When I watched Riddick. I must say that the movie looked like a fantastic transfer. It felt like they were right behind the screen.

Few movies on the other side have come that close to a 3d feel. Of course no movie could be better then its master. And how the shoot the movie will have strong effect (lights etc). But I wonder if anybody know if there is some other technical issue that make VC1 look the way it does.

If its simple like 16-239 vs 0-255 in colorspace or something else?

I think it has more to do with the detail/resolution present in the master used.

Garbage in, garbage out etc etc etc

And the fact that HD DVD and VC-1 are superior. :P

^ pass me what your smokin. :)

I want to be ignorant to reality :D

^ Passes eXgo a Red Pill doobie.

That ought to help. :D

^ pass me what your smokin. :)

I want to be ignorant to reality :D

It's called HD DVD. Get with the program :)

Dont want to start another formatwar here. Bluray could have the same transfer on its disc. But my expereince is that there is something different in the VC1 encode, that of course could be explained by a superior master. But do anybody know something else (techwise) that the VC1 does that the other dont?

I am curious also, as I agree that VC-1 transfers on HD DVD have more of the 3d look. I have a XA2, PS3 and have never seen any thing on BD that WOWs like some of HD DVD releases.

I think the thing that adds to a "3D" look is the background clarity. If the background is as clear as the forground, it tends to increase depth by optical illusion. i don't think this is limited to VC-1. I have seen this in mpeg2 and AVC transfers as well.

VC-1 is a newer Codec, Blu-Ray is still predominantly MPEG2, which is fine but newer codecs have a tendancy to be more film like.

I remeber seeing the difference in school between a MPEG2 HD-Cam (about 10GB for 30mins of footgae) and a MPEG4 based HD-CAM (both were 720p) and the MPEG 4 used about 3GB for same amount of footoge and on screen seemed to have a better depth of field, both cameras were made by Sony so...brand can't have much to do with it since both had Carl Zeis lenses and such.

So as a film is being mastered (digital or 35mm) the optical encoding (not so much the pick up) is superior in the new codecs.

~Bobby

Well I dont think that Sony even makes 720P cams only 1080i and 1080P

And depth of field has nothing to do with the codec. Its the focal lengt. How you light should have much more impact.

So the only thing i can think of would be how it handles the color and blockfiltering.

I have watched some terrific looking Blu-ray images on my PS3 especially "Crank" and "Open Season." However, I have to admit that a greater number of HD DVD titles seem to have greater depth.

I am curious also, as I agree that VC-1 transfers on HD DVD have more of the 3d look. I have a XA2, PS3 and have never seen any thing on BD that WOWs like some of HD DVD releases.

The Rocky Balboa BD has all kinds of 3D pop. VC-1 is a great codec, but as an owner of both formats, I've watched great looking movies on Blu-ray and HD DVD, whether it be MPEG-2, AVC, or VC-1, and I've seen middle of the road and lackluster movies on both formats as well. Much of it depends on various factors, the quality of the master, contrast levels, proper encoding...

^ pass me what your smokin. :)

I want to be ignorant to reality
Looks like you already are.

When I watched Riddick. I must say that the movie looked like a fantastic transfer. It felt like they were right behind the screen.

Few movies on the other side have come that close to a 3d feel. Of course no movie could be better then its master. And how the shoot the movie will have strong effect (lights etc). But I wonder if anybody know if there is some other technical issue that make VC1 look the way it does.

If its simple like 16-239 vs 0-255 in colorspace or something else?

I get clear perceptions of 3D regularly from SD DVD, LD, and VHS tape as well. My understanding is it largely comes down to the source having a smooth gray scale gradient. This requires the source be as noise free as possible (EE and other noise being injurious to gray scale integrity), then if everything else does its job (very linear broadband response and high external noise-rejection), 3D is pretty natural. Of course, having the display correctly calibrated (at least the "user" controls) is a significant part of "everything else doing it's job". :)

Thinking of VC-1 Vs MPEG-2 and AVC, what Amir and Ben Waggoner have had to say lead to me to think that a combination of block edge induced noise and over smoothing of original information may suggest a VC-1 advantage in delivering 3D.

I don't know what it is about VC-1 and I don't care. All I know is that I never expected that a home video format could actually deliver a palpable sense of vertigo, but HD-DVD has up and done it. On my 10' screen, there have been a couple scenes from King Kong and A Scanner Darkly among others, where the image tricked my body into thinking that I was going to fall into the screen. Vertigo! That still amazes me, and goes beyond the image just looking great. It's tricking my body into thinking I'm looking at a three dimensional image. Now THAT is cool!

While I found The Thing to be an annoyingly soft movie overall, everything outdoors was fairly sharp, and the clarity and overall sharpness and image quality made me almost feel I was really there, outdoors in the snow.

I think that, as much as anything, having a well calibrated display goes a long way to aiding in the process. You really need a display with excellent grayscale/brightness/contrast settings to get the most of the "3d-effect". I thought a movie like King Kong looked amazing, but after I calibrated my Sanyo Z4, the 3d effect everyone was talking about was much more apparent, and I was even more impressed.

So, I'd say that the best HD transfers were ones that had great detail in them, but coupled with defined shadow details and great black and white contrast, and viewing them on a well calibrated display. Perhaps VC-1 is superior when it comes to having those qualities.

When I watched Kingdom of heaven, TearsOfTheSun, UnderworldEvolution they all showed a nice picture that were very filmlike, but I really felt that something was missing, and I can really put my finger on it.

So what does Riddick and Batman have that Kingdom doesnt? Great PQ on all 3, but there is something...

I think part of it has to do with the lighting of a scene. If it looks like the way a scene would be lit if you were standing there in real life (again, such as the thing), your brain might mis-interpret it as looking through a window, instead of watching what's actually a 2-D image on a TV. That's just a guess though.

Yes no coding in the world can save bad craftmanship. And I would say after watching Omen tonight, that the other codecs can achive 3D look. But there is still something in the Riddick movie thats make it really stand out. And what Im now thinking would be that it could be how the codec draw the line between the object in the foreground and the background. That VC1 would be able to make the difference very distinct.

Omen looked like it were Transparent to the theatrical copy, were Riddick looked like it were directly transparent from the master. But the theatrical look of Omen was really enjoyable.

Yes no coding in the world can save bad craftmanship. And I would say after watching Omen tonight, that the other codecs can achive 3D look. But there is still something in the Riddick movie thats make it really stand out. And what Im now thinking would be that it could be how the codec draw the line between the object in the foreground and the background. That VC1 would be able to make the difference very distinct.

Omen looked like it were Transparent to the theatrical copy, were Riddick looked like it were directly transparent from the master. But the theatrical look of Omen was really enjoyable.

Thinking of my earlier response:

Thinking of VC-1 Vs MPEG-2 and AVC, what Amir and Ben Waggoner have had to say lead to me to think that a combination of block edge induced noise and over smoothing of original information may suggest a VC-1 advantage in delivering 3D.

From what I've read, VC-1 does have the ability to be more honest to the master when applied knowledgeably. However, the tendency for people to try to compare encodes and draw CODEC conclusions based on impressions (and expectations) without the benefit of viewing the master, results in opinions that go all over the map.

An example would be the encoding of film grain. If the grain is more visible, does that mean the encoding is more accurate? Or if the grain is less visible, then does THAT mean the encoding is more accurate? Without the master, it's impossible to tell by simply sitting back and comparing the encodes. However, different CODECs can yield visibly different renderings of the very same grain.

(Similarly, if an image is sharper, does that mean it's correct? Or is it softer that's correct?)

My own feeling is that the more natural the scene appears (3D being a very natural appearance), the more likely the encoding is correct. An obvious difficulty being that the encoded video should not appear any MORE natural than the master itself -- that would indicate CODEC tampering. Still, the presence of a 3D image on your screen places significant demands on both the setup and performance of the entire video chain, not just the video source.

If you liked 'Riddick', then go pick up 'The Hulk'.

Now THAT is a WOW movie.

On my 10' screen, there have been a couple scenes from King Kong and A Scanner Darkly among others, where the image tricked my body into thinking that I was going to fall into the screen.
Which scenes?

Which scenes?
I don't have time codes, but for A Scanner Darkly it was pretty much any scene where the camera followed a moving character, and the objects in the back ground would swim past the camera on either side. The feeling was quite palpable there. For instance, iirc, the early scene in the diner was one, and there is at least one scene where Arctor is walking up to his house through the front yard, and all the objects in his yard are swimming past the screen.

For King Kong, I haven't even had a chance to watch that one all the way through yet, but I checked out a couple scenes when I first got the disk, and right off the bat, the scene where the actors are back stage after a performance, my stomach immediately lurked when I saw that scene. It was the first scene that had ever caused that reaction, and I remember thinking how cool it was.

I don't have time codes, but for A Scanner Darkly it was pretty much any scene where the camera followed a moving character, and the objects in the back ground would swim past the camera on either side. The feeling was quite palpable there. For instance, iirc, the early scene in the diner was one, and there is at least one scene where Arctor is walking up to his house through the front yard, and all the objects in his yard are swimming past the screen.

For King Kong, I haven't even had a chance to watch that one all the way through yet, but I checked out a couple scenes when I first got the disk, and right off the bat, the scene where the actors are back stage after a performance, my stomach immediately lurked when I saw that scene. It was the first scene that had ever caused that reaction, and I remember thinking how cool it was.
Cool. Thanks.

Vertigo! That still amazes me, and goes beyond the image just looking great. It's tricking my body into thinking I'm looking at a three dimensional image. Now THAT is cool!

Hitchcock was a great filmmaker!