With all this aggravation going on between Sony and Microsoft, it makes me wonder why it is so important if one studio - Sony - uses this or that codec.

Then I came to a stunning realisation - if Sony does not encode movies for BD in VC-1, nobody will.

Then if HD DVD dies out, VC-1 may well be pushed back to downloads on the web.

I know, some of you will say that Warner encodes VC-1 for Bluray but they clearly actually encode VC-1 for HD DVD and then recycle that encode for BD. Don't get me wrong, I would love it if they did a separate encode for BD but they clearly do not.

What we see in reality is Disney dabbled with VC-1 for one (very high bitrate) release. Lionsgate said something about VC-1 but has only released MPEG2 and AVC to date.

If Sony passes over VC-1 in favour of AVC (which is happening by all accounts), perhaps we will see AVC releases from Paramount also.

Fox and Disney both seem to be mixing and matching AVC and MPEG2 also.

Perhaps if Paramount likes their AVC, they will follow Weinstein's lead and release AVC encodes for HD DVD! (ok, the speculation is getting wild at this point :D).

Anyways, I am guessing that the studios' tendencies to follow Sony's lead (or is it simply using Sony's facilities?) means that the codecs they choose to use are important to anyone who cares what codec is used on Blu-ray Disc...

I don't think the other studios would do something because Sony does it. After all, other studios started using AVC before Sony did. If anything, it's Sony following their lead.

There is a lot of speculation going on there, but I will add that AVC encoders are excellent, based on my own use (x264). I would not be surprised if Sony and the other studios use AVC because they will not need to rely on any company outside of the other studios, i.e. MS. As Amir has stated using VC-1 requires training and expertise from MS, AVC might be easier to use and easier to customise without outside help.

In Sony's case it is easy to explain, Sony have their own encoders, what is the point in paying another company to use theirs when your own is equivalent or better.

The codec a studio chooses reflects their commitment to deliver quality HD offerings.

Weinsteins choice of AVC over VC-1 shows me that they want to save pennies here and there and surprise, their releases had issues. MPEG-2 is simply outdated and VC-1 has better tools available than AVC. Not saying every release has to be AVC or that AVC is bad, but VC-1 can do some key things better like enhancing shadow detail with sub-frame optomizations. This was really highlighted in Batman Begins. VC-1 also requires less processing, which is always advantagous.

The real enemy to quality is MPEG-2. I use MPEG-2 in my own HD DVDs, but I wouldn't expect a studio to do the same if quality was more of a concern to them than cost. If they stopped using MPEG-2 that additional space and bandwidth could be used for great things.

I think people should stop railing on Warner for not giving PCM tracks and instead question what Sony could be delivering if they didn't waste space and bandwidth with MPEG-2/PCM.

The codec a studio chooses reflects their commitment to deliver quality HD offerings.

Weinsteins choice of AVC over VC-1 shows me that they want to save pennies here and there and surprise, their releases had issues.

Would you please provide an objective source that shows VC-1 having better compression performance than AVC?

Moscow University's tests (http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/pdf/msu_subjective_codecs_comparison_en.pdf
), the best unbiased test I can find shows clearly that AVC out performs VC-1.

/carmi

Would you please provide an objective source that shows VC-1 having better compression performance than AVC?

Moscow University's tests (http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/pdf/msu_subjective_codecs_comparison_en.pdf
), the best unbiased test I can find shows clearly that AVC out performs VC-1.

/carmi My Russian is a bit rusty. ;) (funny I actually do understand some)

When were those tests done? The professional VC-1 software based encoder is improving almost every month as Miscrosoft updates it.

I've seen a lot of quality VC-1 at a lot of private demos with some huge screens and expensive equipment and it can scale up to some magnificant picture quality on huge screens even at ridicously low bit rates. AVC can match it maybe, but it' nots going to be that much better than VC-1 already is, bit rate for bit rate.

I think people should stop railing on Warner for not giving PCM tracks and instead question what Sony could be delivering if they didn't waste space and bandwidth with MPEG-2/PCM.

I guess we will see with the AVC BDs from Sony that have begun to arrive.

My guess though is high bitrate AVC with HD extras.

The only source that we hear that VC-1 is better than AVC is from Microsoft and the people that believe them.

On response to the question about U2 Rattle and Hum, Ben says that these days VC-1 could do better than it could when the title was authored.

It would stand to reason that AVC is also being improved, but I guess Microsoft does not consider that.

In any case, the only goal of all the codecs is to be as transparent to the master as possible.

I don't doubt that VC-1 and AVC are very comparable in this respect using the bitrates that Blu-ray Disc is capable of.

So, why bother with VC-1?

We see AVC being used by Apple, and by broadcasters internationally. It is clear that this is the next standard for broadcasting and will therefore get a lot of research from a wide variety of companies in the wide ranging industry, and as such will have real time encoders and many more man hours behind it than even Microsoft can muster behind VC-1.

I guess it is a plus side that things can only get better regardless...! :)

I don't doubt that VC-1 and AVC are very comparable in this respect using the bitrates that Blu-ray Disc is capable of.

So, why bother with VC-1?

Because you can get professional support from a very knowledgable developer.

Because you can get professional support from a very knowledgable developer.

Really, how long have MS been in the arena of home theatre codecs, how about Sony, Apple, Panasonic. I think you will find that MS are just pumping VC-1 with money and talent to get a foothold in a very lucrative market, while the traditional companies are letting their product speak for itself.

Because you can get professional support from a very knowledgable developer.

I don't think that Microsoft is the only company in world that has knowledge and capabilities.

We see AVC being used by Apple, and by broadcasters internationally.VC-1 is also in the process of being added to many of the broadcast standards.

Then I came to a stunning realisation - if Sony does not encode movies for BD in VC-1, nobody will.

The entire premise is flawed because there are BDs encoded in VC-1. What Sony does with their own films has nothing to do with what any other studio can choose to do with theirs.

Really, how long have MS been in the arena of home theatre codecs, how about Sony, Apple, Panasonic.
????

Have you heard of Windows Media? Or NetShow before that? Microsoft Video 1? Or more recently, Media Center? Media Center Extenders? Microsoft has been making encoders and decoders for well over a decade now. And VC-1 is based on that work, with our VC-1 implementation an evolution from all that.

Microsoft certainly has a much longer track record of sustained codec development than Apple (Apple only restarted their own codec efforts in earnest about 3 years ago). Sony and Panasonic have done codecs for a long time as well, but focused on very different markets.

Also, bear in mind that Microsoft contributed to H.264's development as well.

Really, how long have MS been in the arena of home theatre codecs, how about Sony, Apple, Panasonic. I think you will find that MS are just pumping VC-1 with money and talent to get a foothold in a very lucrative market, while the traditional companies are letting their product speak for itself.

Ben already covered that. What a silly idea. Keep in mind that VC-1 is a SMPTE standard, not just what some wish to characterize as some kind of hobbled-together MS codec by a bunch of nitwit inexperienced computer programmers with some free time on their hands.

The codec a studio chooses reflects their commitment to deliver quality HD offerings.

Weinsteins choice of AVC over VC-1 shows me that they want to save pennies here and there and surprise, their releases had issues. MPEG-2 is simply outdated and VC-1 has better tools available than AVC. Not saying every release has to be AVC or that AVC is bad, but VC-1 can do some key things better like enhancing shadow detail with sub-frame optomizations. This was really highlighted in Batman Begins.Where did you get this stuff about sub-frame optimizations being highlighted in "Batman Begins"? Are you talking about the ability to pick a part of the frame to focus on that Amir or Ben mentioned, which looks like it came well after "Batman Begins" was done? From here it looks like you made this up.

--Darin

a bunch of nitwit inexperienced computer programmers with some free time on their hands.

Agreed. Both VC-1 and H.264 HP are great on paper. But to make it truly shine, you need to spend huge resource on the encoder support and refinement. In the end, it is a battle of encoders instead of the codec. Every insider from the posthouse has praised MS on this regard.

Then I came to a stunning realisation - if Sony does not encode movies for BD in VC-1, nobody will.

Then if HD DVD dies out, VC-1 may well be pushed back to downloads on the web.I don't really see that happening and personally I don't think that is even one of the reasons that Microsoft is against Blu-ray. Microsoft may heavily promote VC-1, and goodness knows it has done its best to attack MPEG-4 AVC, but I don't see Warner or Universal studios suddenly switching which video codec they use even if/when Blu-ray wins the format war. Paramount would probably stick with VC-1 as well since they are used to it.


Anyways, I am guessing that the studios' tendencies to follow Sony's lead (or is it simply using Sony's facilities?) means that the codecs they choose to use are important to anyone who cares what codec is used on Blu-ray Disc...Sony's facilities are quite capable of accepting VC-1 encodings though and the actual encodings tend to be done by the studios. As such even if HD DVD died tomorrow the studios would probably not change which advanced video codec they use.


Also, bear in mind that Microsoft contributed to H.264's development as well.Certainly, but besides that from everything I have seen Microsoft has done its very best to spread FUD against MPEG-4 AVC, ridicule the studios that use it, and mock the speed of the encoders that are used. On the other hand they have poured millions into improving their VC-1 encoder and provide free technical help to those studio that use it. No offense but it really isn't hard to tell which video codec Microsoft supports and which video codec it has tried to get rid of since the day it was made.

I don't think that Microsoft is the only company in world that has knowledge and capabilities.

I never said they were. But if you read some of the insider posts as to which companies are providing the better support to the encoders, it appears as thoguh microsoft is at the top.

In the business world timely support can be crucial when you need to meet strict deadlines. Hence choosing VC1 from microsoft may be a very wise move.

So, why bother with VC-1?

The entire premise is flawed because there are BDs encoded in VC-1. What Sony does with their own films has nothing to do with what any other studio can choose to do with theirs.

What studio is encoding VC-1 for BD?

Paramount would probably stick with VC-1 as well since they are used to it.


How many of the Paramount BDs are VC-1? I think you will find only the HD DVDs from Paramount use VC-1.

VC-1 is basically poor-man's MPEG4 in terms of algorithmic complexity, which means that requires less processing power and runs relatively well on a general CPU for a PC. No wonder studios choose AVC instead when more powerful authoring hardwares are available.

VC-1 is basically poor-man's MPEG4 ...Could you elaborate what made you come to this conclusion?
Real life examples we see now not only don't support it, they prove the exact opposite.

Diogen.

What studio is encoding VC-1 for BD?

Disney did Flightplan in VC-1.

Was that the only one so far?

Gary

How many of the Paramount BDs are VC-1? I think you will find only the HD DVDs from Paramount use VC-1.True, and it is a bit more of a guess on how Paramount might go if Blu-ray wins the format war. I believe that VC-1 is likely though assuming that Microsoft would still be willing to offer the same support to studios as they current offer. I would think that even if Blu-ray won the format war Microsoft would still want VC-1 to be used.


Real life examples we see now not only don't support it, they prove the exact opposite.At the moment VC-1 does appear to more efficient than MPEG-4 AVC, but I would hardly think it fair to say that they are the exact opposite. After all VC-1 would not be so efficient today had it not been for the millions poured into improving the Microsoft encoder. Also I think the recent reviews of Open Season that are calling it reference quality would indicate that MPEG-4 AVC is a much better video codec than some would want us to believe.

AVC is the best codec from doom9, msu and other testing. x264 comes ahead of other encoders in PSNR, SSIM and subjective testing. It comes down to using the best encoders with the best expert operators.

VC-1 is basically poor-man's MPEG4 in terms of algorithmic complexity, which means that requires less processing power and runs relatively well on a general CPU for a PC. No wonder studios choose AVC instead when more powerful authoring hardwares are available. Do you access to the professional VC-1 encoder suite? The ones the studios use.

????

Have you heard of Windows Media? Or NetShow before that? Microsoft Video 1? Or more recently, Media Center? Media Center Extenders? Microsoft has been making encoders and decoders for well over a decade now. And VC-1 is based on that work, with our VC-1 implementation an evolution from all that.

Microsoft certainly has a much longer track record of sustained codec development than Apple (Apple only restarted their own codec efforts in earnest about 3 years ago). Sony and Panasonic have done codecs for a long time as well, but focused on very different markets.

Also, bear in mind that Microsoft contributed to H.264's development as well.

Wow, I said home theatre, so tell me how that includes WMV, or Media Centre (which is still relatively new, compared to the companies I was talking about).

It was those different markets I was talking about, which as you say Sony/Panasonic have been involved in for what seems like forever, and MS are the newcomers but seem hell-bent on badmouthing everyone else.

Yes you did make a contribution, in the same way Sony made a contribution to VC-1.

This obsession in what Sony makes or Sony doesn´t make with the codecs is just pathetic, they can choose what codec they want to use for their movies.

We must be happy that official BluRay spec supports 3 codecs instead of one, the war on codecs must go home.

...

The real enemy to quality is MPEG-2.

...

I disagree. At substantially higher bit-rates (~2x), MPEG-2 has been shown to produce "transparency" compared to AVC, VC-1. It is still discussed as to how each codec works with certain types of source material, e.g. grain, but overrall, this statement is (yet again) another "urban myth".

Having said all of that, I do prefer AVC/VC-1 encodes (because of the lower storage requirements); I also prefer the increased capacity and bandwidth of Blu-Ray. Oxymoronic? No. As a format that I am going to have to live with for the next decade, I want the highest capacity/bandwidth for current and future releases (plus usage for computer optical storage).

VC-1 is also in the process of being added to many of the broadcast standards.

Including Echostar (aka Dish Networks ).

Including Echostar (aka Dish Networks ).

Interesting. Which channel on Dish is VC-1? I would like to check that out.

True, and it is a bit more of a guess on how Paramount might go if Blu-ray wins the format war.


For Paramount, either they are going MPEG2 because the quality is better than VC-1 or they are going MPEG2 because Paramount is following Sony's lead.

Either way, there is no sign from them that they will move to VC-1 on Blu-ray, especially if Sony does not (based on second alternative since we all know how horrible MPEG2 is so reason one cannot possibly be the case! ;) ).

Also I think the recent reviews of Open Season that are calling it reference quality would indicate that MPEG-4 AVC is a much better video codec than some would want us to believe.

Of course it is. Some would expect us to believe everything they say because they know more than we do.

Fortunately there seem to be other people out there who at least know just as much as, if not more than, they do about video compression.

Their position is one of arrogance. I have seen that before in companies and it did not work out well for them.

Interesting. Which channel on Dish is VC-1? I would like to check that out.

They are targeting it for VoD on their new HD DVR. Linky. (http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/08/live-from-the-echostar-press-conference/)

For Paramount, either they are going MPEG2 because the quality is better than VC-1 or they are going MPEG2 because Paramount is following Sony's lead.

Either way, there is no sign from them that they will move to VC-1 on Blu-ray, especially if Sony does not (based on second alternative since we all know how horrible MPEG2 is so reason one cannot possibly be the case! ;) ).



Of course it is. Some would expect us to believe everything they say because they know more than we do.

Fortunately there seem to be other people out there who at least know just as much as, if not more than, they do about video compression.

Their position is one of arrogance. I have seen that before in companies and it did not work out well for them.

I would wager that paramount is not using MPEG2 for BD for either of those reasons, instead it may simply be that the authoring tools that they are using for BD don't support VC-1.

They are targeting it for VoD on their new HD DVR. Linky. (http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/08/live-from-the-echostar-press-conference/)

Interesting. I can see that being a good fit since it is not really broadcasting, rather more like datacasting/IPTV.

I would wager that paramount is not using MPEG2 for BD for either of those reasons, instead it may simply be that the authoring tools that they are using for BD don't support VC-1.

Sounds reasonable - in that case they will probably move to AVC since the toolset should support that since the other studios are using it...

Sounds reasonable - in that case they will probably move to AVC since the toolset should support that since the other studios are using it...

I'm curious though with the recent dual-releases of "Babel" that the HD-DVD is AVC and the BD is MPEG2. Anyone have a theory as to why they didn't do AVC with both?

I'm curious though with the recent dual-releases of "Babel" that the HD-DVD is AVC and the BD is MPEG2. Anyone have a theory as to why they didn't do AVC with both?

If they did AVC for both, BR presentation would be undoubtedly better, and that would be unfair to HD DVD. It is in the same bracket as Warner delaying HD DVD titles until the BD titles can catch up with IME/BD-J.

If they did AVC for both, BR presentation would be undoubtedly better, and that would be unfair to HD DVD. It is in the same bracket as Warner delaying HD DVD titles until the BD titles can catch up with IME/BD-J.

HAHA

Maybe they did it because the BR folks don't mind crappy MPEG2

HAHA

Maybe they did it because the BR folks don't mind crappy MPEG2

Whatever dude, you obviously have no clue.

Whatever dude, you obviously have no clue.

Sorry I was just trying you say that your fairness argument was crazy. If they truly wanted to be fair they would use the exact same encode.

Sorry I was just trying you say that your fairness argument was crazy. If they truly wanted to be fair they would use the exact same encode.

So being fair would be optimising each to their own strengths, i.e. increased bandwidth/space for BD and a TrueHD track for HD DVD. That is fair.

So being fair would be optimising each to their own strengths, i.e. increased bandwidth/space for BD and a TrueHD track for HD DVD. That is fair.

Fair as in:

Exact same presentation

or

All is fair in love and war?


I think they should give each format the best presentation possible. That means using advanced codecs, with a separate encode for each format that uses each of the formats strengths (BR's more bandwidth, HD's more B-frames).

Fair as in:

Exact same presentation

or

All is fair in love and war?


I think they should give each format the best presentation possible. That means using advanced codecs, with a separate encode for each format that uses each of the formats strengths (BR's more bandwidth, HD's more B-frames).

All is fair in love and war, definitely. Each format has its advantages and disadvantages, handicapping HD DVD because BD does not have THD as a mandatory feature is not fair. On the flip side handicapping BD because HD DVD does not have good bandwidth and space is also unfair. I am not calling for the HD DVD version to be rubbish and the BD one to be great, I want studios to make each release as good as they can for each format.

All is fair in love and war, definitely. Each format has its advantages and disadvantages, handicapping HD DVD because BD does not have THD as a mandatory feature is not fair. On the flip side handicapping BD because HD DVD does not have good bandwidth and space is also unfair. I am not calling for the HD DVD version to be rubbish and the BD one to be great, I want studios to make each release as good as they can for each format.

Agree

My guess is that it was authored for BD before AVC was readily available. I heard that Flags will be AVC on BD.... not clear if it will be AVC on HD DVD also or not - that will be interesting indeed to see...

Disney did Flightplan in VC-1.

Was that the only one so far?

Gary

Apparently Casanova is also VC-1.

Apparently Casanova is also VC-1.

Indeed - and I hear that the bitrate is even higher than Flightplan.

It seems that Disney don't like the 12 Mbps - preferring the high 20s for their VC-1 encodes...?!

Indeed - and I hear that the bitrate is even higher than Flightplan.

It seems that Disney don't like the 12 Mbps - preferring the high 20s for their VC-1 encodes...?!
Remember, data rates are determined by the overall bit-budget. If after all the extras and audio are allocated, they'll encode at the average bitrate left over. Using a high bitrate isn't an indication a particular title needed that many bits, but there wasn't any reason to bother using fewer in that case.