AVS Forum banner

Blu-ray, HD-DVD & HD Broadcasts(H.264 & MPEG-2) Screenshots*BIG FILES*

421K views 2K replies 221 participants last post by  jurid001 
#1 ·

Update: It looks like one of my imagehost bite the bullet (imageviper). Will re-up as soon as I can.



***Please no hotlinking!!! ***




After reading through the previous HD vs SD comparison screenshots thread its time to go further with the topic. What is the difference between HD optical formats and HD broadcasts? Blu-ray and HD DVD?


We are already familiar with MPEG-2 broadcasts here in the US. In Europe however namely SKY, BBC and Premiere HD stations they use H.264 codec and has effectively trounced anything we see here. For more info go here.


Since its impossible for me to choose which movie frame to capture that will effectively show the best and the worst shot of a movie I will need feedback from members to help me find them. Macroblocking, grain, posterization, whatever.


The screenshots are best viewed using a high resolution monitor (DVI or HDMI) hooked up to your HD capable viewing set. These pictures are big files so dont "qoute" the pictures just indicate the reply #. All HD files are captured using MPC with external filters, captured as 1920x1080 BMP (except some H.264 files. They are saved as 1920x1088), using Photoshop saved as Bicubic quality PNG-24.


I highly recommend hooking up your monitor using digital connections. They show PQ closer to what you are seeing with your HD DVD/BD player.


All screenshots are made with the help of my Tandem 1.0 HTPC.

Disclaimer: Pictures are for information purposes only.

 

 

XylonHD , YouTube Channel , @XylonHD
 
See less See more
#2,102 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan /forum/post/16932253

Code:
Code:
Video                                           Total   
 Region  Year   Title                                                           Codec   Display Aspect  Bitrate Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Primary Language Audio
-------- ----   -----                                                           ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------- --------------- ------- ----------------------
ABC [DK] 1994   Pulp Fiction                                                    AVC     1080p24 2.35:1  24.81   2:34:20 36,598,665,216  36,723,700,812  31.62   DTS-MA  5.1    48/24  4382  / AC3     5.1    48     640   
 B  [FR] 1994   Pulp Fiction                                                    AVC     1080p24 2.35:1  26.95   2:34:24 38,332,047,360  48,749,470,384  33.10   DTS-MA  5.1    48/16  1985
24.81Mbps AVC vs 26.95Mbps AVC screencap comparison - Mouseovers here
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)




Not only does the Danish SF Film release have significantly more blocking despite only being 2.14Mbps less, they did automated digital scratch removal on it leaving all those "painted" artifacts you see. Thankfully for the most part these aren't visible in motion (though some are, like the sections of the blinds disappearing throughout the first minute of the film).


And despite displaying no signs of automated scratch removal, the French TF1 release actually has FEWER print anomalies as you can see in screenshot #1, #3, and #6. I wonder if they went through a manual process to paint them out.


Sadly the superior French Blu-ray is Region B locked with forced French subs and has PAL higher-pitch audio.

Funny, I thought the French release sounded great, but I hadn't watched the US DVD in a long while. I'm not really sure why the audio would be sped up if the framerate is still 24Fps.


I guess the best comparison would be when the Region A release finally hits.


I recall some people were also claiming that the UK release of Woodstock was also sped up, although it was also still at 1080p/24. Having both US and UK releases, I compared the two and could not hear a difference for the life of me.
 
#2,103 ·
Just a few grabs from episode 9 since I'm lazy and I'm sure it's much the same throughout.


The lower bitrate and having 2.5 times the number of frames certainly don't do the broadcast any favors, so I tried to be kind and only took I-frames from it.


9.86Mbps MPEG-2 720p59.94 vs 28Mbps AVC 1080p23.976



 
#2,104 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan /forum/post/17164969


Just a few grabs from episode 9 since I'm lazy and I'm sure it's much the same throughout.


The lower bitrate and having 2.5 times the number of frames certainly don't do the broadcast any favors, so I tried to be kind and only took I-frames from it.

Yeah, horrible blocking in MPEG-2... though, the jump from 720p to 1080p doesnt do much as far as fine detail (aside from grain retention). It is nice to see that Fox doesnt even DNR their broadcasts.
 
#2,106 ·
Indiana Jones Trilogy, old master via BBC & Sky HDTV vs new remaster via WOWOW HDTV. The DVDs are based off the old master. I wonder how long Paramount plans to sit on the new transfer and not release it on Blu-ray.


Raiders:
WOWOW 20mbit MPEG2_BBC 16mbit H264














Temple of Doom:
WOWOW 20mbit MPEG2_Sky 13mbit H264










Last Crusade:
WOWOW 20mbit MPEG2_BBC 16mbit H264




















Here's the complete pack for those interested: http://www.sendspace.com/file/v8zmr8
 
#2,107 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe /forum/post/18556256


Indiana Jones Trilogy, old master via BBC & Sky HDTV vs new remaster via WOWOW HDTV. The DVDs are based off the old master. I wonder how long Paramount plans to sit on the new transfer and not release it on Blu-ray.


Raiders:
WOWOW 20mbit MPEG2_BBC 16mbit H264




Here's the complete pack for those interested: http://www.sendspace.com/file/v8zmr8

Did they redo the visual effects for Raiders??? That shot looks almost completely different!
 
#2,108 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX /forum/post/18563292


Did they redo the visual effects for Raiders??? That shot looks almost completely different!

Interestingly, the new transfer has the original matte painting effect, not the CGI nonsense that was included in some broadcasts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_sFW8grQtU
 
#2,109 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe /forum/post/18556256


Indiana Jones Trilogy, old master via BBC & Sky HDTV vs new remaster via WOWOW HDTV. The DVDs are based off the old master. I wonder how long Paramount plans to sit on the new transfer and not release it on Blu-ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe /forum/post/18564136


Interestingly, the new transfer has the original matte painting effect, not the CGI nonsense that was included in some broadcasts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_sFW8grQtU

Well, I reviewed both DVDs (the original issue and the SE version) and they both use the matte painting. So it can't be the same master for the BBC-HD version.


BTW: The CG doesn't bother me. The original looks a bit animated.
 
#2,112 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX /forum/post/18571284


Well, I reviewed both DVDs (the original issue and the SE version) and they both use the matte painting. So it can't be the same master for the BBC-HD version.


BTW: The CG doesn't bother me. The original looks a bit animated.

The CG was probably spliced in as an experiment. The colors, dirt specs, and framing match the DVD.


The new CG isn't horrible, but I'm against any revisionism without the original available.
 
#2,113 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul /forum/post/18571360


All 3 look fantastic. Who needs BDs when broadcast HD can look this good? Besides the lossless audio part.

Why are you participating in any BD thread then?



How about owning media where you can play it any time you want?
 
#2,119 ·
Reviving this thread with a small comparison I should've done many moons ago.

26.56Mbps VC-1 vs 23.00Mbps AVC (replaced Sony version is only 2kbps less)

BVHE UK Blu-ray vs Sony US Blu-ray vs Sony US Blu-ray v2 vs "The Cutting Edge" from Bullitt HD DVD
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/5320/starshiptroopers.png





Same transfer, right down to the print artifacts. The Euro encode is slightly superior to both Sony versions.
 
#2,123 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by BsRoz /forum/post/18606851


Those Indy screenshots look absolutely remarkable. Beautiful grain-structure and incredible detail. Paramount is really upping their game on Spielberg titles.

I believe, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but Spielberg has final say on all remasters and releases of his films, so they Paramount has to make an effort or he wouldn't let them release anything.
 
#2,125 ·
The first two images are from PBS satellite feeds (AMC-21). These feeds are ATSC compliant (1920 x 1080 interlaced) and were captured using TSReader . The first image is a frame from the PBS Nature series ( WNET, New York ), the second image is from Soundstage ( WTTW, Chicago ). The third image is from AVS member dr1394 (Ron) site that contains quite a few test pattern files. The file is the “20 to 35 MHZ 100% bursts 1920x1080”, click here for more. The frames were captured using VideoReDo TVSuite. All images are MPEG-2.






 
#2,126 ·
There is still PBS that broadcast 1920 x 1080 at full bitrate? Mine has about 1,000,000 multicast channels that rendered it unwatchable. And yeah my PBS is 720p at 5 mbps mpeg-2 last time I checked



Looking back ten years ago when Rudy Maxa was the the only HD program from that channel. My only source of HD back then
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top