I have to admit I am somewhat puzzed by all the fuss about Codecs. People always arguing MPEG2 is just as good as VC-1 or AVC is better then MPEG2 and so on and so fourth. Now we have Amir and Paidgeek battling it out in the Insiders thread. I think we all need to step back and remember one important fact:

J6P Does Not Care!! J6P is amazed by the HD Lite quality of Directv. J6P will be the one to determine if either format survives.

We need to stop this non-stop argument about codecs as it really will have little to no impact on the most important consumer of all, yes, J6P.

~Josh

I have to admit I am somewhat puzzed by all the fuss about Codecs. People always arguing MPEG2 is just as good as VC-1 or AVC is better then MPEG2 and so on and so fourth. Now we have Amir and Paidgeek battling it out in the Insiders thread. I think we all need to step back and remember one important fact:

J6P Does Not Care!! J6P is amazed by the HD Lite quality of Directv. J6P will be the one to determine if either format survives.

We need to stop this non-stop argument about codecs as it really will have little to no impact on the most important consumer of all, yes, J6P.

~Josh

If J6P does not care, then VC1 just became an expensive hobby.

J6p doesn't care about HD media either. Why all the fuss about the format war?

I mean, come on, we can apply errant logic all over the place.

Things J6P also doesn't care about:
global warming
hunger in the third world
OAR
quality audio
quality video
C-SPAN
exercise
books
soccer
organic food
his wife
China
reparations
the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow
women's tennis
good music
etc

Here are some things *I* don't care about:
things that J6P cares about.

This is AVS Forum. To not talk about codecs is to go to an auto forum and wonder why they want to talk about engines in their cars. You know, J6p only cars about putting the car in drive and pushing the gas....

Codecs are the heart of the format war. VC-1 enables HD DVD to give J6p everything he wants. Why would he want a more expensive format then? To have three "PCM tracks?"

the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow African or European? :)

Well, to understand the capabilities of the formats, you need to see how they are being used. The use of codecs is important if you think other things comparing the formats are important.

Even though all three video codecs are supported by HD DVD and Blu-ray virtually all HD DVD discs have been released as double layer 30 GB discs using VC-1 which requires a smaller size and bandwidth compared to the older MPEG-2.

Although BLu-ray allows the use of MPEG-4 AVC H.264 and VC-1 Sony has decided to use the older less space efficient MPEG-2. Now no doubt one can argue about the picture quality difference, but there is no argument that VC-1 uses less space and bandwidth than MPEG-2 for a equal picture.

Thus a lot of Blu-ray theoretical advantage in space , basically means that it allows MPEG-2 to be used instead of VC-1. If reviewers and users can't tell the difference, or even think the VC-1 encode is superior, then Sony is throwing away some of the potential advantages that cause so much engineering issues with Blu-ray.

You can't talk about disc space advantages without mentioning the codec being used on it.

Thats why it is discussed at AVS. Its important.

The main argument about video codecs is that the advanced video codecs are more efficient than MPEG-2. Personally I think that efficiency is a good thing and I congratulate Sony on beginning to use MPEG-4 AVC for their Blu-ray encodings. Of course a few posters are always eager to spread FUD against MPEG-4 AVC, but personally I think those people have less than honest motives for doing that. Also from what I have seen MPEG-2 is quite capable of producing great video quality, but that long term it simply makes sense for all the studios to eventually switch over to one of the advanced video codecs.


VC-1 enables HD DVD to give J6p everything he wants.Does that mean you think that the HD DVD discs from the Weinstein Company don't enable HD DVD to give J6p everything he wants?

It's important because it defeats the arguement for the need of 50gb blu-ray discs. I know Amir has shown us the math before, that using VC-1, The Return of the King extended addition can fit on a 30gb disc. Without VC-1 this isn't possible. Without VC-1, Blu-Ray's 50gb becomes relevent. So, to prove that VC-1 codec is equal or better in quality to Mpeg-2 is eliminating the need for 50gb discs, and for that matter blu-ray itself.

There is money to be made. One group makes money if VC1 is used. Another makes money if AVC is used. A third makes maney if MPEG is used. The winning codec makes the most money!

The main argument about video codecs is that the advanced video codecs are more efficient than MPEG-2. Personally I think that efficiency is a good thing and I congratulate Sony on beginning to use MPEG-4 AVC for their Blu-ray encodings.
You still congratulate them even though they refuse to use AVC until they have their own encoder? And the fact that it is 3X slower than VC-1? Do you think they will use it on all content?

Of course a few posters are always eager to spread FUD against MPEG-4 AVC, but personally I think those people have less than honest motives for doing that.
Maybe, but at least my crystal ball works better than yours. :) From a post of yours last November:

"For instance Amir says that all initial Blu-ray titles will be MPEG-2 but does not explain why or where he heard that from...To say that all initial Blu-ray discs will be MPEG-2 and than offer neither explanation or evidence is ridiculous. "

[found while searching for another post. And no, I am not going to give you the link. Go make yourself blind searching for it as I did :)]


Does that mean you think that the HD DVD discs from the Weinstein Company don't enable HD DVD to give J6p everything he wants?
Hey, not everyone deserves to drive a Porsche :).

We need to stop this non-stop argument about codecs as it really will have little to no impact ...

~Josh
In your opinion...

It's important because it defeats the arguement for the need of 50gb blu-ray discs. I know Amir has shown us the math before, that using VC-1, The Return of the King extended addition can fit on a 30gb disc.Sure, but even if that is true that doesn't change the fact that having more capacity is an advantage. After all King Kong was impressive but it didn't have PiP, lossless audio, or any of the normal SD extras. Personally I believe that even in the long term with advanced video/audio codecs that 50 GB will be useful.


You still congratulate them even though they refuse to use AVC until they have their own encoder?Yes, and if you were not such a strong proponent for VC-1 maybe you would congratulate them as well.


And the fact that it is 3X slower than VC-1?Now this is hypocritical. Weren't you the same poster criticizing the use of MPEG-2 as "quantity over quality", which from the looks of many recent reviews isn't even true, because it was quicker to encode than VC-1? Now you are going to say that because MPEG-4 AVC is slower to encode than VC-1 that we should be against it? Amir, I know you want to promote the use of VC-1 but this bashing of MPEG-4 AVC HP got old long ago.


Maybe, but at least my crystal ball works better than yours. From a post of yours last November:

"For instance Amir says that all initial Blu-ray titles will be MPEG-2 but does not explain why or where he heard that from...To say that all initial Blu-ray discs will be MPEG-2 and than offer neither explanation or evidence is ridiculous. "

[found while searching for another post. And no, I am not going to give you the link. Go make yourself blind searching for it as I did :)]Amir, besides editing my post and choosing not to provide a link you did not even bother to mention that it was from November of 2005. I must have made you a bit nervous to have you going through the archives in an attempt to find something to attack me with. For anyone curious here is the link to the post (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6528175&&#post6528175).

Honestly Amir if you want me to admit that I do not know the future that is true enough. The reason though that I was skeptical was because sspears had posted that it was possible to use the same VC-1 encoding for both HD formats. Something which we have seen with the HD movies from Time Warner. Note that I had good grounds to be skeptical of your claims especially when they related to Blu-ray. For instance just to scratch the surface but two of the implications you made in response to that post (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6528244&&#post6528244) were that "Warner most likely will use BD-9" and that Blu-ray would suffer from "environmental problems". To be blunt it is negative implications like those, which were both common and repeated often, that made me skeptical of what you said about Blu-ray.


Hey, not everyone deserves to drive a Porsche :).A good diplomatic answer even if it is still a put down of MPEG-4 AVC.

Now this is hypocritical. Weren't you the same poster criticizing the use of MPEG-2 as "quantity over quality", which from the looks of many recent reviews isn't even true, because it was quicker to encode than VC-1?
That is not what I said. I said Sony has a 2-day maximum encoding allowance for their titles. In the past they used real-time MEPG-2 encoders and claimed that no software encoder could fit the bill since encoding and tuning would take more than 2 days. Now they have their AVC encoder that runs at 12X slower than real-time meaning the first pass encode alone takes 24 hours. I sure hope they don't try to stick to their turn-around time because that will leave no time to tune anything.
Our VC-1 encoder would give them the option to come closer to their target of 2-day encode but I still feel that is a bad way to go. Schedule should not come ahead of quality in such a manner.

Now you are going to say that because MPEG-4 AVC is slower to encode than VC-1 that we should be against it? Amir, I know you want to promote the use of VC-1 but this bashing of MPEG-4 AVC HP got old long ago.
I did not bash MPEG-4 one bit. I am just pointing out 4 major studios in both HD DVD/BD use VC-1 for all or some of their titles. Sony stands alone in not using it or any advanced codec for that matter. But the first time they are open to it, is with their much slower encoder. You are smart enough to draw some useful conclusions out of this, other than bashing me personally. No?

The reason though that I was skeptical was because sspears had posted that it was possible to use the same VC-1 encoding for both HD formats.
That's is the problem Richard. You are so eager to assume everything I tell you as being wrong, that you ignore it all. You can't just get all your info from postings here or what you read in the press. Sometimes you have to trust that people in the industry know more than you do, even if they are in opposing camp. And not go and insult/ridicule them left and right, as you are doing yet again with the AVC comment above. Combat my logic, with logic. Don’t keep accusing me of wanting to steal your first born.

Things J6P also doesn't care about:
global warming
hunger in the third world
OAR
quality audio
quality video
C-SPAN
exercise
books
soccer
organic food
his wife
China
reparations
the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow
women's tennis
good music

You forgot Letters from Iwo Jima and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. ;)

That is not what I said. I said Sony has a 2-day maximum encoding allowance for their titles.
Sorry amir but you are flat out wrong here. Paidgeek has stated that they have no 2 day limit and they have gone much past that with some encodes taking a week. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=45440&postcount=176
Sometimes you have to trust that people in the industry know more than you do, even if they are in opposing camp.
Trust? I don't see how we can do that based on the above. One of you is obviously misinformed or is intentionally misleading.

Sometimes you have to trust that people in the industry know more than you do, even if they are in opposing camp.

This is the funniest thing I have read in a while.

Actually the reality is that sometimes you can't trust anything someone says because they have an agenda.

Like someone who might say that the only non VC-1 HD DVDs are old experimental encodes while Weinstein pumps out AVC titles.

Is this the kind of person you expect us to blindly trust?

I think that this is the kind of person whose statements should always be questioned.

Microsoft is engaging in an extremely aggressive marketing and PR campaign for one of their products. It's an extremely hard sell. It's very annoying, but not unusual. The PR from all sides is generally unbearable, but the difference is that we have an extremely aggressive insider who posts here constantly in a never ending high-volume high-pressure stream of PR nonsense.

At the end of the day VC-1 encoded titles do look great and are a blind purchase for me and many others. With AVC and especially Mpeg2, I generally tend to check out a handful of reviews and then decide.

Amir can do all the "PR" he wants on this or any other forum but if the product couldn't stand up to the promise then Amir likely would not be posting here as frequently. I personally find it amusing that he has to post here as much as he does to defend an obviously great product. The BR fans should encourage not discourage BR studios to adopt VC-1. After all you care about PQ right? or do you care more about your right to retain the usage of "M$" in an attempt at humor? You don't have to personally like Amir or his posting style but the division he heads has produced a wonderful product that we ALL can benefit from.

As for Mpeg2, over time Sony will switch fully to AVC. Then Mpeg2 will be dead and you guys can argue endlessly with AVC HP vs VC-1. I have no problem supporting VC-1 on either format, Xbox Live and here's hoping it one day delivers the same great PQ on broadcast mediums such as IPTV.

I am most interested in picture quality though I would not consider VC-1 encodes perfect by any means.

To be honest with you it is the relentless stream of fractional truths and propoganda from Microsoft in this forum that puts me off HD DVD more than any technical aspects of the format.

I bought an HD DVD player before I bought a BD player with the intention of buying discs from both formats as and when the titles I wanted became available.

With the way things have gone here I have no desire to help the HD DVD side in any way and live in the hope that the format goes away and the highjacking of this forum goes with it.

Of course I am not holding my breath, but I think I will enjoy the next 12 months...

I mostly agree with the sentiments in #18. Personally, and I mean this as objective observation, certain insider posters damage the chances of their format of choice by their posts. There are plenty of aggressive non-insiders too but they are more irritatants than format-damagers.


@Amir, if you have been known to be wrong even once (when you could have known better or not made any claims, if unsure), it makes sense to be skeptical of all your claims.

This standard, I am sure, is applied by you to your competitors and probably even colleagues.

Do you really expect a BD supporter to give you full trust when claims of yours have been known to be wrong? Forgetting the mistakes, knowing that you have a vested interest implies that we ought to be skeptical. Its common sense and to expect less is amusing.

I agree with the posts above. This continuous sales pitch of codecs is really becoming tiresome, and putting consumers in the middle of this bickering is a cheap shot.

I think it's fair to say that consumers only have one allegiance: we simply want the codec that gives the best results on a movie by movie basis! If some pictures are more truthful to the original vision with MPEG-2, then use it. If other movies look better with AVC, go for it. And if VC-1 makes wonders on other kind of movies, that's the codec you should be using.

It's not our call, and it neither is for codec salesmen. Only film talent and Studio people should make this decision.

Sorry amir but you are flat out wrong here. Paidgeek has stated that they have no 2 day limit and they have gone much past that with some encodes taking a week. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.php?p=45440&postcount=176.

Amir can you please respond to benes? I am interested to know why you have responded in such a matter.


Cheers.

I agree with the posts above. This continuous sales pitch of codecs is really becoming tiresome, and putting consumers in the middle of this bickering is a cheap shot.

I think it's fair to say that consumers only have one allegiance: we simply want the codec that gives the best results on a movie by movie basis! If some pictures are more truthful to the original vision with MPEG-2, then use it. If other movies look better with AVC, go for it. And if VC-1 makes wonders on other kind of movies, that's the codec you should be using.

It's not our call, and it neither is for codec salesmen. Only film talent and Studio people should make this decision.

In addition, it has been suggested that MPEG2 and VC-1 each has a distinctive and different "look." I do not know whether that is correct, but if it were, it suggests that neither of the two is truly producing a result that is "transparent." It seems to me that this question is a very important additional reason to be talking about codecs.

Gees, how about you guys attacking the logic instead of the posters?

Gees, how about you guys attacking the logic instead of the posters?

challenge the info in a post, but not the poster

Hey, not everyone deserves to drive a Porsche :).

No, they get to drive an Aston Martin.

Wow - this is really amazing. All the bluray fans are in this thread just simply attacking Amir, instead of actually taking the time to digest what is being said. How typical and unsurprising...

It is WELL KNOWN that Sony has placed a high importance level on the encoding speed in most of their public statements. They can be found in all sorts of places saying why they couldn't adopt anything but Mpeg2, because the speed of encoding was so important to them - from magazines (which I myself have posted on) to online reports of interviews.

To debate this is futile. It was even one of the reasons Sony gave as to why they couldn't use VC1.

And let me get this straight, JUST BECAUSE VC1 has proven to be the best encoder so far, that means that Amir is not allowed to do his job and try to promote it - why? Is that "unfair" or something? Would he only be allowed to promote it if it had major problems producing the same quality as the other codecs at competitive bitrates?

When the first VC1 titles came on the market in April last year, I and many others, were stunned, seriously stunned, by the picture quality of Phantom of the Opera. The detail, richness, depth, everything, of that title set the tone for the adoption of HD on either format. Anyone who has seen it on a good display KNOWS just how much of a quantum jump in quality we are talking about here.

This new standard was further re-inforced when the first BD titles started coming out in Mpeg2 and we saw the difference between the two.

So let's break this thread down to it's real function:

beatboy - a big Bluray fan who has started the "studio petition to get Universal" to switch to Bluray, has started a thread where the OP states that codecs are NOT imporant at all, and why should anyone argue about them...

I have stated that I don't agree - I've got a 10 foot 1080p DiLA projection screen and I can promise you there is a big difference. I want the best, and so do most new entrants to this "shiny disc" HD technology.

So Sony, who ALWAYS said they thought Mpeg2 at 19 mbps was the best, has NOW given in to pressure from critics and consumers and is adopting a "next gen" advanced codec, hopefully turning their back on Mpeg2. OF COURSE, they are not going to choose VC1, for obvious reasons, so their only other choice is AVC.

Does THAT mean AVC is better than VC1? Of course not, since they chose it for political reasons more than qualitative reasons. I believe the point on encoding time HIGHLIGHTS that this was a political decision by Sony, since they ALWAYS had attached so much importance to realtime encoding in their public statements. The fact that VC1 encoding is twice as fast as AVC encoding lends plenty of credence to this point.

For the judgement of whether AVC or VC1 is better, why not look at comparative reviews, or better yet, those who are going to be making BIG investments in the two. WHY does anyone suppose that BOTH Disney and Lions Gate chose VC1, even though it potentially goes against their political pre-disposition?

Because it's the best at this time... simple.

I'm sorry I don't have much time for those who argue that the codecs and the quality don't matter... If HD DVD didn't exist, they are the ones who would have been buying LOADS of the initial Bluray releases and been holding them up as the "greatest thing since sliced cheese" and all the sheep would have followed, because they had nothing better to compare it to.

Mediocrity has no place in next generation video, and just because Mpeg2 was grandfathered in, doesn't mean that it should be used just because it is faster and cheaper to produce. AVC is probably better than Mpeg2 also, but based on my viewing so far, VC1 is simply the best.

That's just the way it is...

I will now don my radiation-proof industrial flame suit and life support apparatus in anticipation of the predictable personal attacks which will likely ensue... :)

time out