Real Life MPEG2 vs VC1 comparison

[robena]

I just got my XA1 player, with The Last Samurai.

I also have the Japanese Wowow airing of the same movie. Japan HD is very high quality MPEG2. It' supposed to be around 22 Mbs, although it's more often around 20.

I compared the HD-DVD VC1 version with the DVHS one I have, using in both case an HDMI output, and a Qualia 004 as display on 4.5m wide screen.

Well, The Last Samurai on HD-DVD was disappointing. It still has some edge enhancement, and looks a bit less detailed and less 3D than the Wowow version.

The Wowow version might be a bit less clean though, maybe with a little more EE, but I like it better. Except for the Japanese subtitles!

Overall, both version are good and miles ahead any DVD, and much better than the low bitrate US airings. But I saw no definitive improvement with VC1, on the contrary.

I'd say that Sony might not be so wrong about choosing MPEG2 for their early title, considering that they will use even higher bit-rate and VBR coding instead of CBR.

Phantom of The Opera was completely artifact free, but although already quite good, did not have the ultimate details and 3D look that the best movies I have can show.

[hmurchison]

That's good news to me. MPEG2 has been around for decades and thus it's a mature technology. If VC-1 is close on it's maiden voyage into our homes then I expect it's potential means it usurps MPEG2 within the next 5 yrs.

I don't fault Sony for using MPEG2. It may be old but it's a known quantity and can look great.

[jediod]

Am I the only one who didnt notice EE with TLS HD DVD?? Watched it on my Infocus777 and 10 ft screen.


Kevin

[hmurchison]

Jediod

Probably not. EE seems to be like rainbows on a DLP. Some people are more sensitive than others.

[robena]

Originally Posted by jediod

Am I the only one who didnt notice EE with TLS HD DVD?? Watched it on my Infocus777 and 10 ft screen.

EE appears only on specific scenes, when there is a white background for example.

It's much less pronounced that the one you get on DVDs, but it's visible.

[longshot]

Originally Posted by robena

I just got my XA1 player, with The Last Samurai.

I also have the Japanese Wowow airing of the same movie. Japan HD is very high quality MPEG2. It' supposed to be around 22 Mbs, although it's more often around 20.

I compared the HD-DVD VC1 version with the DVHS one I have, using in both case an HDMI output, and a Qualia 004 as display on 4.5m wide screen.

Well, The Last Samurai on HD-DVD was disappointing. It still has some edge enhancement, and looks a bit less detailed and less 3D than the Wowow version.

The Wowow version might be a bit less clean though, maybe with a little more EE, but I like it better. Except for the Japanese subtitles!

Overall, both version are good and miles ahead any DVD, and much better than the low bitrate US airings. But I saw no definitive improvement with VC1, on the contrary.

I'd say that Sony might not be so wrong about choosing MPEG2 for their early title, considering that they will use even higher bit-rate and VBR coding instead of CBR.

Phantom of The Opera was completely artifact free, but although already quite good, did not have the ultimate details and 3D look that the best movies I have can show.

Good to hear differing opinions. Prepare to be flamed by the zealots though. How dare you conclude that VC1 is not superior!

[Ja Phule]

Don't different regions create their own hidef masters for a movie? Aren't both taken from different sources? Is that the case here?

[nataraj]

Originally Posted by robena

Well, The Last Samurai on HD-DVD was disappointing. It still has some edge enhancement, and looks a bit less detailed and less 3D than the Wowow version.

Have you calibrated the display for the Toshiba HD-DVD player ? Bland had some issues which he has solved. Take a look at this thread ...

[robena]

Originally Posted by Ja Phule

Don't different regions create their own hidef masters for a movie? Aren't both taken from different sources? Is that the case here?

It could be of course, but the 2 transfers are pretty close. It's not like the difference between the D-Theater version of T2 and the WMV one.

[Art Sonneborn]

Well, I might also wonder if it was the mastering / transfer process and not the codec itself.Could the title be better HDDVD transfer vs Wowow presentation.I know one thing you can get right up on the screen even in high contrast stuff and not see EE in Serenity. This was one thing I looked closely for ,edges looked like edges in film not video.

Art

[robena]

Originally Posted by nataraj

Have you calibrated the display for the Toshiba HD-DVD player ? Bland had some issues which he has solved. Take a look at this thread ...

Yes, the first thing I noticed is that the black level was too high, but I corrected that. I got the same balance as with DVHS.

The 2 pictures are really close, the Wowow version being just a bit more snappy.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by robena

Well, The Last Samurai on HD-DVD was disappointing. It still has some edge enhancement, and looks a bit less detailed and less 3D than the Wowow version.

Well, I'm afraid there will be quite some upcoming HD-DVDs and BR with visible EE. It's simply in the masters. The Sony BR stuff from Sony masters of the last 5 years will pretty much all have visible EE.

Phantom of The Opera was completely artifact free, but although already quite good, did not have the ultimate details and 3D look that the best movies I have can show.

What are the best film sourced HD transfers you have (seen)?

[robena]

Originally Posted by joshd2012

I don't think this thread is supposed to proclaim that VC-1 < MPEG-2, but it does go to show that in the end, it doesn't really matter. MPEG-2 and VC-1 can look exactly the same quality.

Exactly, as long as there is enough bitrate.

He mentioned that the stuff commonly runs at 20Mbps. Is that CBR or VBR? What was Samurai encoded at?

It's broadcast, so it must be one pass CBR. There is not way to check accurately, the tape is 5C protected.

[robena]

Originally Posted by mhafner

What are the best film sourced HD transfers you have (seen)?

From Wowow, Harry Potter 3 and Black Hawk Down (completely stunning in some low light scenes, not the grainy ones).

From BS/Hi, The Wrath of Khan.

From HBO, Drop Zone despite an average bitrate. And The Naked Gun 33 1/3.

I think that the initial photography and transfer are going to be the limiting factor, not the codecs.

[WiFi-Spy]

could it be that DNR was used on the master for the Wowwow version? to remove film grain?

[robena]

Originally Posted by WiFi-Spy

could it be that DNR was used on the master for the Wowwow version? to remove film grain?

The two transfers are too close for one to have DNR, and not the other one.

[paintit77]

Originally Posted by robena

I just got my XA1 player, with The Last Samurai.

I also have the Japanese Wowow airing of the same movie. Japan HD is very high quality MPEG2. It' supposed to be around 22 Mbs, although it's more often around 20.

I compared the HD-DVD VC1 version with the DVHS one I have, using in both case an HDMI output, and a Qualia 004 as display on 4.5m wide screen.

Well, The Last Samurai on HD-DVD was disappointing. It still has some edge enhancement, and looks a bit less detailed and less 3D than the Wowow version.

The Wowow version might be a bit less clean though, maybe with a little more EE, but I like it better. Except for the Japanese subtitles!

Overall, both version are good and miles ahead any DVD, and much better than the low bitrate US airings. But I saw no definitive improvement with VC1, on the contrary.

I'd say that Sony might not be so wrong about choosing MPEG2 for their early title, considering that they will use even higher bit-rate and VBR coding instead of CBR.

Phantom of The Opera was completely artifact free, but although already quite good, did not have the ultimate details and 3D look that the best movies I have can show.

Thats because it is a Warner Title and I would have to say Apollo 13 doesn't look any better.

[amirm]

Originally Posted by robena

Well, The Last Samurai on HD-DVD was disappointing. It still has some edge enhancement, and looks a bit less detailed and less 3D than the Wowow version.

The Wowow version might be a bit less clean though, maybe with a little more EE, but I like it better. Except for the Japanese subtitles!

Overall, both version are good and miles ahead any DVD, and much better than the low bitrate US airings. But I saw no definitive improvement with VC1, on the contrary.

I am having a hard time integrating these three statements. In the first one, you say HD DVD is "disappointing." In the last one, you say it is "miles ahead [of] any DVD." Surely it can’t be both .

In the second, you say WowWow version is "less clean" and "little more EE." The fact that you like it better seems to be a subjective preference as both of these are artifacts that should not be there. MPEG-2 distortion often shows up as ringing on the high frequency edges which you may be thinking are EE (high frequency components are quantized too much). And “less clean” comes from macroblocks which at high rate, probably come and go too fast for you to detect them as such, but would explain the "less clean" look. I am sure if you paused the video, you would see fair amount of macroblocking. Do the same with HD DVD (and other than reduced resolution due to field freeze), you won’t find the same problems.

At the end of the day, VC-1 does not increase the resolution, gamut, or contrast of the image. All it can do, is not add anything to the picture that was not there. So if you are seeing "less clean" video and "little more EE," then I say that VC-1 is doing its job in avoiding these problems. Of course, you might like the more artificial look of MPEG-2 video better. If so, then there is a fix for that: it is called the sharpness control on your display .

Also note that TLS was an early title. Today, we can encode that at 14 Mbit/sec or even lower to achieve the same quality. It was one of those cases of the movie fitting in the allotted budget at that rate and folks moved on to the next title.

Finally, in studio tests, even 20-22 Mbit/sec VBR encoded MPEG-2 can not match the quality of VC-1 at much lower data rates. If this was not the case, there would be no pressure to add VC-1 to BD as there is.

Amir

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by amirm

Finally, in studio tests, even 20-22 Mbit/sec VBR encoded MPEG-2 can not match the quality of VC-1 at much lower data rates. If this was not the case, there would be no pressure to add VC-1 to BD as there is.

Amir, just to correct this but VC-1 was added to the Blu-ray format a long time ago and recently the Scenarist Blu-ray authoring system came out, which can encode and author in any of the three video codecs. As such it would make a lot more sense to use the past tense with your comment.

[b2bonez]

Originally Posted by amirm

Finally, in studio tests, even 20-22 Mbit/sec VBR encoded MPEG-2 can not match the quality of VC-1 at much lower data rates. If this was not the case, there would be no pressure to add VC-1 to BD as there is.

Amir

Couldn't resist now could you...

BD will be out soon enough and the real world comparison can begin then. If it looks good, it will, if it doesn't, you can crow the vitues of VC-1 to no end. And it's really a battle of encoders not codecs anyhow. Maybe Sony has a vastly better MPEG2 encoder then the one used in those studio tests? I doubt it's the same one Sony is using now, unless you can say for sure.

Who knows, someone might be working on H.264 encoder that might blow the doors off VC-1 by this time next year.

b2b

[Semblance]

If this was not the case, there would be no pressure to add VC-1 to BD as there is.

Bull. Regardless of reality, the "modern" codecs are perceived as new and better, even if that isn't true as a blanket statement. But that's where the pressure comes from. BD would of course want to be seen as looking towards the future.

[amirm]

Originally Posted by Richard Paul

Amir, just to correct this but VC-1 was added to the Blu-ray format a long time ago and recently the Scenarist Blu-ray authoring system came out, which can encode and author in any of the three video codecs. As such it would make a lot more sense to use the past tense with your comment.

Unfortunately, there is no integration currently between our professional VC-1 encoder and Scenarist (their capability announced by them may be based on our standard VC-1 encoder in Windows). We very much hope such support can come in the future, but it is not there today.

The path to using VC-1 on BD would be to use our elementary streams created by our tool and mux that with the authoring tool used for BD discs. New authoring tools will take some time to get deployed by the studios but will be the right long term solution. For now, the format leaders bring this capability.

As a friendly note, it is so strange to have you keep telling me about the capabilities of our technology. I would be the first one to come here and declare support for VC-1 in BD titles. We are quite anxious to see that happen. As such, I don't need to be "corrected" with information gleaned from third-party press releases .

Amir

[amirm]

Originally Posted by Semblance

Bull. Regardless of reality, the "modern" codecs are perceived as new and better, even if that isn't true as a blanket statement. But that's where the pressure comes from. BD would of course want to be seen as looking towards the future.

If so, why didn't they offer VC-1/AVC encoding in their authoring tools from day 1 like HD DVD did? Do they only want to look this way in press releases and not in reality?

Amir

[robena]

Originally Posted by amirm

I am having a hard time integrating these three statements. In the first one, you say HD DVD is "disappointing." In the last one, you say it is "miles ahead [of] any DVD." Surely it can’t be both .

I stopped watching DVDs almost 3 years ago, they just look too bad.

Many Wowow (or HDnet) movies look stunning, but even some recent transfer like Wowow's Harry Potter 3 show some EE.

My disappointment is very relative. I was hoping to see EE gone on The Last Samurai, it's the first thing I looked for, and it was not.

I'm not bashing VC1 here. I'm sure that the EE was present in the master, and VC1 was certainly not going to remove it.

I'm thrilled by the HD-DVD and Blu Ray formats, the perspective of day and date HD releases with DVD ones is more than enough to make these 2 format worthwhile. And The Phantom of The Opera did not have *any* EE that I could see.

In the second, you say WowWow version is "less clean" and "little more EE." The fact that you like it better seems to be a subjective preference as both of these are artifacts that should not be there.

No, I don't think so. There was just a bit more texture on the Wowow version, it was not artificial at all.

MPEG-2 distortion often shows up as ringing on the high frequency edges which you may be thinking are EE (high frequency components are quantized too much). And “less clean” comes from macroblocks which at high rate, probably come and go too fast for you to detect them as such, but would explain the "less clean" look. I am sure if you paused the video, you would see fair amount of macroblocking. Do the same with HD DVD (and other than reduced resolution due to field freeze), you won’t find the same problems.

Although I haven't tried, I agree with you. The less clean look was certainly an MPEG2 artifact.

But both the "less clean" and "more texture" aspects were very subtle, the 2 transfers were very very close. My point is not about saying that one is bad and the other is good, just that the (hopefully limited in time) MPEG2 use by Sony is probably not going to be the disaster that some foresee.

If so, then there is a fix for that: it is called the sharpness control on your display .

Nah, sharpness always gives ugly results.

Finally, in studio tests, even 20-22 Mbit/sec VBR encoded MPEG-2 can not match the quality of VC-1 at much lower data rates. If this was not the case, there would be no pressure to add VC-1 to BD as there is.

That was not the case for this particular transfer considering the global result.

2 titles is certainly way too low to form an opinion. With much more to come, I'm certainly hoping to see a few transfers that will exceed the best MPEG2 transfer I have. TLS and The Phantom were not one of them, that's all.

But again, I love the format and the perspective to not to have to go to extreme lengths to get viewable movies.

[mhafner]

Originally Posted by amirm

At the end of the day, VC-1 does not increase the resolution, gamut, or contrast of the image. All it can do, is not add anything to the picture that was not there.
Amir

Do you know for a fact that the Last Samurai master has no visible EE on it?

[Richard Paul]

Originally Posted by amirm

The path to using VC-1 on BD would be to use our elementary streams created by our tool and mux that with the authoring tool used for BD discs.

Sure, most likely that will be the best way to do it since at least two of the six major studios already use Microsoft's VC-1 encoder. Still Amir you do know that this can be done with the Scenarist Blu-ray authoring tool?

Originally Posted by amirm

As a friendly note, it is so strange to have you keep telling me about the capabilities of our technology.

Well to be blunt Amir if you didn't keep implying that VC-1 can't be done on Blu-ray I wouldn't have to.

Originally Posted by amirm

I would be the first one to come here and declare support for VC-1 in BD titles.

I am not so sure about that, but I am sure you would admit to it after it has been officially announced by one or more of the studios.

Originally Posted by amirm

We are quite anxious to see that happen. As such, I don't need to be "corrected" with information gleaned from third-party press releases

Amir, the Scenarist Blu-ray authoring tool can take the VC-1 encodings done by Microsoft's VC-1 encoder and author them for Blu-ray.

[Kram Sacul]

Originally Posted by Ja Phule

Don't different regions create their own hidef masters for a movie?

I'd hope not. Browse a few comparison pages at DVDbeaver and you'll see that most foriegn transfers use inferior sources compared to the version that was actually supervised with the DP or director. Fortunately this is becoming less of an issue as one transfer is used for all markets.

[Robert George]

Amir, the Scenarist Blu-ray authoring tool can take the VC-1 encodings done by Microsoft's VC-1 encoder and author them for Blu-ray.

Richard, do you work at Sony's DVD center? Do you perhaps know someone that works there? What do you know about Sony's actual commercial authoring capability at this point in time?

I have a friend in DVD production, no not Sony, but the information he has within that community is that Sony is using MPEG-2 for initial release titles on BD not because they think that is the best codec, but because that is the only codec they are currently capable of authoring in. Also, at this moment, only Sony can author a Blu-Ray disc.

So, if my information is correct, and I have yet to see anything that would make me think it is not, then Amir is quite correct from a practical sense. It is one thing to say the Blu-Ray spec allows for VC-1, obviously, it does. However, theoreticals are not practicals. Theoretically, BD allows for VC-1. It just can't be done yet.

[admonish]

Originally Posted by amirm

Unfortunately, there is no integration currently between our professional VC-1 encoder and Scenarist (their capability announced by them may be based on our standard VC-1 encoder in Windows)...

Who has access to the 'Pro VC-1 Encoder'?

Does Scenarist clearly state that they have the 'J6P VC-1 Encoder'?

[amirm]

Originally Posted by admonish

Who has access to the 'Pro VC-1 Encoder'?

Currently we are offering it to studios/post production houses that have the ability to use it for HD DVD/BD production. The tool requires training and hand holding initially so it is not ready for general availability. Same is true btw to a larger extent in the case of the authoring tools themselves.

Does Scenarist clearly state that they have the 'J6P VC-1 Encoder'?

I don't know what it has in it. All I can tell you what it does NOT have in it (i.e. our pro encoder). For all I know, they could have written their own encoder from VC-1 spec, licensed it from someone else, or use the standard one in Windows. In the latter case at least, it is better than what you are implying. Our Pro encoder however, in addition to having better picture quality, also supports advanced features such as ability to use up to 8 CPUs to do parallel encoding and other workflow related features. These things are just as important as better picture quality.

Amir