Subject says it all, really. Now that Sony and pals have been forced to acknowledge that MPEG2 was a mistake that needed quick correcting, it makes sense to start looking into which discs do and don't use proper VC-1 or AVC. Such a list used to be maintained in the HDTV software forum, but it hasn't been updated since December.

The fact is I'll probably pick up a PS3 on or about November, at which time I expect at least one worthwhile game to be available. I will then have the option of purchasing Blu-ray movies, in the cases where there are not alternatives with realtime menus and whatnot. But I am never going to buy a HD movie encoded in MPEG2. Hence the need for this kind of information.

Probably there is such a resource out there. I just haven't located it yet. ;p

MPEG-2 is a mistake?

News to me.

That's not really the sort of response I'm after. I've witnessed the comparisons and performed my own tests with the codecs and I have data in hand. Take that discussion elsewhere. Thanks!

"Comparisons and self performed tests" that makes two of us. Given adequate bandwidth, picture quality with MPEG2, showed different results.

Aren't opinions great. I prefer picture quality to space savings, I'd prefer both once the engineers master the newer codecs.

Fine. MPEG2 is superior technology to AVC and VC-1.

Now that that's out of the way, we can get down to the business of establishing which current and future Blu-ray discs utilize non-MPEG2 discs. If the responses heretofore are anything to go by, there must be a lot of people out there who could really use this information to help them avoid movies encoded with newer codecs.

That's not really the sort of response I'm after. I've witnessed the comparisons and performed my own tests with the codecs and I have data in hand. Take that discussion elsewhere. Thanks!

well you need to perform those tests again and get off the "HD-DVD VC1 is God bandwagon", mpeg2, mpeg4 and VC1 have zero difference in picture quality, zero, they only vary in their ability to use storage space more efficiently, asking for a list of all BR's that are not Mpeg2 is jumping to incorrect conclusions that have been perpetuated by AVS FUD, lies and BS newbie opinions

D-Theater is still the king of PQ by a slight edge IMHO(ever heard of it?, it is Mpeg2 BTW), I think it is mostly player related though as we can't even get HD-DVD players without the CUE bug, nor many without CUE on the BR side

these kinds of threads and ideas are **** and downright insulting, they lead to nothing but the further spread of this BS, as these type ideas are merely that, ideas, and they are so far from the truth that it pisses me off :(

HD was around and looking good long before VC1/Mpeg4 mongers appeared and all the newbies jumped on board ;)

-Gary

So, is this it, then? Was it a mistake to ask this forum? I'm not going to get caught up in the argument. As I explained, I have encoded my own pure sources and the visuals do not lie. No amount of anti-propaganda - or suggestions that my encode tests must have been erroneous! - is going to cause me to ignore my own evidence. Quit trying! I am after some very simple information, nothing more.

Colmino,

Why don't you check the sticky at the top of the page.

Unofficial Blu-ray Audio and Video Specifications Thread

wasn't Crank mpeg2?

Why don't you check the sticky at the top of the page.

Unofficial Blu-ray Audio and Video Specifications ThreadThank you. It's a start. That's what this information really should be: a sticky at the top. Incidentally I was able to find what I was looking for. It's encouraging to note that roughly half of the latest Blu-ray releases utilize contemporary codecs, and the trend is clearly on the rise. Perhaps by the time I need to worry about it, I won't even have to consult such a document for any new releases.

Well, with Crank being mpeg 2 and being phenomenal, I think you are wrong about the difference of mpeg2 and "advanced" video codecs.

mpeg 2 , with the proper bitrate of which blu ray is capable, deliver the goods just as much as AVC, VC1 and mpeg4.

Don't believe the Microsoft and the HD DVD guys all the time.

You probably should just buy a PS3 right now so you can enjoy it for an extra 10 months.

well you need to perform those tests again and get off the "HD-DVD VC1 is God bandwagon", mpeg2, mpeg4 and VC1 have zero difference in picture quality, zero, they only vary in their ability to use storage space more efficiently, asking for a list of all BR's that are not Mpeg2 is jumping to incorrect conclusions that have been perpetuated by AVS FUD, lies and BS newbie opinions

D-Theater is still the king of PQ by a slight edge IMHO(ever heard of it?, it is Mpeg2 BTW), I think it is mostly player related though as we can't even get HD-DVD players without the CUE bug, nor many without CUE on the BR side

these kinds of threads and ideas are **** and downright insulting, they lead to nothing but the further spread of this BS, as these type ideas are merely that, ideas, and they are so far from the truth that it pisses me off :(

HD was around and looking good long before VC1/Mpeg4 mongers appeared and all the newbies jumped on board ;)

-Gary

Post of the month. :)

So, is this it, then? Was it a mistake to ask this forum? I'm not going to get caught up in the argument. As I explained, I have encoded my own pure sources and the visuals do not lie. No amount of anti-propaganda - or suggestions that my encode tests must have been erroneous! - is going to cause me to ignore my own evidence. Quit trying! I am after some very simple information, nothing more.

So you have a studio quality MPEG2, VC-1, MPEG4 (AVC) encoder and a professional encoder at your disposal to do your own visual tests?? If so, please share your resulting report as it seems most of the members here vehemently disagree with your realization that MPEG2 is not a valid codec for hi-def.

If you convince everyone here with your indisputable evidence, you'll have a whole forum of people helping you to find the non mpeg2 titles.

Chief, the problem with your "prove it" stance is that my purpose in this thread was not to seek opinions or attempt to relay my own. I was after information and I eventually found it elsewhere.

But I did learn an important lesson about impartiality when it comes to segregated forums such as this one. This was manifestly a waste of time. People were in such a fit to defend their format of choice that even here, in AVS forums, and in spite of my repeated attempts to sway conversation in the correct direction, I was forced to wade through so much drivel. It was terribly disheartening and a poor reflection on the fanbase of this format.

Incidentally, it doesn't seem like the greatest defense of MPEG2 to point to a movie which is not only a scant 83 minutes long but is also on the uncommon dual-layer media.

Chief, the problem with your "prove it" stance is that my purpose in this thread was not to seek opinions or attempt to relay my own.

Really?

Now that Sony and pals have been forced to acknowledge that MPEG2 was a mistake that needed quick correcting

Seems like you relayed your opinion pretty well. I'm sure if you had simply asked for a list without blasting MPEG2 people would have been a little more willing to help you. :rolleyes:

It's like hitting someone in the face with a snowball and then expecting them to kindly give you directions.

Colmino,

Some HD DVD's look like horrible. Some Blu Ray discs look like horrible.

I really don't think it has to do with codec. Blu Ray has the luxury of 50gb of space. So mpeg2 and LPCM can work with Blu Ray. HD DVD has to use compression codecs to fit the same movie and soundtrack on a 30gb disc.

I am glad we could help you.

To actually care more about how it was encoded than how it looks. Oh the arrogance of ignorance. You can't beat it. Do yourself a favor and stick with HD-DVD, the PS3 is for us dumb-dumbs.

(By the way, not that is here nor there but Crank was encoded twice on that disc, once for the film and once for the film with PIP commentary - 83*2 = 166mins = 2hours46mins. But your point was mpeg2 couldn't look good so who cares about the length.)

To actually care more about how it was encoded than how it looks. Oh the arrogance of ignorance. You can't beat it. Do yourself a favor and stick with HD-DVD, the PS3 is for us dumb-dumbs.

(By the way, not that is here nor there but Crank was encoded twice on that disc, once for the film and once for the film with PIP commentary - 83*2 = 166mins = 2hours46mins. But your point was mpeg2 couldn't look good so who cares about the length.)

It's alright, it looks like he's bought into all the FUD and BS M$ has been spreading about codecs. Another great example of mpeg2 is Kingdom of Heaven which looks absolutely incredible @ 195 minutes.

So, is this it, then? Was it a mistake to ask this forum? I'm not going to get caught up in the argument. As I explained, I have encoded my own pure sources and the visuals do not lie. No amount of anti-propaganda - or suggestions that my encode tests must have been erroneous! - is going to cause me to ignore my own evidence. Quit trying! I am after some very simple information, nothing more.

There's lots of ways to encode MPEG2. You probably have a really bad mpeg2 encoder.

If you are lucky enough to sample some of the early HD satellite MPEG2 movies at around 19Mbps, I think you will find that titles like AotC and Spiderman in mpeg2 HD really is quite amazing.

If on the other hand, you ran some TMPGENC with default settings or something like ulead, or even the stock TM5 reference encoder, then you have bad mpeg2 encodes.

It's very difficult to build a good mpeg2 encoder. People who know how to do it don't talk about it, and instead protect their IP with many layers of patent. Especially VBR mpeg2...

You can make bad mpeg2 encoders behave better if you enable the dual pass encoding, but that is still not the same as what the broadcast industry can use for their own encodes --- especially off line ones.

Most real time HD mpeg2 encodes are junk though.

It's alright, it looks like he's bought into all the FUD and BS M$ has been spreading about codecs. Another great example of mpeg2 is Kingdom of Heaven which looks absolutely incredible @ 195 minutes.
Yeah ok.... Next your gonna tell me the Earth is not flat!!!

well you need to perform those tests again and get off the "HD-DVD VC1 is God bandwagon", mpeg2, mpeg4 and VC1 have zero difference in picture quality, zero, they only vary in their ability to use storage space more efficiently, asking for a list of all BR's that are not Mpeg2 is jumping to incorrect conclusions that have been perpetuated by AVS FUD, lies and BS newbie opinions

D-Theater is still the king of PQ by a slight edge IMHO(ever heard of it?, it is Mpeg2 BTW), I think it is mostly player related though as we can't even get HD-DVD players without the CUE bug, nor many without CUE on the BR side

these kinds of threads and ideas are **** and downright insulting, they lead to nothing but the further spread of this BS, as these type ideas are merely that, ideas, and they are so far from the truth that it pisses me off :(

HD was around and looking good long before VC1/Mpeg4 mongers appeared and all the newbies jumped on board ;)

-Gary

HD-DVD is so good and VC1 so great that it doesn't get in the way of anything be it ran thru a computer and shined or old style classic filming

-Gary

As it turns out, you were the biggest VC-1 cheerleader when HD DVD was released stating on several occasions that the end result is transparent to the master which is definitely not true. And your constant berating of so-called "newbs" is starting to make me sick. Why do you always think you're better than everyone else? Maybe the reason some people get the wrong impression about video compression and picture quality is because of statements such as the one above.

well you need to perform those tests again and get off the "HD-DVD VC1 is God bandwagon", mpeg2, mpeg4 and VC1 have zero difference in picture quality, zero, they only vary in their ability to use storage space more efficiently, asking for a list of all BR's that are not Mpeg2 is jumping to incorrect conclusions that have been perpetuated by AVS FUD, lies and BS newbie opinions

D-Theater is still the king of PQ by a slight edge IMHO(ever heard of it?, it is Mpeg2 BTW), I think it is mostly player related though as we can't even get HD-DVD players without the CUE bug, nor many without CUE on the BR side

these kinds of threads and ideas are **** and downright insulting, they lead to nothing but the further spread of this BS, as these type ideas are merely that, ideas, and they are so far from the truth that it pisses me off :(

HD was around and looking good long before VC1/Mpeg4 mongers appeared and all the newbies jumped on board ;)

-Gary

I agree that Mpeg2 is usally just fine. But if AVC and VC1 are more efficient as you say, it means they use space more efficiently. So like a movie could be made 15GB on Mpeg1 and 12GB on VC1 (purely for example) and have subjectively identical PQ. Thus using this same logic, if both were at 12GB, the VC1 would look better. Id agree that both codecs can look equally good, but when limits of space and bitrate are applied, VC1 must by definition be better looking, even if only theoretically.

When people support Mpeg2 say Mpeg 2 is just fine as long as its given proper space. But why are we comparing BD25 VC1 to BD50 Mpeg2, thats not a fair comparison. Lets compare BD25 VC1 to BD25 Mpeg2. When space is limited, VC1 seems logical. Or open up more space for extras??

Im not one of the people who worship Vc1 like an idol, but I also say, if its more efficient, then it is better, why not switch to it? Most of us dont care about the corparate politics of Codecs, I dont care who pays royalties to who, I just want the best PQ that can be afforded me.

Everyone should be in agreement that all of the coders discussed are lossy in nature and are based on compression algorithms. That is far as I know having worked with listening to end results of lossy codecs for audio/voice. For audio/voice, some codecs favor speech signals but do a terrible job with music or background noise. Voice codecs are rated subjective based on a MOS number (mean opinion score). I assume that for video codecs, the different schemes MPEG2, MPEG4, VC1, etc each favor a particular criteria (of course I may be wrong since I don't know the algorithm details).

Compression efficiency can be a measure of how "good" a codec is and the more efficient codec probably has an edge in picture quality when the video source data is more compressible and needs to fit into space favored by the more efficient codec. However, when the constraints of storage space are less of a concern where it no longer disadvantages the less efficient codec, then you may being see how one algorithm compares to the other w/r to picture quality. For example, one codec may give more accurate rendition of film grain whereas the other may smooth and sharpen the image (like cartoon animation). The way to assess the effect of a codec would be to compare the PQ to the original uncompressed digitized master source from the studio on the same video monitoring system. For this exercise, we can't go by what we think we saw at the threater or HBO-HD etc for comparison. Some researchers much have done comparisons between master and compressed outputs. Any way, that's my late night ramblings...

Peace

If the OP had made a post and said "Is there a list of BD movies that has details about how they were encoded" he most likely would have received some suggestions and that would have been it.

To make a post and declare he has done test and MPEG-2 is the loser is asking for a confrontation. So, I would like to know: What was your source for this test? What MPEG-2 encoder was used? What level? What profile? Was it VBR or CBR? Single pass or multi pass? Hardware or software encoder? What were the MBR's and ABR's?

As it turns out, you were the biggest VC-1 cheerleader when HD DVD was released stating on several occasions that the end result is transparent to the master which is definitely not true. And your constant berating of so-called "newbs" is starting to make me sick. Why do you always think you're better than everyone else? Maybe the reason some people get the wrong impression about video compression and picture quality is because of statements such as the one above.

where in my post to this thread did I say VC1 sucked? I never did, it is wonderful and does what it does at lower bitrates, however mpeg2 quality is identical, to both be top notch one requires more space than the other

my point was that AVS has been filled with ignorance that somehow VC1 looks better than Mpeg2, these people don't have a clue and yes they are mostly newbs who only got into HD because of game consoles and never thought to realize that broadcast HD and other formats such as D-Theater are Mpeg2 and have been for many years

I could make hundreds of examples of mpeg2 stuff that is as top notch as anything VC1, again my only problem is this BS that is spread about codecs looking better over one another, total lies of the highest magnitude

thus as this thread, the poster wants non mpeg2 releases because he has bought BS and lies and thinks that Mpeg2 is somehow outdated and looks worse, is that not just plain sad or what? it is so stupid that I can barely even take myself to comment

the problem with this is that being BD has 50GB, Mpeg2 and PCM are no sweat to them, they have the space and that is all that is needed to have stellar Mpeg2 releases

I know where this **** started out and I won't forget it because it was a cheap blow and tactic one of the camps tried to use(It isn't to hard to figure out which one) :rolleyes:

-Gary