annoying artifacts is what matters.

Heck let me try . . .

Untouched BD pix --------------------------------------> 500% Unsharp mask
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/37bfd0a3.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/f9edc8fb.png

Untouched BD pix --------------------------------------> 500% Unsharp mask

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/1d50ed92.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/b18559f8.png

:eek::eek::eek:

Oh S***! Are those artifacts?!? It cant be! The bitrate meter doesn't lie!!! Oh noes! If the bitrate is high there can't be artifacts!?! What else could it be? Let my Photoshop more screenshots. I mean thats the only way to properly view them just like how we watch the movies ;)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/4a229e91.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/3d29c840.png

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/30a5d29d.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/5b7c03f5.png

oh and AVI movie files :eek:

What's the problem? AVI is a container, and HuffYuv is lossless. Since these are 1:1 crops with no resizing or funny business going on, I'm not sure what the problem is. Having said that I whipped out my disc anyway and checked the timecodes for those short scenes, and can see exactly what's being described.

No transfer is perfect.

Aren't we talking about the encode in this thread?

Its the discernable, in your face, you must be blind if you are not seeing it, annoying artifacts is what matters.

I would call the rampant blocking in the background and mild pulsing on the gentlemen's clothing "in your face" and very annoying, but that's just me :)

http://thumbnails8.imagebam.com/923/a5b4b39220423.gif (http://www.imagebam.com/image/a5b4b39220423)

This thread is just as valid as the many others concerning specific discs, IMO...

Last one I promise :)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/96102486.pnghttp://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/fabc545e.png

Do you have any comments about the (again IMO, obvious) issues laid out in this thread, then? :)

Haven't you been around long enough to know that HDDVD and VC1 are safe from criticism? :rolleyes:

BTW what are all these Pirates screenshots doing in a thread about V for Vendetta? This type of reaction merely proves everything I said in my previous post.

Just making sure that Vendetta doesn't have the monopoly in blocking and artifacting. Because two can play this game. I have done so many screenshots over the years and I know where the bad frames are.

Like I said before:

V for Vendetta may not be as sharp as ______ or look "3D" as _______ , but I find this transfer excellent and consistent. No annoying artifacts to complain about. No distracting EE or DNR to worry about.

As long as you don't have your viewing set at "Unsharp mask" setting ;)

Come on Xylon. Your biases and agendas have been pretty obvious in the past couple of years.

I think you're right. It's been blatantly obvious that Xylon doesn't like the Pirates movies. The misframed fiasco thread with the lack of followup screenshots and he almost always brings out the softest motion blurred screenshots. Xylon, you monster. :D

Traffic had a thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=831181), sort of. Face/off had a few hilarious threads. As for the other titles like 40 Year Old Virgin, Tremors, etc I have no idea why Xylon didn't jump on them. Maybe the expectations were so low for Universal titles that he didn't bother. I'd really like to see screen grabs from Waterworld, Liar Liar, Nutty Professor, Bruce Almighty, etc as well as the reportedly decent ones like Dragonheart, What Dreams May Come, and Dante's Peak.

re: this thread

V for Vendetta is soft. Batman Begins is soft. The Matrix is soft and has EE. Pirates 1, 2, and 3 are not soft. There's actual textures and grain. Of course there's going to be artifacts visible if you sharpen the hell out of it but it's overall a hell of a lot more satisfying to watch than the smoothed over Warner titles.

That is a lot of work and Photoshop enhancements ;) oh and AVI movie files :eek:

(what's that last movie you posted a shot of?)

Thanks for the perspective re: POTC, but those are fine compared to the destroyed eyes and mouth in the V shot. At any rate, how they appear in motion was the main point, hence the AVI files. Why do you think posting them was going overboard?

No transfer is perfect. Every one should start to remember that. Its the discernable, in your face, you must be blind if you are not seeing it, annoying artifacts is what matters.

I agree with most of this ("you must be blind if you are not seeing it" is setting the bar a bit low, though, I think :p). I have to get out of 1080p viewing range of my TV before the artifacts stop being visibly annoying to me. And sharpness is at 0 which is the minimum setting and doesn't introduce any ringing.

Do you have any comments about the (again IMO, obvious) issues laid out in this thread, then? :)

Vendetta is not a perfect transfer. But overall its very good. Not as sharp as Shoot Em Up or Live Free. A new remastering in the future will yield better results of course. Then again this applies to every HD release out there.

Some members can boost the sharpness settings on their TV if its too soft for them :)

(what's that last movie you posted a shot of?)

Thanks for the perspective re: POTC, but those are fine compared to the destroyed eyes and mouth in the V shot. At any rate, how they appear in motion was the main point, hence the AVI files. Why do you think posting them was going overboard?



I agree with most of this ("you must be blind if you are not seeing it" is setting the bar a bit low, though, I think :p). I have to get out of 1080p viewing range of my TV before the artifacts stop being visibly annoying to me. And sharpness is at 0 which is the minimum setting and doesn't introduce any ringing.

msgohan I meant no offense BTW. I believe we should stay away as much as possible from "boosting" our screenshots if we are comparing HD and DVD. BD and HD DVD should be perfectly OK since 99% of the time its the only way we can "see" the difference.

For the record I'm not against "image enhancements" but in this case unfortunately invites some errr lots of FUD. As you can see half of the replies on this thread just got deleted :eek:

The blocking is easily visible without any processing. As is the DNR which is among the worst to come out of Warner. I still don't see the point of posting screenshots from another movie. Sounds like a classic case of the Chewbacca Defense.

Call it what you want I am just showing another example for comparison purposes only ;)

Its really easy to do. I hope I did not spoil everyone with their PQ assessment of Pirates 1 (Its his fault :p ). I think I have some more from other movies :)








Nah. One is enough :)

re: this thread

V for Vendetta is soft. Batman Begins is soft. The Matrix is soft and has EE. Pirates 1, 2, and 3 are not soft. There's actual textures and grain. Of course there's going to be artifacts visible if you sharpen the hell out of it but it's overall a hell of a lot more satisfying to watch than the smoothed over Warner titles.

I agree 100%. Like I said before "Its not as sharp as . . . . . " I don't think anyone will claim V or Batman is in league with this other titles.

Case closed?

I think you're right. It's been blatantly obvious that Xylon doesn't like the Pirates movies. The misframed fiasco thread with the lack of followup screenshots and he almost always brings out the softest motion blurred screenshots. Xylon, you monster. :D

Traffic had a thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=831181), sort of. Face/off had a few hilarious threads. As for the other titles like 40 Year Old Virgin, Tremors, etc I have no idea why Xylon didn't jump on them. Maybe the expectations were so low for Universal titles that he didn't bother. I'd really like to see screen grabs from Waterworld, Liar Liar, Nutty Professor, Bruce Almighty, etc as well as the reportedly decent ones like Dragonheart, What Dreams May Come, and Dante's Peak.



Too much work LOL! I will rather concentrate on better releases. Traffic I already did many, many, many years ago;) Others just don't have the same popularity or importance as Pirates framing error, Dracula color timings (among other things), Master and Commander sub-par PQ after numerous delays, Patton, The Longest Day and Gangs of New York. Compare those to Universal titles :eek: Anyways someone already did the work and should be adequate.

Tremors will be up this weekend. I keep delaying it because other PQ issues came up from other titles that are more important. How many Tremors HD DVD were sold BTW :D

If Warner is applying DNR, it is most likely done for their DVDs. This results in the High def disc getting the shaft. It has nothing to do with VC-1 not being able to handle it at low bit-rates. The movie 300 seemd to preserve all the grain (albeit digital) that was in it. If the comeback is "300 was soft", then explain how DNR was used while still preserving all of the grain? There's also quite a few frames in Pirates that have a throughput of 17-20 mbps that show all the texture and grain that the higher throughput frames show. So how is it that some Pirates frames at lower bit rate look better than frames from 300 that are using the same bit-rate? Could the answer be "that's how it was shot"?


I'd really like to see screen grabs from Waterworld, Liar Liar, Nutty Professor, Bruce Almighty, etc as well as the reportedly decent ones like Dragonheart, What Dreams May Come, and Dante's Peak.

As far as those Universal transfers -- I can probably do a few screen grabs for Bruce Almighty, DragonHeart, Casino and Dawn of the Dead.

No matter how they look, blaming the bit-rate is useless. Universal released a lot of subpar titles that last summer... As GoNY and many other bad transfer proved, you can set the bit-rate as high as you want, but in the end it's garbage-in, garabage-out.

No matter how they look, blaming the bit-rate is useless. Universal released a lot of subpar titles that last summer... As GoNY and many other bad transfer proved, you can set the bit-rate as high as you want, but in the end it's garbage-in, garabage-out.

That's a non-sequitur. In no way does that prove it's worthless, and I think everybody already knows that garbage-in=garbage-out.

Brandon

The scene where the blocking artefacts are noticeable have bit rates hovering in 4 ~ 7 Mbps range.

I guess it used to be that Blu Ray was getting shafted because of HD DVD. Now, that Warner is into HD Digital distribution as well, the Blu Ray may be limited by digital bandwidth constraints :)

As for Universal, it'll be interesting to see where they stand on bit rates six months from now. Studios will do what brings them money in the cheapest way (unless someone else foots the bill to go the extra mile ;). Last year what were the top selling HD titles across both formats? what was the correlation between sales and PQ/AQ factors such as bit rates. The answer lies there.

That's a non-sequitur. In no way does that prove it's worthless, and I think everybody already knows that garbage-in=garbage-out.

Brandon

Unfortunately, it took a series of blu-ray title with 25-30 mbps average bit-rate AVC encodes for people to "know" that. (note: I'm not pinpointing you or anyone in particular).

I agree that low bit-rates can introduce problems, but I think the problem with Warner and Universal's titles come from the masters... The way I look at it is this.. if an already-very-good-looking transfer has problems, we can then point at the bit-rate for reasons why it doesnt look better. Look at Discovery HD, HDNet and some of the other channels. A lot of them show beautiful pictures that falter at certain times (fast motion, panning, etc). This seems more like a bit-rate problem than anything. Look at Man on Fire.. even with MPEG 2 cable brodacast it was still stunning, but likely had issues with artifacting. Even so, the overall look of it was great.

In the case of V, the picture wasn't that great to begin (when we compare to Pirates, etc). The lower bit-rate may add to the problem, but the more logical answer is that if it's going to look better they need to remaster it for an HD transfer (whereas the current master was most likely made for DVD but "good enough" for Warner to release it on HD DVD/blu-ray.

Once again I ask... What is the conclusion we are drawing from this thread:
1) The low bit-rate is the cause for V looking soft and not as good as other transfers
2) The Master used for V for Vendetta
3) there's artifacts in V For Vendetta

I agree that low bit-rates can introduce problems, but I think the problem with Warner and Universal's titles come from the masters.
No people can't focus on that. They need to point out that now that blu-ray is the chosen HDM, they need to point out flaws whenever possible for their own gratification.;)

I do agree about the masters. You can't make titles like Monty Pythons The Meaning of Life look great when the master is craptastic. Backdraft was also pretty horrible on HD DVD. I doubt it will look any better on blu-ray unless they redo the encode and really pay attention to detail.

Look at Man on Fire.. even with MPEG 2 cable brodacast it was still stunning, but likely had issues with artifacting. Even so, the overall look of it was great.

The Man on Fire screenshots vs BD were from a D-Theater.

Masters don't have blocking.
Apparently, some do!

At the time that Natures Journey was encoded ... For instance, the source had a lot of recorded in Macro blocking that proved difficult for the codec to handle.

Give me a break. :rolleyes:
I would if you knew what DCT was and where it is used.... ;)

Masters don't have blocking.

Heheh... We're playing word games here:


I agree that low bit-rates can introduce problems, but I think the problem with Warner and Universal's titles come from the masters...


I was conceding that low bit-rate can introduce blocking, but stated that the fundamental flaw (the "soft" look) with Warner's titles is most likely due to old masters intended for DVD.

Also, as you can see from Sweeny Todd (which has a bit-rate which is about 10mbps average higher than V), it still has blocking in it...Additionally, as Xylon pointed out, you find blocking in almost any title if you look for it.

Once again I ask... What is the conclusion we are drawing from this thread:
1) The low bit-rate is the cause for V looking soft and not as good as other transfers

Soft is another discussion. I didn't want this to turn into a general "high bitrates=higher detail" discussion. I think we can all agree that several other factors go into that, not the least of which is what shape the master is in. At least from my point of view, I was hoping this centered around the blocking...or any type of compression artifact.

If you're asking for my non-expert opinion (guess, is more like it), I'd lean towards this being from an early encoder in which the low bitrate did not allow for a large margin of error in compression...which lead to the blocking.

Also, I'm getting the idea from these posts that people consider Pirates a high bitrate transfer. It's really about the average bitrate for Blu-ray encodes.

Brandon

OK Amir. So for all of the blocking that people saw in MPEG2 can we now blame it on the master? Or does this only apply to VC1 encodes?
In the age of blowing up still images on computer screen and staring at them for hours, folks need to know that some "masters" use MPEG/JPEG-like (still image) compression prior to storage on tape. And that compression can produce blocking artifacts.

Is it likely to be the cause of "all" blocking artifacts? Of course not. Is it the cause of most blocking artifacts? Still not. Can it appear under extreme analysis as applied here, and in few cases? Maybe.

As a case in point, the Digital Video Essentials video clips from Joe Kane exhibited this issue even when compressed with our ancient, WMV-HD codec. Joe had to regenerate the clips and do a direct encoding without the tape transfer in the middle to eliminate them. Those artifacts were easier to spot there since test patterns stay on screen for a while, much like these still images on the Internet.

As to whether it can occur on MPEG-2 more than VC-1, it tends to actually show up more in the latter due to its higher transparency (as was the case above where it did not show up in Joe's MPEG encoding). MPEG is likely to introduce enough of its own as to mask any in the source :).

Anyway, my objection was to the categorical statement you made. If you had tempered that just a bit, I would not have chimed in :).

If you're asking for my non-expert opinion (guess, is more like it), I'd lean towards this being from an early encoder in which the low bitrate did not allow for a large margin of error in compression...which lead to the blocking.
If there are blocking artifacts in certain parts of the output as a result of encoding, it is usually a missed opportunity for optimization by the compressionist. If the issue is caught, it can be fixed -- at least with VC-1 encoder. Bits can be borrowed from adjacent frames and other sophisticated tools used to mitigate them. It is a bit like a professional painter missing to touch up the extreme corner of a room. It happens more because of human error than him running out of paint :).

In the age of blowing up still images on computer screen and staring at them for hours, folks need to know that some "masters" use MPEG/JPEG-like (still image) compression prior to storage on tape. And that compression can produce blocking artifacts.

I saw this particular blocking while watching the scene, but I assume you're talking in a general sense.

I believe these are the type of blocks you're referring to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Effects_of_JPEG_compression

Since this is still-image compression, I believe noting pulsating or shifts from blocking to no blocking should mean that it's an encode and not (solely) a master error in such cases, yes?

Which formats used as masters employ this compression, and which don't?

I saw this particular blocking while watching the scene, but I assume you're talking in a general sense.
Yes, I was making a general statement. I have not followed the samples posted here :).

I believe these are the type of blocks you're referring to? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Effects_of_JPEG_compression
Yes.

Since this is still-image compression, I believe noting pulsating or shifts from blocking to no blocking should mean that it's an encode and not (solely) a master error in such cases, yes?
Correct although you may be experiencing the combination of both.

Which formats used as masters employ this compression, and which don't?

Most common format used for telecine film transfers used to be Panasonic D-5 HD format. This was fine for DVD since downsampling to its resolution made any artifacts invisible due to filtering. But when using its full resolution, any artifacts introduced by DCT-like compression in D-5 print through the final encode.

It is remarkable that consumer HD formats surprass professional tape formats in ability to show their deficiencies! Even at bitrates below 10 mbit/sec one can see such issues (DVE on WMV-HD used a CBR encoding of just 9 mbit/sec).

Amir, maybe you should write a information thread, were you explain in more detail what
part of an encode is the codec itself, and what part is the tool.

I think many confuses that its not the codec that spots what part of the image that can be more compressed then the other. etc.

I could try write one myself, but you have "a bit" more knowledge in the area. ;)