http://www.***************.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/136984/

More reviewers need to take the same kind of balanced approach to reviewing, as this MPEG-2 encoding offers yet more concrete evidence of why you simply can’t judge video by the codec used – not even a little. You will not find a VC-1 or AVC encoding from a film based source, much cleaner or more detailed than this.

I know MPEG-2 is kind of a pig when it comes to space and bandwidth but if used properly, it sure can deliver ! 5 out of 5 for PQ

The girlfriend will definitely want to see this. I'll enjoy Jennifer Garner in High Def :D

I've said this before (a search can confirm)
almost all of the best transfers I've seen have been mpeg2.
I am not trying to be a format cheerleader or even a codec cheerleader with this, simply a technical observation...

:)

codec is irrelevant these days, I do think that VC1 is applying some slight filtering here and there, recent screengrab threads have did nothing but confirm this, a lack of high frequency film grain and noise

-Gary

I previously had no interest in this one, but now I just might order it.

I've said this before (a search can confirm)
almost all of the best transfers I've seen have been mpeg2.
I am not trying to be a format cheerleader or even a codec cheerleader with this, simply a technical observation...

:)

All the FUD in the world can't change the fact that MPEG-2 encoding has more titles in the tier 1-0 tiers...than the other codecs.

So its a technical observation by many others as well.

Why does it seem like only crap movies get good transfers.

Why does it seem like only crap movies get good transfers.

Why don't you shut your mouth, King Kong wasn't........ oh. :(

Anyone who has ever watched Kingdom of Heaven, Black Hawk Down or Layer Cake, to name a few, knows exactly what MPEG2 can deliver.

yep.
KOH looks fab IMHO...

Yup, there have been some stellar mpeg2 transfers :)

Parts of Kingdom of Heaven look good but MPEG2 really screws up the shots where the SKY is visible by creating a lot of Mosquito noise in those shots.

All the FUD in the world can't change the fact that MPEG-2 encoding has more titles in the tier 1-0 tiers...than the other codecs.

So its a technical observation by many others as well.

Gotta love the spin of implying both tiers combined instead of just the top tier as being the best and the majority being MPEG-2.

There are twice as many VC-1 titles in the 0 tier (top tier) then MPEG-2, "All the FUD in the world can't change the fact" There are also an equal amount of MPEG4 titles in that tier.

Since almost 65% of all BR titles use MPEG-2 its a pretty safe bet that you would see more MPEG-2 titles throughout your tier system.

I could even point to there being almost 50 titles encoded with MPEG-2 that have rated under 4 stars in PQ on hidefdigest, thats about 10 times more then any VC-1 or MPEG-4 title with poor ratings.

MPEG-2 is a compression system, to imply otherwise from either point of view is just spin.

And before the debate gets off topic, I am not saying MPEG-2 produces lesser of a PQ then any other codec, only dispelling FUD that was implied and credit that belongs also to other codecs

Gotta love the spin of implying both tiers combined instead of just the top tier as being the best and the majority being MPEG-2.

There are twice as many VC-1 titles in the 0 tier (top tier) then MPEG-2, "All the FUD in the world can't change the fact" There are also an equal amount of MPEG4 titles in that tier.

Since almost 65% of all BR titles use MPEG-2 its a pretty safe bet that you would see more MPEG-2 titles throughout your tier system.

I could even point to there being almost 50 titles encoded with MPEG-2 that have rated under 4 stars in PQ on hidefdigest, thats about 10 times more then any VC-1 or MPEG-4 title with poor ratings.

MPEG-2 is a compression system, to imply otherwise from either point of view is just spin.

And before the debate gets off topic, I am not saying MPEG-2 produces lesser of a PQ then any other codec, only dispelling FUD that was implied and credit that belongs also to other codecs

Theres no FUD....this is the BD software section...and not a neutral section...and there is no debate about it.. :rolleyes:

Coming from a guy who got caught outright...saying the hd dvd version of Blood Diamond was cheaper from Amazon....I find it highly ironic that you of all people...are accusing anyone of anything.

If you want to talk in terms of one format vs the other constantly...theres always the neutral hdtv software section....but this is the BD software section, and there is no debating this fact.

Coming from a guy who got caught outright...saying the hd dvd version of Blood Diamond was cheaper from Amazon....I find it highly ironic that you of all people...are accusing anyone of anything.

As anyone that has read the thread can see these are your claims and not what I have said and you still cant show where I have said this....

This not being a neutral forum means the truth is not allowed?

What I have said there and hear anyone can see.

Take a look a the zero tier movies and see what codecs they were made with.

Take a look at how many movies have been released for BR and how many were made with MPEG-2, figure out the percentages for yourself

Look at the PQ ratings on hidefdigest and see how many under 4 stars were encoded with MPEG-2 - look at how many were 3 stars, 2 stars, 1 star ratings

Look in my post history and see if I have ever said this movie was cheaper, I said the averages of all movies between formats were cheaper along with specific posts that this movie was prices the same but the one contains features the other is does not have... or provide a link or email that I have said this.

I dont even think your fellow BR supporters think you credible at this point.

As anyone that has read the thread can see these are your claims and not what I have said and you still cant show where I have said this....

This not being a neutral forum means the truth is not allowed?

What I have said there and hear anyone can see.

Take a look a the zero tier movies and see what codecs they were made with.

Take a look at how many movies have been released for BR and how many were made with MPEG-2, figure out the percentages for yourself

Look at the PQ ratings on hidefdigest and see how many under 4 stars were encoded with MPEG-2 - look at how many were 3 stars, 2 stars, 1 star ratings

Look in my post history and see if I have ever said this movie was cheaper, I said the averages of all movies between formats were cheaper along with specific posts that this movie was prices the same but the one contains features the other is does not have... or provide a link or email that I have said this.

I dont even think your fellow BR supporters think you credible at this point.

lol...who cares what a you think.....posting lies under the guise of format neutrality will get you no where in this section....and all speak is considered BD....unless otherwise stated einstein.

You said that the hd dvd version of Blood Diamond was cheaper....and actually used a dollar amount of 1.35 or some such B.S.....no reason to outright lie once again. :rolleyes:

lol...who cares what a you think.....posting lies under the guise of format neutrality will get you no where in this section....and all speak is considered BD....unless otherwise stated einstein.

You said that the hd dvd version of Blood Diamond was cheaper....and actually used a dollar amount of 1.35 or some such B.S.....no reason to outright lie once again. :rolleyes:

still just cant get around that little part can ya, pointing to where

The transfer might indeed be nice, but the movie...ewwwww.

Parts of Kingdom of Heaven look good but MPEG2 really screws up the shots where the SKY is visible by creating a lot of Mosquito noise in those shots.

What part of the movie is this at? Do you have the time at which it occurs?

Look at the PQ ratings on hidefdigest and see how many under 4 stars were encoded with MPEG-2 - look at how many were 3 stars, 2 stars, 1 star ratings



HighdefDigest AKA HDDVDigest? At least cite a credible source.

Everybody that just loves to haggle raise your hand... :cool:

http://www.***************.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/136984/




I know MPEG-2 is kind of a pig when it comes to space and bandwidth but if used properly, it sure can deliver ! 5 out of 5 for PQ

The girlfriend will definitely want to see this. I'll enjoy Jennifer Garner in High Def :D

Is this the same guy who reviewed "The Covenant" on Blu-ray? ;)

Is this the same guy who reviewed "The Covenant" on Blu-ray? ;)

I cant acess the link you quoted and dont get what your implying above, I thought The Covenant looked great on BR.

I cant acess the link you quoted and dont get what your implying above, I thought The Covenant looked great on BR.

So did I. I actually really like this movie. :eek:

Parts of Kingdom of Heaven look good but MPEG2 really screws up the shots where the SKY is visible by creating a lot of Mosquito noise in those shots.

What makes you think it's compression noise vs. film grain?

The transfer might indeed be nice, but the movie...ewwwww.

I heard the movie was basically bad.

I had hopes for it since Kevin Smith graced the screen.

Other thoughts on the film itself? Is it worth a rental?

I cant acess the link you quoted and dont get what your implying above, I thought The Covenant looked great on BR.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=779119&page=1&pp=30

Read the whole thread first. Its a good read.

Basically what I'm saying is that the reviewer is a true blue BD supporter. The reviewer obviously haven't seen any TIER 0-1 HD DVD titles when he says " You will not find a VC-1 or AVC encoding from a film based source, much cleaner or more detailed than this."

Check out his post history here at AVS, Spot and other Blu-ray forums (I was banned from one them). One post he did caught my attention about the bad reviews of Silent Hill BD:

I think a lot of the bad reviews the US edition received were based on improper equipment setup, if not reviewer bias. Saying anything good about BD or anything bad about HD DVD still isn't the popular thing to do on some forums.

You can google the rest ;)

Nuff' said.


Next!

If you can spare the bits, a 40Mbps peak for AVC/VC1 should still look better than MPEG2 40Mbps because their in loop filters don't kick in as much if the quantization is very low. They also have better tools in all intra and inter modes that allows more efficient coding, and in general, same bitrate as MPEG2 should give lower quants for the advanced codecs. AVC also has a better entropy (lossless) encoder in CABAC that is a pain to implement, but typically can encode at a further > 10% reduction in bitrate than VLC encoding.

The problem is that some compressionists playing with advanced codecs want to go for lower bitrates. If they had been targetting 20Mbps with peaks of 28Mbps because of the limitations of the other format, that would have been reasonably ok too.

However, many disks are being encoded at targeted bitrates that are much lower than 20. If you were comparing a 30Mbps MPEG2 and a 16Mbps VC-1, my bet is that the quantization levels used in the mpeg2 encode is going to be lower than the VC-1. That's the root of the problem --- once you quantize more, you've lost detail and no amount of smart inloop filtering will restore detail ---- they only smudge pixels to hide the effects of the quantization.

i try to buy only movies in AVC or MPEG-2. I try to avoid vc-1 titles as much as possible due to them all looking so soft and filtered.

i try to buy only movies in AVC or MPEG-2. I try to avoid vc-1 titles as much as possible due to them all looking so soft and filtered.

You can watch what ever you want, but its seem strange that you think VC1 titles are soft and filtered. Because there is nothing in the VC1 encoder that will filter and soften the movie.

I know some state that VC1 movies look soft, but that hasnt anything to do with reality. More lack of filmmedium understanding.

Riddick that is a VC1 title have beaten every AVC, MPEG2 and VC1 title ive seen so far.

No encoding can be better then the master.

i try to buy only movies in AVC or MPEG-2. I try to avoid vc-1 titles as much as possible due to them all looking so soft and filtered.

Is that a poke at Warner? I suspect so. Try some Disney VC-1.

Because there is nothing in the VC1 encoder that will filter and soften the movie.Not true, SMPTE 421M, ITU-T H.262 and ITU-T H.264 are DCT entropy coders. If you want more info search for post made by dr1394 (Ron). He is a video codec & IEEE1394 engineer.

I just watch flightplan (VC1) from disney, i wouldnt say that it had any advantage against warner titles.

How the master look will have the largest impact.

Not true, SMPTE 421M, ITU-T H.262 and ITU-T H.264 are DCT entropy coders. If you want more info search for post made by dr1394 (Ron). He is a video codec & IEEE1394 engineer.

Without going to techical, sure if an encoding isnt lossless there will be changes to the movie. But if we talking about changes in a movie that our eyes can detect in 24fps, that something else. Lossless vs Lossy.

But there is nothing that say that VC1 will soften the movie to that extent as some seem to claim over and over.

Some cant understand that the ammount of grain and sharpness is a combination of lenses, filmstocks, processing, scanning, encoding.

But the best titles ive watch so far have been VC1, with Casino royal and KOH close to it.

Without going to techical, sure if an encoding isnt lossless there will be changes to the movie.You: Because there is nothing in the VC1 encoder that will filter and soften the movie. Me: Not true.


But if we talking about changes in a movie that our eyes can detect in 24fps, that something else. Lossless vs Lossy.Much of this is in the eye of the viewer. I can assure you that I see aberations in video that most do not see. There is a good reason for that. That was my job for many years. Also, I have Left 20-13 and Right 20-15 vision, not bragging and I am very grateful to have such vision.


But there is nothing that say that VC1 will soften the movie to that extent as some seem to claim over and over.Click this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10375410&&#post10375410) by me.

I saw Catch and Release on BR at Fry's on Oxnard today...$29.99 sticker. Its not out until next week, right?

You: Because there is nothing in the VC1 encoder that will filter and soften the movie. Me: Not true.


Much of this is in the eye of the viewer. I can assure you that I see aberations in video that most do not see. There is a good reason for that. That was my job for many years. Also, I have Left 20-13 and Right 20-15 vision, not bragging and I am very grateful to have such vision.


Click this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10375410&&#post10375410) by me.

Yes read trough it wasnt any explaination that hd dvd movies were filtered.

The thing people complain is that its no grain in vc1 encodings, wich is to their lack of knowledge about filmstocks, lenses etc.

And I would like to know what HD DVD movies has been soften during the encodings.

I heard the movie was basically bad.

I had hopes for it since Kevin Smith graced the screen.

Other thoughts on the film itself? Is it worth a rental?

I unfortunately went into it thinking it was a romantic comedy, and I was entirely wrong. It is the kind of movie you would watch if you wanted to be depressed. I don't really know many people who want to be depressed, so I would have to say its not even worth a rental.

Yes read trough it wasnt any explaination that hd dvd movies were filtered.

The thing people complain is that its no grain in vc1 encodings, wich is to their lack of knowledge about filmstocks, lenses etc.

And I would like to know what HD DVD movies has been soften during the encodings.

Not true. Both the advanced codecs have in loop filtering who's job is to smudge the edges of blocks. The filters are adaptive, meaning they generally kick in more as your quantization goes up.

In AVC, the culprit is called a deblocking filter. In VC-1, you have overlap smoothing and something called : "inloop filter".

All these three things are some form of smoothing filters that will soften the image if you quantize too much.

For examples of visible results of how much filtering can happen, the .mov files (h.264/avc) floating around in the web and various segments in KK with macroblocks using quantization index of 5 and 6 are good places to start.

With KK, not only was there softening, there were various obvious sequences where the B pictures were a lot softer than the P pictures and the P pictures also slightly softer than the I, meaning you get this beating/pulsing effect of sharp/soft/sharp/soft as you advance frame to frame. Once you know how to eyeball them, they are very easy to see in KK.

Look at the clouds and snow on ground as KK walks towards the ice pond in feature_2.EVO. I posted the timecode a while ago.

Well the problem is that King Kong is a movie that looks better then most if not all Bluray movies I have watch so, if people complain over King kong, makes me wonder why they buy Bluray at all.

With bitrates in 30mbit or 40mbit the movie will not be transparant to the master. But they will come real close if encoded right.

Still deblocking filters arn´t the same as grainremoval that been freqantly claimed of HD DVD titles. You just have to look at Xylons screenshots to se how good titles can look at avarage HD DVD bitrates.

Well the problem is that King Kong is a movie that looks better then most if not all Bluray movies I have watch so, if people complain over King kong, makes me wonder why they buy Bluray at all.

With bitrates in 30mbit or 40mbit the movie will not be transparant to the master. But they will come real close if encoded right.

Still deblocking filters arn´t the same as grainremoval that been freqantly claimed of HD DVD titles. You just have to look at Xylons screenshots to se how good titles can look at avarage HD DVD bitrates.
If you look at results of heavy in loop filtering or deblocking filter and compare to the master, you will realize that these filters achieve exactly that, gradual grain removal and softening of an image.

The plain sight of alternating levels of softness from B to P pictures in that one KK segment is evidence enough that it is the in loop filter that is softening the image --- and yes, lessening the grain around clouds and snow on ground, because the KK digital master cannot have any inter-frame compression, and there is also no conceivable way to design a pre-compression grain removal filter that alternately changes the amount of filtering from frame to frame... (unless it is a preencode statistics gathering phase of the encode that somehow does something unexpected) Regardless, the beating is unlikely to be something MSFT or the compressionist wanted in the encode, so operator error is the most likely reason, not the codec itself. Namely, it is likely too heavy a compression (too high quantization) that is causing this.

That's why we have scientific methods as opposed to subjective reasoning. These days, a self-styled video expert can look at the color of a case and decide that the PQ of the video is bad because the color of the case destroyed the movie --- just like people who will critique a video segment when it has been physically transferred without any change to a blank media and played on the politically incorrect player. That's why you need scientific methods that will take the emotional attachment out of it.

I suppose the methods to do this are widespread right now, all you need is an x360 addon with an available source code for the VC-1 software decoder, a good large LCD monitor capable of 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 and you can not only see the screen pixels, you can even do math on it to determine what is happening to pixels --- sort of a collective measurement of what pixels got filtered and how much they changed during the filtering. Amir posted a bitmap that showed the touched pixels from the inloop filter alone (was overlap smoothing also taken into account?) for quant index of 2. What does the bitmap of touched pixels look like for KK that consistently has quant index of 5+? A good enough lab like ISF that wants to use scientific methods can probably do a good job of this --- assuming that pesky DMCA things can be waived for what is clearly a purely scientific research.

Similarly, anyone can get a BD burner and achieve similar measurements using the public domain jm source code for h.264 and see the quant-scales applied to each pixel and also the effect of the deblocking filter to see how much the pixels changed from the prefilter decoded values.

Somewhere in there is a metric --- an equation waiting to be written that can objectively state without any emotional attachment what the quality of a compression really is.

That's why we have scientific methods as opposed to subjective reasoning. These days, a self-styled video expert can look at the color of a case and decide that the PQ of the video is bad because the color of the case destroyed the movie --- just like people who will critique a video segment when it has been physically transferrer without any change to a blank media and played on the politically incorrect player. That's why you need scientific methods that will the the emotional attachment out of it.

I suppose the methods to do this are widesparead right now, all you need is an x360 addon with an available source code for the VC-1 software decoder, a good large LCD monitor capable of 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 and you can not only see the screen pixels, you can even do math on it to determine what is happening to pixels --- sort of a collective measurement of what pixels got filtered and how much they changed during the filtering. Amir posted a bitmap that showed the touched pixels from the inloop filter alone (was overlap smoothing also taken into account?) for quant index of 2. What does the bitmap of touched pixels look like for KK that consistently has quant index of 5+? A good enough lab like ISF that wants to use scientific methods can probably do a good job of this --- assuming that pesky DMCA things can be waived for what is clearly a purely scientific research.

Similarly, anyone can get a BD burner and achieve similar measurements using the public domain jm source code for h.264 and see the quant-scales applied to each pixel and also the effect of the deblocking filter to see how much the pixels changed from the prefilter decoded values.

Somewhere in there is a metric --- an equation waiting to be written that can objectively state without any emotional attachment what the quality of an compression really is.


Hi Neo, I agree with your overall point if I am reading it the way you intended it. I do think that is a large problem here and that bias rather then subjective comparisons interefere with all title reviews so far and that not enough actual comparsion testing.

Is using computer hidef drives and screen shots the best and easiest way to proceed? I would assume most here would not have access to one if not both format drives to do this.

Could an agreed upon method suching as taking digital pictures of your display screen provide good material to make comparisons?

I would think more people would have access this type of equipment and would therefore have more people particapating.

I do think if any picture at all even needs discussion on going to a lab to have anything proven then the results of which are not visibile to users watching the movie and may be going overboard.

Hi Neo, I agree with your overall point if I am reading it the way you intended it. I do think that is a large problem here and that bias rather then subjective comparisons interefere with all title reviews so far and that not enough actual comparsion testing.

Is using computer hidef drives and screen shots the best and easiest way to proceed? I would assume most here would not have access to one if not both format drives to do this.

Could an agreed upon method suching as taking digital pictures of your display screen provide good material to make comparisons?

I would think more people would have access this type of equipment and would therefore have more people particapating.

I do think if any picture at all even needs discussion on going to a lab to have anything proven then the results of which are not visibile to users watching the movie and may be going overboard.

Considering all the subjectivity involved in actual viewing experiences, if the sort of thing Neo describes is in fact feasible, I for one would be very interested in the results of such an investigation.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=779119&page=1&pp=30

Read the whole thread first. Its a good read.

Basically what I'm saying is that the reviewer is a true blue BD supporter. The reviewer obviously haven't seen any TIER 0-1 HD DVD titles when he says " You will not find a VC-1 or AVC encoding from a film based source, much cleaner or more detailed than this."

Check out his post history here at AVS, Spot and other Blu-ray forums (I was banned from one them). One post he did caught my attention about the bad reviews of Silent Hill BD:

You can google the rest ;)

Nuff' said.


Next!

Hi Xylon, oh I agree the reviews are biased and some of the statements in them not only are incorrect, they have no basis on fact they are intentionaly published to mislead others.

This does seem to be the new fad lately, or at least newly noticed by myself, all the extreme supporters all of a sudden are all movie reviewers, I wonder if this is a sub set of the hydra phase or not to publish great positive things about all titles released or just a way to counter on the net all the past negative posts and reviews.

Regardless though, I am already considered the anti-blu supporter here specially by these same members but I did have to stick up for when you mentioned and seemed to imply lack of great PQ in 'The Covenant'.

I do think this is one of the best in terms of PQ that BR has released so far.

Hi Neo, I agree with your overall point if I am reading it the way you intended it. I do think that is a large problem here and that bias rather then subjective comparisons interefere with all title reviews so far and that not enough actual comparsion testing.

Is using computer hidef drives and screen shots the best and easiest way to proceed? I would assume most here would not have access to one if not both format drives to do this.

Could an agreed upon method suching as taking digital pictures of your display screen provide good material to make comparisons?

I would think more people would have access this type of equipment and would therefore have more people particapating.

I do think if any picture at all even needs discussion on going to a lab to have anything proven then the results of which are not visibile to users watching the movie and may be going overboard.

I don't think taking pictures of a monitor would preserve any pixel deltas. You can have camera placement on tripods and sufficient lighting to make it somewhat rigorous, but then it's still going to have an ADC step in there when the light from the display hits the cmos/ccd in the digital camera, the actual captured values then are not as accurate as the decoded pixels.

I suspect that the only way is to deal completely in the digital domain --- ie: the decoded bytes of YCrCb using reference decoder, and being able to save the frames away pre and post filter to subsequently compare the changes in absolute values. Where the master was available, people have tried PSNR, JND error and other less well known VQM/PQM methods, so something similar can be tried, but it has to be done in an environment where we don't have the original master, meaning we have to estimate the loss of information and amount of filtering.

In low bitrates, this exercise would be meaningless as the advanced codecs' job then (with low bitrates) is to hide flaws, not preserve original detail, but with HDM having capability of higher bitrates, the expectation of lower quantization is a fair one.

There's this tricky issue that prevents companies and individuals to do this without getting slapped with legal hassles, but I assume if the results and comparison methodology were published in a scientific journal without dwelling on how the elementary streams ended up on a HDD, there might be enough protection to shield someone who does it purely with scientific goals in mind.

Considering all the subjectivity involved in actual viewing experiences, if the sort of thing Neo describes is in fact feasible, I for one would be very interested in the results of such an investigation.

I absouletly agree, I hope Neo decides to start a thread on this.

I don't think taking pictures of a monitor would preserve any pixel deltas. You can have camera placement on tripods and sufficient lighting to make it somewhat rigorous, but then it's still going to have an ADC step in there when the light from the display hits the cmos/ccd in the digital camera, the actual captured values then are not as accurate as the decoded pixels.

I suspect that the only way is to deal completely in the digital domain --- ie: the decoded bytes of YCrCb using reference decoder, and being able to save the frames away pre and post filter to subsequently compare the changes in absolute values. Where the master was available, people have tried PSNR, JND error and other less well known VQM/PQM methods, so something similar can be tried, but it has to be done in an environment where we don't have the original master, meaning we have to estimate the loss of information and amount of filtering.

In low bitrates, this exercise would be meaningless as the advanced codecs' job then (with low bitrates) is to hide flaws, not preserve original detail, but with HDM having capability of higher bitrates, the expectation of lower quantization is a fair one.

There's this tricky issue that prevents companies and individuals to do this without getting slapped with legal hassles, but I assume if the results and comparison methodology were published in a scientific journal without dwelling on how the elementary streams ended up on a HDD, there might be enough protection to shield someone who does it purely with scientific goals in mind.

Again I agree, I think the use of a camera may diminish the full results but they would be skewed for both so equal comparisons between formats could be used fairly and again the best reason would be that it is something that would be more accessible then expensive computer HD drives and inlcude more members in the testing.

I would suggest starting a thread on this topic. I would definetly be interested it and if it could be agreed upon as a fair method for testing and comparing hi def titles I would also be interested in particapating in whichever way is decided upon even if that would mean the purchase of some hardware equipment.

I dont mind purchasing computer drives (no clue how much a BD drive may go for though) but as I already mentioned I think that alone would exclude many others that otherwise would like particapate and contribute to something like this.

Is that a poke at Warner? I suspect so. Try some Disney VC-1.

If it was a poke at Warner...its well deserved for the worst major studio supposedly supporting BD at this time.

I see that We are Marshall upcoming release will have no PCM or DDTHD ON A 25GB disc.
Warner could either spend another nickel for the BD-50 ...or they could technically fit DDTHD on the 25 gb version....but their doing neither.

As much as you seem to like Warner....they continually screw over the format that sells the majority of their movies.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=779119&page=1&pp=30

Read the whole thread first. Its a good read.

Basically what I'm saying is that the reviewer is a true blue BD supporter. The reviewer obviously haven't seen any TIER 0-1 HD DVD titles when he says " You will not find a VC-1 or AVC encoding from a film based source, much cleaner or more detailed than this."

Check out his post history here at AVS, Spot and other Blu-ray forums (I was banned from one them). One post he did caught my attention about the bad reviews of Silent Hill BD:



You can google the rest ;)

Nuff' said.


Next!Agreed, Xylon.

There are many credible sources for proper reviews of HD and BD releases, but the above reviewer is definitely not one of them.

He is one of the only reviewers that keeps saying that Bluray discs are the best and knocks HD DVD hardware, Toshiba, TruHD and VC1 every chance he gets, including in the only two HD DVD reviews he has done.

I think for credible reviews of both HD and BD titles, one should look elsewhere.

Still we are talking about lossy encodings not lossless. Sure you can always do frame by frame analyses and find errors in a single frame. But what can we detect when the frames are moving. Neither Bluray or HD DVD can do lossless encodings, so you will find stuff in both if you do the analysing.

For both these type of disc they did a lot more testing before they finalised the spec.

For Bluray they have optimized it for Mpeg2 encoding, were HD DVD were optimized for VC1. So Bluray VS HD DVD was hardware vs software.

So just because the bitrate seems great for MPEG2 doesnt mean that VC1 needs the same bitrate (for lossy encoding). And 40mbit Mpeg2 isnt lossless, neither is 40mbit VC1.

If it was a poke at Warner...its well deserved for the worst major studio supposedly supporting BD at this time.

I see that We are Marshall upcoming release will have no PCM or DDTHD ON A 25GB disc.
Warner could either spend another nickel for the BD-50 ...or they could technically fit DDTHD on the 25 gb version....but their doing neither.

As much as you seem to like Warner....they continually screw over the format that sells the majority of their movies.


I would go a little further and say that Warner is the worst major studio in terms of the quality of current high def disc releases, whether BD or HD DVD. They put out some good stuff at the beginning, but that time is long past.

Really?

I just look up the PQ reviews for the last 10 movies Warner titles on both formats on HDD for PQ and they both look to have good consistent PQ reviews. But hey if you all feel that bad about Warner then stop purchasing there titles.

Average of Last 10 rated Warner titles PQ ratings:

HD DVD: 4.3
Blu-ray: 4.25

HD DVD
Scooby-Doo 4.5
BeerFest 3.5
Wicker Man, The 4
Departed, The 4.5
Bullitt 4
Getaway, The 4
Happy Feet 5
March of the Penguins 4
National Geographic: Relentless Enemies 4.5
A Scanner Darkly 5

Blu-ray
BeerFest 3.5
Wicker Man, The 4
Departed, The 4.5
Bullitt 4
Getaway, The 4
Happy Feet 5
March of the Penguins 4
National Geographic: Relentless Enemies 4.5
A Scanner Darkly 5
Enter the Dragon 4

Really?

I just look up the PQ reviews for the last 10 movies Warner titles on both formats on HDD for PQ and they both look to have good consistent PQ reviews. But hey if you all feel that bad about Warner then stop purchasing there titles.

Average of Last 10 rated Warner titles PQ ratings:

HD DVD: 4.3
Blu-ray: 4.25

HD DVD
Scooby-Doo 4.5
BeerFest 3.5
Wicker Man, The 4
Departed, The 4.5
Bullitt 4
Getaway, The 4
Happy Feet 5
March of the Penguins 4
National Geographic: Relentless Enemies 4.5
A Scanner Darkly 5

Blu-ray
BeerFest 3.5
Wicker Man, The 4
Departed, The 4.5
Bullitt 4
Getaway, The 4
Happy Feet 5
March of the Penguins 4
National Geographic: Relentless Enemies 4.5
A Scanner Darkly 5
Enter the Dragon 4

Seeings how both formats are hd dvd versions...with the BD version being a port...why wouldn't they be consistent?

I would go a little further and say that Warner is the worst major studio in terms of the quality of current high def disc releases, whether BD or HD DVD. They put out some good stuff at the beginning, but that time is long past.

I agree 100%.

I was just reading an anti Warner thread at blu-ray.com where many evidently feel Warner is screwing over BD...and many are saying things like....why wait for the possible THD releases before boycotting them.

Others feel that if we quit buying Warner BD titles, that Warner will never release actual BD's encoded at high bit rates and will continue to shove ports down our throats, favor hd dvd releases, and skimp on the BD versions audio.

Its a catch 22...but I highly doubt if THD is ever released..that it will be a success.

I agree 100%.

I was just reading an anti Warner thread at blu-ray.com where many evidently feel Warner is screwing over BD...and many are saying things like....why wait for the possible THD releases before boycotting them.

Others feel that if we quit buying Warner BD titles, that Warner will never release actual BD's encoded at high bit rates and will continue to shove ports down our throats, favor hd dvd releases, and skimp on the BD versions audio.

Its a catch 22...but I highly doubt if THD is ever released..that it will be a success.

I have basically taken a rental only approach to the Warner titles released so far. Nothing has been a must buy yet, and things I am on the fence about get skipped due to the gimped audio.

Hopefully one day they will re-release special editions that offer semi-modern audio.

I agree 100%.

I was just reading an anti Warner thread at blu-ray.com where many evidently feel Warner is screwing over BD...and many are saying things like....why wait for the possible THD releases before boycotting them.

Others feel that if we quit buying Warner BD titles, that Warner will never release actual BD's encoded at high bit rates and will continue to shove ports down our throats, favor hd dvd releases, and skimp on the BD versions audio.

Its a catch 22...but I highly doubt if THD is ever released..that it will be a success.

I am definitely not buying any Warner catalog releases. I will buy selected new releases just to verify that they haven't mended their ways. I will certainly not be buying any big ticket items of theirs.

Anyone who has ever watched Kingdom of Heaven, Black Hawk Down or Layer Cake, to name a few, knows exactly what MPEG2 can deliver.


Layer Cake didn't look so hot. It looked ok but not great.

I have twice the titles on HD DVD then BD but the titles I own on BD are more consitent PQ.
My HD DVD purchases have been all over the map.

I cant believe the one movie that I think has the BEST PQ of all discs hasnt been mentioned.

Crank (BD-50, MPEG-2). I dont care that it was shot with HDV, or that its been "enhanced" or that the movie was nothing more than a dumb plot shoot-em-up. The PQ is stunning. I definitely agree with the other great Mpeg-2's (KoH, BHD...) but Crank was astounding.

...but I highly doubt if THD is ever released..that it will be a success.

I'd interpret THD as a threat trying to force format unification. As a product THD makes no sense. If it was a real product, it would be a product designed for Warner, not the public. Putting DVD on one side would make sense if you were designing a product for the public.

Warner Brudders has one thing going for them, IMO, they bring good transfers to the table. Otherwise, their stuff would really suck. I think they rose to their plateau of competance, or incompetance (depending on one's opinion ;) ), rather quickly and they're stuck at that level. It looks to me like they're directly facing their own glass ceiling. I like Warner because I like their movies, especially the old catalog titles.

On this forum, I'm just amazed how venomous the attacks are on Warner. They may deserve a nip or bite now and then but not the repeated maulings. I certainly didn't vote for Warner in the recent poll about who's doing BD's best.

I think Crank is the best looking live action disc on either format. It's a short movie and is a DL 50 GB release on MPEG2. I honestly think it would look as good or a little better if it was using VC-1 on a SL 25 Gb disc. From the equipment used in filming this title must have been pretty easy to encode and keep the quality high even for MPEG2.

While MPEG2 can look great when given enough space that a DL 50 GB disc can provide it's simply not as efficient. That's the whole purpose of a codec

I watched Catch and Release last night. The PQ is outstanding. Really good.

I watched Catch and Release last night. The PQ is outstanding. Really good.

The review I read last night said it was MPEG4 not MPEG2.

The review I read last night said it was MPEG4 not MPEG2.

And?

And?

Title of thread "MPEG-2 does it again. Catch and Release"

This is on its way to me via BBO right now, will probably watch by the weekend

Title of thread "MPEG-2 does it again. Catch and Release"

This is on its way to me via BBO right now, will probably watch by the weekend

My comment said nothing about the codec. It seemed to me that this thread was the appropriate place to make a comment about the PQ of Catch and Release.

My comment said nothing about the codec. It seemed to me that this thread was the appropriate place to make a comment about the PQ of Catch and Release.

I see what you mean, didn't realize she was replying to you...

How was the movie itself in your opinion? Can you compare it to something else?

I see what you mean, didn't realize she was replying to you...

How was the movie itself in your opinion? Can you compare it to something else?

The movie was moderately enjoyable. Much better than The Holiday, for example, but of course the PQ was also much better, and I have to say the excellent PQ was a large part of the enjoyment.

And?

I'm sorry, I've missed part of this thread being sick. Maybe I better read backwards....

I'm sorry, I've missed part of this thread being sick. Maybe I better read backwards....

Sorry to hear that. My only purpose was to say that the PQ of this movie looked really good to me. Although there is a lot of extraneous stuff on page 2 of this thread (including some from me, aimed at Warner, as usual), my comment was purely directed at specific PQ and not at all at codec issues.

However, now that I'm at it, I will say that this title once again shows how much better quality product Sony is turning out than Warner.

Sorry to hear that. My only purpose was to say that the PQ of this movie looked really good to me. Although there is a lot of extraneous stuff on page 2 of this thread (including some from me, aimed at Warner, as usual), my comment was purely directed at specific PQ and not at all at codec issues.

However, now that I'm at it, I will say that this title once again shows how much better quality product Sony is turning out than Warner.

Some folks think I'm some sort of Warner defender, which I'm not. I, too, think Sony has passed Warner. I thank Warner for rescuing Blu last fall but they best not rest on their laurels! I hope to pick up the BD tomorrow at Busted Buy....since I have Reward Zone coupons to spend. Those bastards better not have list price on it! I wanna see this disc.

I am feeling much better.... :)

Watched this last night, the PQ was very good. A few of the outdoor scenes stood out.

Movie wasn't bad either, I went in with really low expectations and ended up enjoying the movie a lot.

Watched this last night, the PQ was very good. A few of the outdoor scenes stood out.

Movie wasn't bad either, I went in with really low expectations and ended up enjoying the movie a lot.

I have now listened to both commentary tracks and they are both quite interesting, although the one with the director and Kevin Smith usually doesn't have anything to do with what's happening in the movie at the moment.

I have now listened to both commentary tracks and they are both quite interesting, although the one with the director and Kevin Smith usually doesn't have anything to do with what's happening in the movie at the moment.

I rented via BBO, so it was back in the mailbox this morning.

The only movie I can remember either my wife or myself watching w/ commentary was The Anniversay Party.

I rented via BBO, so it was back in the mailbox this morning.

The only movie I can remember either my wife or myself watching w/ commentary was The Anniversay Party.

Was that the one with Alan Cumming and Gwyneth Paltrow? Any comments on the commentary?

I watched Catch And Release last night. It looked and sounded OK but I couldn't wait to break the line and return to deep water.

Some folks think I'm some sort of Warner defender, which I'm not.

Nope - you're a Hi-Vision MUSE LD defender ;)

Was that the one with Alan Cumming and Gwyneth Paltrow? Any comments on the commentary?

Honestly it was great. The movie was written and directed by Jennifer Jason Leigh and Alan Cumming, most of the people in the movie are close personal friends.

This is the first film I ever saw that was 'all digital', they talk about that some. They also talk a lot about the everyone involved and give really detailed info about many of the scenes.

If you are a fan of the movie, the actors, or filmmaking in general then you would probably enjoy the commentary.

Honestly it was great. The movie was written and directed by Jennifer Jason Leigh and Alan Cumming, most of the people in the movie are close personal friends.

This is the first film I ever saw that was 'all digital', they talk about that some. They also talk a lot about the everyone involved and give really detailed info about many of the scenes.

If you are a fan of the movie, the actors, or filmmaking in general then you would probably enjoy the commentary.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I saw it a few years ago and I'm having trouble remembering whether I liked it. I remember thinking it was the sort of movie you either liked or didn't, but I just can't remember which way it fell for me.

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I saw it a few years ago and I'm having trouble remembering whether I liked it. I remember thinking it was the sort of movie you either liked or didn't, but I just can't remember which way it fell for me.

I really enjoyed the first 3/4 and the movie overall.

Some actions seemed a little out of character, I will leave it at that.

Also, this is one of the movies that John C. Reilly was in when it seemed like he was in every movie I watched at the time.

Catch and Release had me sleeping after 30 minutes...ZZZZZZZZZZZZ Wife liked it though.

Catch and Release had me sleeping after 30 minutes...ZZZZZZZZZZZZ Wife liked it though.

So you missed most of the Kevin Smith stuff?!

At least the wife liked it, mine like it to.

Nope - you're a Hi-Vision MUSE LD defender ;)

Actually, that's not right either. In real life, I'm Dot Mongur, defending champion of the I.P.F. , that's International Pacman Federation. This is full-contact Pacman. I don't play the game, I operate it..... ;) :)

...that's International Pacman Federation. This is full-contact Pacman. I don't play the game, I operate it..... ;) :)

Like this?

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1734175

Like this?

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1734175

No, I have a much better outfit and an I.P.F. Championship Belt and I kick the Ghoust and my opponents butts. :)