Come on, why are people still boasting this MPEG2 inferiority thing. Has anybody watched KOH?? I still constantly see people saying the death of blu ray is going to be MPEG2. I understand that it does take up more space, but the picture quality can look just as good as any other compression codecs. MPEG2 will look as good as any other codec, but it requires more space, and thats where its inferior, I still don't know why people are still nagging about this?

Well, in my opinion KOH still doesn't hit the PQ that some of the other / newer compression codec titles do. So maybe not the best one to use for an example is all. :)

It is fine though. I have some other Mpeg2 titles that seem fine has well.

The fact that KOH takes up a two layer 50G bd disc with MPEG-2 is the reason why it's outdated, just way too much space taken up by the codec to accomplish the same thing MPEG-4 OR VC-1 can do with far less space. There are no extras like on the 4 disc DVD version. You realize that if VC-1 was a codec that could be used on dvd that the film would of been on one dsc and the extras on anotherinstead on 4 disc total. Theres also a very good shot at VC-1 KOH using a BD50 but having all the extras and additional languages in 5.1 no less.

Its outdated because of the reasons your stated. It takes up space like a cow. I mean .. look at King Kong, its just a few minutes shorter and with VC-1 they were able to put it on a 30gb disc.

I agree put MPEG2 to rest. :D

Theres also a very good shot at VC-1 KOH using a BD50 but having all the extras and additional languages in 5.1 no less.

I hate to admit it, but I'd double-dip for that.

I actually thought that the current release was going to be encoded in MPEG-4 (it even used to say so on highdef digest). That would've easily left room for the extras that came with the 4 disc DVD set. In fact, I heard that the current release takes up about 42 GBs of space out of the 50 GBs available. If this is the case, Fox would've easily included a good chunk of the extras that came with the DVD set. Have it encoded in MPEG-4/VC-1, and you would've had a mighty convenient package, all on one disc.

Quite honestly, I think either somebody at Fox is making some awfully weird business decisions, or they just want to squeeze the most out of the movie by releasing the movie again with everything including the kitchen sink.

I understand that it does take up more space, but the picture quality can look just as good as any other compression codecs. MPEG2 will look as good as any other codec, but it requires more space, and thats where its inferior, I still don't know why people are still nagging about this?When all Blu-ray titles are released on BD50 with 24/48 lossless or uncompressed tracks, then this will be a non-issue. However, right now, we continue to see titles released with MPEG-2 on BD25 -- in some cases, picture quality is compromised, and in all cases, audio quality is compromised. Not a single BD25 title exists with both MPEG-2 and 24/48 LPCM.

If people ride MPEG-2 solely because of the amount of space it takes up that is a perfectly valid complaint. I think the OP is probably talking about the vast majority of people who dis MPEG-2 as having inferior picture quality when it has been demonstrated that--when in the right hands--it is more than up to the task. I too wish this would stop.

The only complaints about MPEG-2 in the future should be space related, and that can include times when MPEG-2 is used on a single layer along with many extras and soundtracks AND the quality suffers. Then it can be rightly blamed on the space requirements of MPEG-2 detrimentally affecting the quality of encode (but the blame should be on the studio to give it dual layer or use another codec). Beyond that, this common misconception that MPEG-2 can never match the picture quality of AVC/VC1 is false. We have to learn to respect our elder codecs. ;)

I think the OP is probably talking about the vast majority of people who dis MPEG-2 as having inferior picture quality when it has been demonstrated that--when in the right hands--it is more than up to the task. I too wish this would stop.

Yes this is precisley what I am talking about, I already pointed out in my original post about the space disadvantage, and thats not what I am speaking of, I am talking about everyone who somehow thinks that the new codecs have some magic embedded in them that make the picture sharper, more colorful, etc.. as soon as they hear MPEG2 they think of crappy image quality, and of course this probably relates to BD early releases which is viable. But IMAGE QUALITY is the same, its just on a bigger disk, so yes, it is inferior in the space issue but not the quality of picture issue, my post was only regarding the quality of the picture. And yes someone will come on here and say " Well it is inferior in picture quality, because if we use the same space on both of them then the VC-1 will look better because it compresses more in the same space, bla bla...) I know that. I just read everyone saying "MPEG2, thats instantaly a turd on a stick, don't watch it".

The BHD trailer from the ps3 store has a 1080P AVC version. It looks pretty good too.

VC-1 and AVC have some very good filtering tools that can do low bitrate encodes, at higher bitrates, they should be turned off. Turned off, that advantage is no longer so dramatic.

The flipside is that when MPEG2 is forced to go to lower bitrates, the artifacts can be very obvious if the digital master is not clean, while VC-1 and AVC can go lower bitrates and not have visible artifacts unless you happen to have the original and can do an A-B side by side, at which point it is not hard to catch.

If I am doing archival and the target is to keep things as close to the original as possible, I would pick MPEG2 if storage is not a concern. If I want to squeeze more movies into less space, I'd pick AVC. If I want to make MSFT happy, I'd pick VC-1.

When all Blu-ray titles are released on BD50 with 24/48 lossless or uncompressed tracks, then this will be a non-issue. However, right now, we continue to see titles released with MPEG-2 on BD25 -- in some cases, picture quality is compromised, and in all cases, audio quality is compromised. Not a single BD25 title exists with both MPEG-2 and 24/48 LPCM.
I could have sworn Dinosaur had that. Are you sure?

The disk space used, is the business of the Studios and should be transparent to the end user. If folks here are such Gurus on compression schemes and other arcane aspects of A/V, perhaps they should be working for or perhaps leading a major CE company or Studio or some such. There is an alarming lack of humility in all of this discussion.

When all Blu-ray titles are released on BD50 with 24/48 lossless or uncompressed tracks, then this will be a non-issue.

You forgot the if part. If Blu can't even get 25 gig discs right, the future may be short or shorter?

Showed KOH to a group of interested novices last night alongside V for Vendetta on HD-DVD. There was no contest. Everyone thought that while KOH looked good - V knocked their socks off!

People are infamous for comparing apples to oranges, when trying to prove a point. However, if we start with the same D5 master and run it through an mpeg-2 encoder and a VC-1 encoder, then we can do a fair comparison. I once favored mpeg-2 because it is easier to understand, but let's face it, technology marches forward. Please read this article by Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/vc1techoverview.aspx

Although the both technologies are based on discrete cosine transforms, VC-1 adds a few wrinkles such as adaptive block transform, loop filtering, advanced B-frame coding, and fading compensation. The result- fewer artifacts, and better (more efficient) fit of the film data to the encoding algorithm. Remember also that there are advanced profiles to VC-1 which can crank the bit rates up to 135 Mb/s. I know, some of these may never be available on HD-DVD and BD, but like I said in another post, you will be buying this when the replacement for HD-DVD and BD comes along. So, if you thought this was going to be the last time you had to buy a "copy" of a movie, think thrice. The next generation format will be more perfecter than HD-DVD AND BluRay. I feel somebody grabbing my wallet again!

Well I wouldn't expect an article by Microsoft, a company with significant interest in the adoption of the VC-1 codec, to be in any way neutral.

Personally my opinion is that mpeg2 can look as good as anything out there but it will take more space. The ideal solution would be to eventually transition to a newer more space efficient codec while at the same time using BD50 disks so that there is enough room for extras and/or PCM uncompressed sound.

Lastly there is a significant push for VC-1 on AVS forums mainly because Microsoft is well represented here (if you check the HD-DVD forums, they even hosted a meeting for AVS members), so one must keep in mind that a portion of AVS forum seems to have been programmed into thinking VC-1 = better, even when looking at the 'other' advanced codec in consideration, AVC. This is a sentiment I wouldn't readily agree with.

I'm sure many of you have already read this, but this is exactly what I am speaking of, a HD-DVD encoded with VC-1 vs a 25gig Blu ray encoded with MPEG-2, and they both look exactly the same. I rest my case ;)
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/missionimpossibleiii.html

I love this thread, preach it brother Inca :)

-Gary

All I know is that WB released Superman Returns on HD-DVD recently and was able to fit a 2 hr 37 minute movie, 16 minutes of deleted scenes, and the teaser and trailer all in high def, along with a 173-minute documentary and Dolby TrueHD audio track, all on a single 30GB disc.

This was all possible because they used the VC-1 codec. That's what's so frustrating about Blu-ray. It's being held back by the very studios that are such ardent supporters of the format, simply because they insist on sticking with a codec whose time has passed.

Compression is about SPACE!

If it takes MPEG-2 Twice the space to accomplish what another codec can do in Half the space - then it is not as good - pure and simple.

You have to realize that this fight is over already. The issue is not BD vs. HD. Who really cares? The issue is how are you going to be getting your HD content in the future. This is what Sony and the entire BD camp does not realize.

In the future, not far off one either, you will be downloading your HD content from servers. This is where compression really matters as you will be looking for quality vs. download time. Here VC-1 trounces the competition. VC-1 is already being used to download HD to the XBox 360 in quality which has people quite impressed. MPEG-2 can not do this with any speed or quality. As for MPEG-4, it is so processor intensive that it requires dedicated hardware on even todays fastest systems to ensure smooth playback (VC-1 does not), thus limiting its potential to much more expensive playback systems in the future.

In other words - read my sig! It is OVER!

Do none of you understand what my original post was about?? I even clarified it with another post midway through, and yet people are still speaking of space, I already addressed this. That is not what we are speaking of, I already said that the space issue was a disadvantage of MPEG2. MY GOD PEOPLE!! I'm speaking in terms of PQ, people think that as soon as a movie is encoded with MPEG2 its gonna look like crap smeared on the screen, and its not, thats all my post was trying to prove. I clarified this earlier but ppl still come on here jibber jabbering about space, yes I can start another thread about the space issue, and of course VC-1 will win hands down, there is no question about that.

I'm only interested in downloading movies or content in a VoD capacity of my cable service.

It is not the way I want to buy movies. I want to own the actual physical disk that way I am free to trade the disk or sell it or bring it to someone's home and play it on thier HD player.

Beyond opinion, I'd really like someone to demonstrate how more compression can be a good thing for image quality. More compression generates more artifacts in still digital images and more compression makes audio sound worse. How can more compression not be detrimental to digital video?

Do none of you understand what my original post was about?? I even clarified it with another post midway through, and yet people are still speaking of space, I already addressed this. That is not what we are speaking of, I already said that the space issue was a disadvantage of MPEG2. MY GOD PEOPLE!! I'm speaking in terms of PQ, people think that as soon as a movie is encoded with MPEG2 its gonna look like crap smeared on the screen, and its not, thats all my post was trying to prove. I clarified this earlier but ppl still come on here jibber jabbering about space, yes I can start another thread about the space issue, and of course VC-1 will win hands down, there is no question about that.

Well if you take a codec that is made for compression and say lets compare it but not its ability to compress data, then what else is there....

You point to a couple of sources that say they dont see a difference but a recent poll here on AVS shows that 70% of the members do think there is a difference in PQ between the different codecs/formats

I'm not saying which is right only that there is still a differing opinion on whether or not there equal in pq and that the space that is used should not be eliminated from any discussion about a compression tool since thats what it is made for.

KOH (not the best looking title in my opinion) does reach a decent length as far as run time but if you look at most of the BD50 titles released and announced you will see a whole lot of movies that are just not even 2 hours in length. Out of 14 of the announced BD50's that are coming out in the near future only 3 of them are 2 hours or longer in length

If the extra space used by MPEG2 meant and showed better pq results then what we are already getting I'd be all for it. But since it does not I dont see the reason to waste the extra space that BR provides.

The extra space is one of BR's biggests advantages whether its used for more content or to provide better quality why should it be wasted by something that takes up more space if as you say the PQ is equal between codecs?

If the extra space used by MPEG2 meant and showed better pq results then what we are already getting I'd be all for it. But since it does not I dont see the reason to waste the extra space that BR provides.

The extra space is one of BR's biggests advantages whether its used for more content or to provide better quality why should it be wasted by something that takes up more space if as you say the PQ is equal between codecs?

What, space, what?? Argggg...... :( . YES, OK, YES VC1 Will MAKE BETTER USE OF SPACE AND HAVE JUST AS GOOD OF A PICTURE, there I hope the lot of you are happy as this is the 3rd or 4th post in this thread in which I am stating the exact same thing, OMG!!!! MPEG2 does not immediately mean that the picture will look like pig ****, is that clear enough!!!!

What, space, what?? Argggg...... :( . YES, OK, YES VC1 Will MAKE BETTER USE OF SPACE AND HAVE JUST AS GOOD OF A PICTURE, there I hope the lot of you are happy as this is the 3rd or 4th post in this thread in which I am stating the exact same thing, OMG!!!! MPEG2 does not immediately mean that the picture will look like pig ****, is that clear enough!!!!

That's what everyone's trying to say. MPEG-2 offers no advantages over VC-1. All it does is eat up more space. So why bother using MPEG-2 to begin with? Well aside from Sony since their motive is greed.

I think it's evident that MPEG2 is being used because it's a way to cheap out.

For those of you who have BD and HD DVD same titles why dont you just post screen shots?

That would let us know. ;)

For those of you who have BD and HD DVD same titles why dont you just post screen shots?

That would let us know. ;)

That would introduce more variables and make it more difficult to isolate the truth.

Do none of you understand what my original post was about?? I even clarified it with another post midway through, and yet people are still speaking of space, I already addressed this. That is not what we are speaking of, I already said that the space issue was a disadvantage of MPEG2. MY GOD PEOPLE!! I'm speaking in terms of PQ, people think that as soon as a movie is encoded with MPEG2 its gonna look like crap smeared on the screen, and its not, thats all my post was trying to prove. I clarified this earlier but ppl still come on here jibber jabbering about space, yes I can start another thread about the space issue, and of course VC-1 will win hands down, there is no question about that.

You speak the truth to (some) paid operatives. :eek:

Come on, why are people still boasting this MPEG2 inferiority thing. Has anybody watched KOH?? I still constantly see people saying the death of blu ray is going to be MPEG2. I understand that it does take up more space, but the picture quality can look just as good as any other compression codecs. MPEG2 will look as good as any other codec, but it requires more space, and thats where its inferior, I still don't know why people are still nagging about this?



MPEG2 is fine as long as dual layer is used. On single layer discs and a bit rate of 18 Mbps or less it is simply unsat.

For lossy codecs, I'd prefer one that use less compression. Eventually, we'd want lossless video & audio.

All I know is that WB released Superman Returns on HD-DVD recently and was able to fit a 2 hr 37 minute movie, 16 minutes of deleted scenes, and the teaser and trailer all in high def, along with a 173-minute documentary and Dolby TrueHD audio track, all on a single 30GB disc.

This was all possible because they used the VC-1 codec. That's what's so frustrating about Blu-ray. It's being held back by the very studios that are such ardent supporters of the format, simply because they insist on sticking with a codec whose time has passed.

And that same title was also released on BD with the same VC-1 encode.

And that same title was also released on BD with the same VC-1 encode.

Yes it was. Although WB dropped the Dolby TrueHD track despite having an extra 20GB to work with.

Beyond opinion, I'd really like someone to demonstrate how more compression can be a good thing for image quality. More compression generates more artifacts in still digital images and more compression makes audio sound worse. How can more compression not be detrimental to digital video?
It's not more compression, but more efficient compression. Engineers love efficiency, because you really do get something for nothing. VC-1 will look twice as good as MPEG-2 with same degree of compression or have similar PQ at half the file size or tranfer rate. How can you argue against efficiency especially when you can get it for next to nothing???

Showed KOH to a group of interested novices last night alongside V for Vendetta on HD-DVD. There was no contest. Everyone thought that while KOH looked good - V knocked their socks off!



KOH, although very good, simply can't be compared with the very best of HD DVD and the wonderful VC-1 codec.

Honestly I dont see how some of you people can even say that comparing two completely different titles with completely different transfers is objective. Thats probably the worst thing I've ever heard.

That said, the OP is right imo. I cant spot any difference in a proper transfer in reguards to picture quality. Before I came here even the idea of comparing two different sources to ascertain a codecs quality was so alien to me and rediculous that I didnt even think of it. You cant do it and anyone who thinks they can is fooling themselves. Theres too many variables. View the same source encoded into the codecs and you have a proper comparison.

I think it really opens your eyes as to the knowlege of the person when they state such things. Simply its blind faith.

With that out of the way, Id prefer the newer codecs over MPEG2 as most have said, they are more efficient and can get the same quality at lower bitrates (less space). This leaves room for more extra's on the disc.

It's not more compression, but more efficient compression. Engineers love efficiency, because you really do get something for nothing. VC-1 will look twice as good as MPEG-2 with same degree of compression or have similar PQ at half the file size or tranfer rate. How can you argue against efficiency especially when you can get it for next to nothing???


People don't like VC-1 because MS supports it. Silly if you ask me....

It's not more compression, but more efficient compression. Engineers love efficiency, because you really do get something for nothing. VC-1 will look twice as good as MPEG-2 with same degree of compression or have similar PQ at half the file size or tranfer rate. How can you argue against efficiency especially when you can get it for next to nothing???

The same material compressed into a smaller space = more compression in my book. "More efficient" sounds like marketing speak to me. While I can't discount the possibility that your claims for VC-1 are true, I don't have any direct evidence of what you're claiming. Do you?

While I can't discount the possibility that your claims for VC-1 are true, I don't have any direct evidence of what you're claiming. Do you?I think the large body of high-quality HD-DVD titles speaks to that.

I think the large body of high-quality HD-DVD titles speaks to that.

I disagree. All that proves is that most people who've seen the discs think they're high quality. That says nothing about how those same titles would look via mpeg2 and/or how they would look via mpeg2 on a BD50 disc.

this thread is beginning to get silly, somehow it got around on AVS that Mpeg2 = **** picture quality, the same people who think that slept thru D-Theater not giving it any attention I guess

Mpeg2 gives the same HD image quality as any other codec, it's all about space, as we know Blu-Ray doesn't need any space with 50GB's, HD-DVD uses newer codecs because if they didn't they wouldn't have a "ideal" format at the level of PQ and extras they want, mpeg2 on SL BR's is not ideal either, it can be done decently with no extras and especially if the film is 2.40:1

this mpeg2=**** stuff is nothing but FUD and newbie ignorance, there isn't any HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (in a overall sense) that has surpassed some of the best D-Theater, which happen to be mpeg2

Black Hawk Down is at 27 Mbps mpeg2, more than D-Theater, and has PCM to boot, it is a 100% perfect release near reference because they have the space with 50GB(save the slightly crushed blacks and obvious grainy intent, the former may not be BR fault)

-Gary

KOH, although very good, simply can't be compared with the very best of HD DVD and the wonderful VC-1 codec.

You can't compare across genres. KOH for example has lots of blues and browns, and not much else in greens or reds. Hence, you will not get vivid colors or sparkling glitter that something like Phantom of the Opera has.

If you compare similar genres : historical epics. KoH is way ahead of Troy in everything I can imagine. If you ignore the modern look of Batman Begins, and forget about the much nicer buildings and neater garden, just consider the face of Liam Neeson on both titles and tell me which has more details?

You have to ignore the neater hair of course and better tailor of course and just concentrate on their faces.

Compare Four Brothers on both formats......and you will see for yourself that MPEG-2 is as good or slightly sharper ... even on a 25gb disc.

Everyone comparing different movies with different codecs.....why....thats just plain ignorant.

The same material compressed into a smaller space = more compression in my book. "More efficient" sounds like marketing speak to me. While I can't discount the possibility that your claims for VC-1 are true, I don't have any direct evidence of what you're claiming. Do you?

If you have a more efficient compression scheme, you can convey the same data with less space. This of course provides benefits where space is a limiting factor. It provides no benefits where space is not a limiting factor.

You cannot compare the compression ratio without looking at the efficiency of the compression.

It's the folks who don't understand compression who just want to focus on the compression ratio and desire "less compression" ignorantly without any consideration of the efficiency of the codecs. You cannot look at content run through one codec and see that results has a smaller compression ratio ("less compression") and claim that that is better than a different more efficient codec which results in a larger compression ratio ("more compression") and claim that less compression is of course better, just because it's less. It's ridiculous, and it's ignorant.

Here are some thing that all should look exactly 100% the same in an infinite-bandwidth and infinite-space environment:

Fully Uncompressed
intra-image compression only, like JPEG
MPEG 2
VC-1
etc.

They do not at all look the same when you run into bandwidth or space limitations. When those limitations are imposed, greater compression efficiency ('more compression') yields significantly better image quality.

If you have a more efficient compression scheme, you can convey the same data with less space. This of course provides benefits where space is a limiting factor. It provides no benefits where space is not a limiting factor.


Space is a limiting factor, even with BD50s. You are not going to get an absolutely indistinguishable from the original picture with MPEG-2 on a BD50 (with most sources), and it's not likely that even H.264 will do that. As for your VC-1 titles, and even H.264, you may think they look great because you don't see blocking or banding. You know why? Because both codecs blur details out when they need more bitrate. Only when they need a lot more bitrate do they block like MPEG-2 does. Also, Chris, not all codecs are capable of lossless encoding, no matter how much bitrate they are given. Not even in the infinite bandwidth+bitrate scenario you mentioned is what you said true. Incidentally, MPEG-2 is the only codec of the 3 that does not support lossless mode, I believe. I know H.264 does and I think VC-1 does.

LET. MPEG-2. DIE. Come on people. It's not like we're discussing developing newer codecs (which costs money) -- they are already developed and people here are still saying we don't need them? They have NO DISADVANTAGES over MPEG-2 except processor power required, but players meet that requirement anyway.

I don't give a crap if xxx movie looked good in MPEG-2. It would look as good or better in VC-1, and even moreso in H.264.

Space is a limiting factor, even with BD50s.

I never made any statement any which way on this. I quite clearly stated my example that in an "infinite-bandwidth and infinite-space environment" that all these compression forms (and completely uncompressed) should end up identical. I hardly would consider BD50 infinite in either bandwidth or space.

Also, Chris, not all codecs are capable of lossless encoding, no matter how much bitrate they are given.

I never said that either. I referred to appearance being identical, not data.

It seems you took my post as a defense of MPEG2, which it hardly is at all. If you look at the post I quoted, to which I was responding generally, I think that's quite clear.

They have NO DISADVANTAGES over MPEG-2 except processor power required, but players meet that requirement anyway.

Well, they do have some in the real world. There is a huge reservoir of MPEG2 equipment and compressionists who are very familiar with MPEG2, along with the age and development of MPEG2 compression capability. I think extremely good arguments can be made that even with the relative new-newss of VC-1 and H.264 that they still will yield superior results even with some unfamiliarity with the available tools which may be limited compared to MPEG2, but it's not fair to state that there are "NO" disadvantages whatsoever with the newer codecs. I think MPEG2 will naturally be supplanted by the newer and superior codecs, but that doesn't mean that MPEG2 is not a useful and powerful codec. Far from it.

For the record, my post wasn't only directed at you. However, I stand by what I said.

So, MPEG-2 can look just as good as the other codecs, I don't think you'll get very many rational people disagree with you on that as long as they've seend Black Hawk Down or Kingdom of Heaven. If it doesn't look better than VC-1 or AVC however, there is absolutely no point in using it, it is just a waste of the BD's extra space.

Do none of you understand what my original post was about?? I even clarified it with another post midway through, and yet people are still speaking of space, I already addressed this. That is not what we are speaking of, I already said that the space issue was a disadvantage of MPEG2. MY GOD PEOPLE!! I'm speaking in terms of PQ, people think that as soon as a movie is encoded with MPEG2 its gonna look like crap smeared on the screen, and its not, thats all my post was trying to prove. I clarified this earlier but ppl still come on here jibber jabbering about space, yes I can start another thread about the space issue, and of course VC-1 will win hands down, there is no question about that.

In order to have the amazing PQ seen on Kingdom of Heaven or Black Hawk Down, the bitrate of MPEG-2 needs to be ridiculously high. Those films could have been done on a BD25 if they used AVC.

The point for Kingdom of Heaven is this. You have a 50gb disc with no extras besides a trailer. WTF!!!!! Not even the extras from the 2 disc set.

Disc 2: Extras
Interactive Production Grid - Lets you control the moviemaking experience form the perspective of the director, cast or crew!
"Movie Real: Kingdom Of Heaven" (As seen on The A&E Network)
"History Vs. Hollywood: Kingdom Of Heaven (As seen on The History Channel)
4-Behind-The-Scenes Featurettes

I won't even get into the 4 disc set special features. Bluray must be planning on everyone double dipping for all thier titles with bare bones versions on 1 disc and a AVC loaded version in the future. One thing is for sure with bare bones discs and players that are 3 times more expensive they sure know how to soak people for thier money. Hey if you are going to treat me like this can you kiss me first!!! I can't wait to see the Ultimate Edition Bond films on Bluray. MPEG-2, DTS-HD sound that no curent player will decode anyway, theatrical trailer and maybe if I am lucky a documentary. It's amazing how HDDVD has been able to match every item from a 2 disc dvd set onto a paltry 30gb. Some titles containing 8 hours of extras and still deliver pristine picture and sound. I've noticed as well the vast majority of 2007 Fox, MGM, Sony BD titles are MPEG-2, still single layer and featureless.

I've noticed as well the vast majority of 2007 Fox, MGM, Sony BD titles are MPEG-2, still single layer and featureless.

That I know of BR has 14 announced titles that are supposed to be coming out on BD50s in 07. Only 3 out of 14 of these BD50s even reach being 2 hours in length with most being around the 90-100 minute range (Example Crank at 87 minutes long on a BD50 with 3 whole extras)

The original BR concept was that with 1080p, more space to allow for higher bitrates & more bandwidth then HD the use of MPEG-2 was supposed to put out a superior picture (Beyond HD) compared to HDDVD.

Its being debated whether or not the PQ is equal now but I dont think anyone is claiming it to be superior to what is being offered by other codecs or formats.

So if not for a better picture then why waste the space and what does 20 extra gigs on a disk and extra bandwidth provide to us consumers?

Were seeing to many stripped down movies that do not even contain the same ammount of extras that the DVD version provides. What happens when BDLive features require even more space or when a studio demands to have more pre-views per disk?

The Fugitive is 161 minutes long with multiple sound tracks and supplements (according to highdefdigest) created by Warner all on a SL25 using VC-1. '

Compare this to a movie like Crank using MPEG-2, 87 minutes long on a disk twice as big. How much extra space/content would using VC-1 for this movie on a BD50 provided to us consumers? Would a BD50 disk even still be needed or could it have been saved for longer running movies?

In order to have the amazing PQ seen on Kingdom of Heaven or Black Hawk Down, the bitrate of MPEG-2 needs to be ridiculously high. Those films could have been done on a BD25 if they used AVC.
Ridiculously high? Funny, my PS3 doesn't seem to care when playing these titles. As a consumer the things that matter to me are the title itself, PQ/AQ, price, and, to a much lesser extent, extras.

I would bet that most consumers of high-def discs won't have a clue of what the difference is between codecs, whether a disc is multi layer or not, or what the bit rate is. Some may go to the trouble of checking reviews first, but I wouldn't be surprised if even that group was a significant minority.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It's not like there's much of a choice here, other than possibly HD-DVD vs Blu-ray for some titles. And that isn't a choice that most would-be consumers will have available to make.

The codec issue is noise. It noise in the sense that it's drowned out by more important stuff. It noise in the sense that it's something that most people don't care about. And it's noise as occassionaly used to deliberately distract in the furtherance of some other agenda.

Ridiculously high? Funny, my PS3 doesn't seem to care when playing these titles. As a consumer the things that matter to me are the title itself, PQ/AQ, price, and, to a much lesser extent, extras.

I would bet that most consumers of high-def discs won't have a clue of what the difference is between codecs, whether a disc is multi layer or not, or what the bit rate is. Some may go to the trouble of checking reviews first, but I wouldn't be surprised if even that group was a significant minority.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It's not like there's much of a choice here, other than possibly HD-DVD vs Blu-ray for some titles. And that isn't a choice that most would-be consumers will have available to make.

The codec issue is noise. It noise in the sense that it's drowned out by more important stuff. It noise in the sense that it's something that most people don't care about. And it's noise as occassionaly used to deliberately distract in the furtherance of some other agenda.

I'd have to disagree, although the average consumer will not be interested in which codec may be used or even know what a codec is the overall result will indirectly determine just about everything else that effects there decision to purchase these titles.

BD50s are still in limited production so length of movies and availablity of disks according to codecs used will determine what movies are chosen for release, how the picture quality (reviews for the title) turns out and what extras may or may not be included on the disk.

So although J6P may have no clue about a codec itself he will see and be effected by the results of it

The Fugitive BD is MPEG-2. Its important to get your facts straight if you are going to make statements like that.

My facts are straight! ;)

As my post indicates, this is as reported by highdefdigest for the title. If you feel they are in error with there facts I would suggest you contact them :)

You are correct, I updated my list by it. Thanks

Wow even more surprising then, how does a 161 minute long movie go on a SL25 and a 87 minute movie go on a BD50 when both are made with the same codecs?

High def digest has been wrong on the codecs on more than one occasion. I assume he gets his information from a studio rep. Obviously they are not always right. This (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=760714) thread seems accurate because the information comes from what is reported by a PC. As you can see The Transporter is also listed incorrectly on HDdigest.

Yes I have seen some errors in the past. The thread you pointed out is good but it also is only about half of the released movies so far.

The disk space used, is the business of the Studios and should be transparent to the end user. If folks here are such Gurus on compression schemes and other arcane aspects of A/V, perhaps they should be working for or perhaps leading a major CE company or Studio or some such. There is an alarming lack of humility in all of this discussion.

All 3 are capable of equivalent picture quality. It's only the bitrate and how hard it is to reach that bitrate are the questions. Take it from a guy who's seen all 3 in action, the masters, and a couple of the players.

Cjplay.

Ridiculously high? Funny, my PS3 doesn't seem to care when playing these titles. As a consumer the things that matter to me are the title itself, PQ/AQ, price, and, to a much lesser extent, extras.

I would bet that most consumers of high-def discs won't have a clue of what the difference is between codecs, whether a disc is multi layer or not, or what the bit rate is. Some may go to the trouble of checking reviews first, but I wouldn't be surprised if even that group was a significant minority.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It's not like there's much of a choice here, other than possibly HD-DVD vs Blu-ray for some titles. And that isn't a choice that most would-be consumers will have available to make.

The codec issue is noise. It noise in the sense that it's drowned out by more important stuff. It noise in the sense that it's something that most people don't care about. And it's noise as occassionaly used to deliberately distract in the furtherance of some other agenda.

My point is that if the studios were to use AVC or VC-1 more for their Blu-Ray discs they would have room for a whole lot of extras that they couldn't do on HD-DVD.

The point for Kingdom of Heaven is this. You have a 50gb disc with no extras besides a trailer. WTF!!!!! Not even the extras from the 2 disc set.

Disc 2: Extras
Interactive Production Grid - Lets you control the moviemaking experience form the perspective of the director, cast or crew!
"Movie Real: Kingdom Of Heaven" (As seen on The A&E Network)
"History Vs. Hollywood: Kingdom Of Heaven (As seen on The History Channel)
4-Behind-The-Scenes Featurettes

I won't even get into the 4 disc set special features. Bluray must be planning on everyone double dipping for all thier titles with bare bones versions on 1 disc and a AVC loaded version in the future. One thing is for sure with bare bones discs and players that are 3 times more expensive they sure know how to soak people for thier money. Hey if you are going to treat me like this can you kiss me first!!! I can't wait to see the Ultimate Edition Bond films on Bluray. MPEG-2, DTS-HD sound that no curent player will decode anyway, theatrical trailer and maybe if I am lucky a documentary. It's amazing how HDDVD has been able to match every item from a 2 disc dvd set onto a paltry 30gb. Some titles containing 8 hours of extras and still deliver pristine picture and sound. I've noticed as well the vast majority of 2007 Fox, MGM, Sony BD titles are MPEG-2, still single layer and featureless.

This is EXACTLY the problem I was talking about. It's the only reason I still have my 4-Disc KoH Director's Cut DVD set. Also, the BD version doesn't have the Overture and Intermission in the film. BD has a whole lot of potential, but Universal is going balls-out with a format that they don't even have a stake in and Sony meanwhile is giving us crap discs on a format that they have a HUGE stake in. This is a problem that must be fixed.

but Universal is going balls-out with a format that they don't even have a stake in and Sony meanwhile is giving us crap discs on a format that they have a HUGE stake in

First off, Sony doesn't decide what Fox puts on their discs.

Second: Universal left off almost all the extras on the recent "King Kong" disc. Balls out indeed.

All I know is that WB released Superman Returns on HD-DVD recently and was able to fit a 2 hr 37 minute movie, 16 minutes of deleted scenes, and the teaser and trailer all in high def, along with a 173-minute documentary and Dolby TrueHD audio track, all on a single 30GB disc.

This was all possible because they used the VC-1 codec. That's what's so frustrating about Blu-ray. It's being held back by the very studios that are such ardent supporters of the format, simply because they insist on sticking with a codec whose time has passed.

Terrible example. Most folks (& reviews) find "Superman Returns" unacceptably soft and the victim of banding artifacts. I saw it theatrically and it did not exhibit these artifacts. To add insult to injury Warner used the same encode on the Blu-ray version on a 50GB disc, not using the extra 20GB to correct these artifacts, add a lossless soundtrack, etc.

People don't like VC-1 because MS supports it. Silly if you ask me....

Replace "VC-1" with Blu-ray and then replace "Microsoft" with Sony and you have a description of a lot of people on this forum!

Its outdated because of the reasons your stated. It takes up space like a cow. I mean .. look at King Kong, its just a few minutes shorter and with VC-1 they were able to put it on a 30gb disc.

Taking up 29GB, almost no extras (save the IME) and no lossless audio.

First off, Sony doesn't decide what Fox puts on their discs.

Second: Universal left off almost all the extras on the recent "King Kong" disc. Balls out indeed.

First: My point was that if Fox would have used VC-1 or AVC on KoH, they would have had room for ALL OF THAT STUFF that was on 4 discs all on one BD since all the extras were in SD.

As for Sony, I was talking about Sony's discs actually, they've dropped the ball on quite a few of them. Uni left off almost all the extras off of King Kong because it was a FREAKIN' 3 HOUR MOVIE on an HD-DVD. Also, they're probably waiting to put out the Extended Edition for all the cool extras which they will have to put on a 2nd and maybe 3rd disc. What I meant by Uni going balls out on HD-DVD I meant that they are putting out lots and lots of their quality films out with amazing transfers on HD-DVD. Sony has a very impressive back catalog as well and we're stuck with Ultraviolet, Click and The Benchwarmers. Oh yeah and a laughably bad transfer of The Fifth Element. It feels like Universal is supporting HD-DVD way more than Sony is supporting Blu-Ray and Uni doesn't have the same incentive that Sony does.

Sony should be the studio making the BDs that set an example on how to make a BD. Instead, Fox, Paramount and Lions Gate seem to be the studios that are doing that, albeit in much smaller quantities. Although Paramount seems to have taken a liking to doing 2-disc sets that are BD25 discs(MI3 and WTC). These films could be on one disc.

First: My point was that if Fox would have used VC-1 or AVC on KoH, they would have had room for ALL OF THAT STUFF that was on 4 discs all on one BD since all the extras were in SD.

As for Sony, I was talking about Sony's discs actually, they've dropped the ball on quite a few of them. Uni left off almost all the extras off of King Kong because it was a FREAKIN' 3 HOUR MOVIE on an HD-DVD. Also, they're probably waiting to put out the Extended Edition for all the cool extras which they will have to put on a 2nd and maybe 3rd disc. What I meant by Uni going balls out on HD-DVD I meant that they are putting out lots and lots of their quality films out with amazing transfers on HD-DVD. Sony has a very impressive back catalog as well and we're stuck with Ultraviolet, Click and The Benchwarmers. Oh yeah and a laughably bad transfer of The Fifth Element. It feels like Universal is supporting HD-DVD way more than Sony is supporting Blu-Ray and Uni doesn't have the same incentive that Sony does.

Sony should be the studio making the BDs that set an example on how to make a BD. Instead, Fox, Paramount and Lions Gate seem to be the studios that are doing that, albeit in much smaller quantities. Although Paramount seems to have taken a liking to doing 2-disc sets that are BD25 discs(MI3 and WTC). These films could be on one disc.
Some studios think buyer psychology prefer two disk sets and would pay more for them. This used to make sense when there was a low storage limit with DVD.

I actually prefer to see them all on one disk. I already have to replace all my DVD cases with thin single or dual cases to avoid building more shelves, if some TV box sets can come on single BD50 disks, I would value that higher than to have them all on two BD25s. (Assuming of course the contents are the same).

Do none of you understand what my original post was about?? I even clarified it with another post midway through, and yet people are still speaking of space, I already addressed this. That is not what we are speaking of, I already said that the space issue was a disadvantage of MPEG2. MY GOD PEOPLE!! I'm speaking in terms of PQ, people think that as soon as a movie is encoded with MPEG2 its gonna look like crap smeared on the screen, and its not, thats all my post was trying to prove. I clarified this earlier but ppl still come on here jibber jabbering about space, yes I can start another thread about the space issue, and of course VC-1 will win hands down, there is no question about that.

Back when BD25 discs were the norm they couldn't get the bitrate high enough on some MPEG2 movies and it did make them look like crap compared to HD-DVDs. This was the original argument that HD-DVD enthusiasts brought up when there were no BD50s and they were saying the HD-DVD was superior to BD at that time and they were right. But now with BD50s they can bump up the bitrate of MPEG2 and make it look just as good as the best HD-DVDs. It's just a very inefficient use of space. BD has the potential to be way way better than HD-DVD and MPEG-2 is holding BD back.

Here is a quote from hidefdigest.com which I do not find entirely inappropriate in relation to this topic:

"'Gridiron Gang' is the latest 1080p/MPEG-2 release from Sony, and is further proof that the much-maligned codec deserves a sincere reevaluation. I was one of the chorus of naysayers early on, and I'm still not a fan of many early Blu-ray transfers. But starting with Sony's 'Tears of the Sun,' most of the studio's MPEG-2 output has been quite impressive. And coming after 'The Covenant,' which I just gave a five-star video rating to only yesterday, 'Gridiron Gang' is up there with the best of what might be called the "second coming" of MPEG-2."

Here is a quote from hidefdigest.com which I do not find entirely inappropriate in relation to this topic:

"'Gridiron Gang' is the latest 1080p/MPEG-2 release from Sony, and is further proof that the much-maligned codec deserves a sincere reevaluation. I was one of the chorus of naysayers early on, and I'm still not a fan of many early Blu-ray transfers. But starting with Sony's 'Tears of the Sun,' most of the studio's MPEG-2 output has been quite impressive. And coming after 'The Covenant,' which I just gave a five-star video rating to only yesterday, 'Gridiron Gang' is up there with the best of what might be called the "second coming" of MPEG-2."

It's still a waste of space.

Yes, no matter how good it looks, H.264 will look as good or better at the same or a lower bitrate.