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

[Xylon]

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 player.

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

Disclaimer: Pictures are for information purposes only.

[Xylon]

King Kong

15.40 GB*11.00 Mbps........................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ......................................................17.00 GB*12.00 Mbps


24.00 GB*17.50 Mbps........................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ......................................................26.90 GB

[Xylon]

[Kram Sacul]

The OAR mpeg-2 shots might be best viewed with the DScaler5 IVTC mod.

Compression in open matte/cropped verison seems better than OAR with much less blocking. OM might be a tad sharper but since it's not OAR who cares.

Compare the skin texture/pores on her face in the HD-DVD to the broadcast versions.

Update:

The h.264 is much closer in detail to the vc-1 HD-DVD than the other versions. Skin pores are intact and the vines on the rock are crisp.

There are still color differences between broadcast and disc that I can't explain. Even when adjusted to pc levels the broadcast versions don't have the level of saturation that the HD-DVD has.

[Xylon]

Thanks for the tip.

[Xylon]

X-Men: The Last Stand

10.60 GB*14.48 Mbps........................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ .......................................................20.00 GB

[inurenegade]

Xylon do you happen to have screenshot comparisons of King Kong open matte H.264 that aired on premire HD ? id really like to see that measured up against the HD DVD

[Greg Kettell]

Those X-Men shots look very close. But the Blu-ray frame looks a touch sharper.

[Xylon]

Originally Posted by inurenegade

Xylon do you happen to have screenshot comparisons of King Kong open matte H.264 that aired on premire HD ? id really like to see that measured up against the HD DVD

Yes. I have it somewhere but I dont remember which hard drive I put it on. I have so many

[Xylon]

Originally Posted by Greg Kettell

Those X-Men shots look very close. But the Blu-ray frame looks a touch sharper.

Very impressive for a HD broadcast. I will post more shots of X-Men later on. This time with more close ups and action.

[g-man5.1]

Another great thread. Very nice to see these comparisons.

[Xylon]

Mission: Impossible III

21.50 GB Mpeg-2 ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ 20.10 GB VC-1

[metalsaber]

Another very nice thread.

Thanks and keep up the good work.

[Chris_TC]

Holy crap, I didn't realize how much difference there'd be between VC-1 and MPEG-2. Unfortunately, this is a bit hard to see by just scrolling up and down. But clearly the MPEG-2 version can't cope with the grain and introduces noisy artifacts.

I'll try and post either a video or a detailed comparison to better show this. I think the two images posted by Xylon could be quite the eye-openers for some.

[Chris_TC]

Here we go:

Download both of these images and switch them back and forth (even though the difference in quality is easy to tell apart directly here in the thread).
They are simply a cropped region of the M:i-III screenshots with a slight brightness adjustment.




Now guess which is VC-1 and which is MPEG-2. In case you have a hard time telling mosquito artifacts and compression noise from film grain, here's the reminder.

Film grain:


Heavily compressed film grain:

[rdjam]

The difference between the Mpeg2 broadcast King Kong and the VC1 King Kong is tremendous.

As I have said before, VC1 encodes usually have higher contrast and detail than the mpeg encodes. These pictures seem to bear this out quite nicely.

The fact that the Bluray AVC pictures look very similar to the Mpeg broadcast shots is quite likely more down to the care taken in encoding - but I have yet to see an AVC release that has the sharpness and contrast preserved as well as VC1 does...

Another exellent thread, Xylon!

[maverick0716]

I don't think I could watch an OTA HD broadcast of a movie after seeing so many HD DVD and Blu Ray Discs.......the compression artifacts are just horrendous!

[Issac Hunt]

Originally Posted by Chris_TC

the second image seems to have lost some detail, but these aren't perhaps the best images for judging grain compression. perhaps a pic of someone's face, or a crowd scene?

[Chris_TC]

Originally Posted by Issac Hunt

the second image seems to have lost some detail, but these aren't perhaps the best images for judging grain compression. perhaps a pic of someone's face, or a crowd scene?

A crowd scene would be horrible if you want to see how well the grain compresses. Way too much going on.

Also, the second image hasn't really lost much detail (not much to lose on this wall), but it contains less natural looking grain coupled with mosquito artifacts.

You need to look at relatively flat shaded areas, such as the sky or a wall. If you switch the cropped pictures back and forth, the difference becomes very obvious.

VC-1 in these screenshots has its own problems compressing the grain but it does a much better job than MPEG-2 when it comes to preserving the natural look and introducing only minor artifacts.

[Issac Hunt]

we're gonna have to agree to disagree on which source shots to use when comparing codec performance. relatively bland shots lacking in detail are of little use to my own way of thinking when it comes to really testing a compression codec. it's at the boundries where the algorithm is strained to breaking point where interesting things start happening - hence high motion, or crowd scenes.

as to these specific shots, there's very little discernable detail in the croped frames to start with. but there is a clear lowering of detail in the second file: look at the arch face which starts middle top of each picture and sweeps down and to the left. there are two lines running up the middle of this face, which are much more continuous in the first picture than in the last.

there is also, as you say, a lowering of grain in the second picture. though i'm not sure it's a gain worth having at the loss of this kind of detail.

[Xylon]

Originally Posted by Issac Hunt

we're gonna have to agree to disagree on which source shots to use when comparing codec performance. relatively bland shots lacking in detail are of little use to my own way of thinking when it comes to really testing a compression codec. it's at the boundries where the algorithm is strained to breaking point where interesting things start happening - hence high motion, or crowd scenes.

High motion screenshots will always be posted. For MIII I'm thinking the bridge scene.

[Issac Hunt]

that's certainly the scene which stands out in my memory. though it would be nice to avoid too much fx, as that may well be easier to compress than events captured in camera.

[Kram Sacul]

Originally Posted by rdjam

The difference between the Mpeg2 broadcast King Kong and the VC1 King Kong is tremendous.

As I have said before, VC1 encodes usually have higher contrast and detail than the mpeg encodes. These pictures seem to bear this out quite nicely.

Not to be picky but that more contrast is partly because the mpeg-2 shots haven't been expanded to pc levels. Black is at 16 rather than 0 like in the vc-1 shots.

[Issac Hunt]

a good comparison point for detail in the mi3 screen caps provided by xylon is under the main archway. there are two statues: a man sitting on a lion, and a woman holding a star. the hd dvd star has lost much of it's detail on the various spikes, and the entire background looks a little "washed out" for lack of a better phrase. is this an effect of grain removal by the vc-1 algorithm?

[Tim Glover]

Not always, but some people see what they need to see to support their agenda.

[Kram Sacul]

I think in this instance there are tradeoffs when it comes to mpeg-2 vs vc-1. The BRD has exaggerated grain with artifacts while the HD-DVD is slightly smoothed over with less artifacts but is also less edgy.

The MI3 BRD is dual layered, right? Is there a reason why it's only 20gb? Are there more extras than the HD-DVD?

[tindizzle]

Originally Posted by Kram Sacul

I think in this instance there are tradeoffs when it comes to mpeg-2 vs vc-1. The BRD has exaggerated grain with artifacts while the HD-DVD is slightly smoothed over with less artifacts but is also less edgy.

The MI3 BRD is dual layered, right? Is there a reason why it's only 20gb? Are there more extras than the HD-DVD?

No, it is single layered.

[tindizzle]

Looks like the KK HD DVD scene with King Kong vs the trex would have benefited from more bandwidth. It's much better than the 11-12mbit/s MPEG2 encodes but there's still some blocking.

[Kram Sacul]

Yeah, if you're really looking for it. It is lossy compression after all.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by rdjam

The difference between the Mpeg2 broadcast King Kong and the VC1 King Kong is tremendous.

Yeah, about double the data rate and probably a completely different master.

As I have said before, VC1 encodes usually have higher contrast and detail than the mpeg encodes. These pictures seem to bear this out quite nicely.

Wrong again. How many Paramount titles have already proven you wrong. How many Warner like "Space Cowboys" or "The Fugitive" or "Good Night and Good Luck"?

The fact that the Bluray AVC pictures look very similar to the Mpeg broadcast shots is quite likely more down to the care taken in encoding - but I have yet to see an AVC release that has the sharpness and contrast preserved as well as VC1 does...

You mean like the fact that "The Prestige" (AVC) looks a LOT better than "Batman Begins" (VC-1) despite the fact that it has the same director, the same cinematograper, the same anamorphic lenses and film stocks...etc?