Blu-ray, HD-DVD & HD Broadcasts(H.264 & MPEG-2) Screenshots*BIG FILES* - Page 2 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-01-2007, 08:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
ResOGlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,536
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Good thread, thanks!
ResOGlas is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 04-01-2007, 10:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Sketcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Great State of Jefferson
Posts: 3,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Issac Hunt View Post

the second image seems to have lost some detail

That's what I saw.

Still, the differences, IMO are minor.
Sketcha is offline  
Old 04-01-2007, 11:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tim Glover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Monroe, LA
Posts: 1,563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Liked: 44
You can't compare 2 different films for image quality...even with the same director. Peter, my friend, you know that.
Tim Glover is offline  
 
Old 04-02-2007, 12:16 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Icemage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,050
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Glover View Post

You can't compare 2 different films for image quality...even with the same director. Peter, my friend, you know that.

Bicker... bicker... bicker... especially over The Prestige? Come on, folks. Withhold judgment for a couple of months and the HD DVD of The Prestiage should be out in the UK and we can do a head-to-head shootout with BD-50 + AVC versus HD DVD 30 + VC-1.

Xylon, are you planning to do a head-to-head comparison between the two once it's released?
Icemage is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Issac Hunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
comparison shots of some warner titles released on both formats would also be interesting. have there been any titles released in vc-1 on hd dvd and avc on bd? that would be some sort of interesting comparison to make!
Issac Hunt is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 02:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PeterTHX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 326 Post(s)
Liked: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Glover View Post

You can't compare 2 different films for image quality...even with the same director. Peter, my friend, you know that.

Yes you can in this case.
Same director, same director of photography, same anamorphic lenses, same filmstocks.

Even so, the original statement from Rdjam was that AVC is undetailed in comparison to VC-1, yet "Prestige" is cleaner and more detailed than "Batman".

My opinions do not reflect the policies of my company
PeterTHX is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 03:42 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Xylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Liecheinstein
Posts: 7,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Xylon is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 04:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Xylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Liecheinstein
Posts: 7,796
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
As you all remember the bridge action scene on MIII is intense. Explosions, quick camera movements, panning and zooming, lots of action. A true torture test for video codecs.

The frame I chose came from a scene popular from the trailers where the actor gets airborne from a strong explosion knocking him into the car. This sequence is about 3 seconds long. From what I remember here on AVS it has been widely reported that BD and HD DVD versions are almost identical. If there is any difference they can't decide if its good or bad

Scanning through both versions I observed that both excellent transfers except that the Blu-ray version is a tad more grainier and more susceptible to macroblocking everytime an explosion or a fast action occurs. The macroblocking on Blu-ray is not that distracting especially when you are watching it on a big screen and 10 feet away. Viewing it on your high resolution monitor two feet away then it becomes unwatchable(to me at least). The warehouse shootout scene in the beginning of the movie is a blocky mess (not as bad as the Fantastic Four Blu-ray. I will give it that).
Xylon is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 08:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sound dropouts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 1,422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wow, I really like the HD DVd better in the above MI3. The car looks much grainier on the blu ray version.
sound dropouts is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 10:44 AM
Member
 
TSOLfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Albany, IN
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I threw this together fairly quickly (and Xylon, the BluRay image was giving an ImageViper broken image link in the viewer, so I had to host the image locally):

http://xylon.haloapplications.com/fo...mpossible3/01/
TSOLfan is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 10:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
WayneL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,827
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is as good as double-blind. The BD is a bit sharper to me, but there are artifacts on the window pillar.
WayneL is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 11:10 AM
Member
 
TSOLfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New Albany, IN
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
One Flash plugin option I left on is the ability to right-click and Zoom in (you can then left click and pan around, and right click again to zoom back out). I found areas of interest to be the rear glass explosion to view strengths/weaknesses of both versions.

Some of the blocking is in identical locations (and look to be identical blocks) which makes me wonder how many of these artifacts were in the original digital source material used for the encodes (and then was just brought out that much more by the encodes for both HD disc formats).
TSOLfan is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 11:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked: 213
I agree BD is sharper but has a lot more noise going on, seems this is the VC-1 smoothing effect in place, when your talking resoltuions of 1920X1080 a little smoothing is probably the better choice as the picture should be sharp enough at that resolution
swanlee is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 12:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 75
That would seem to be a moot point, since the explosion scene can hardly be described as sharply focused.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 12:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked: 213
"That would seem to be a moot point, since the explosion scene can hardly be described as sharply focused."

Well even in this scene the slightly sharper image is off set by all the additional noise going on. I prefer the smoother look at this resolution than the overly sharp looks which introduces a lot of noise in the picture, sharply focused has nothing to do with it, looks like the BLU-RAY version simply has the sharpness on the film turned up way to high exposing grain and noise that I'd rather not be there, this is independent of the focus of the scene.

I'm format neutral I own 70 HD-DVD and about 40 BLU-RAY titles I definitely prefer VC-1. The first time I saw Kingdom of Heaven on BLU-RAY knowing this was graded as a tier 1 title I simply couldn't get over all the extra grain and noise in some scenes particularly in the sky. My eyes were used to VC-1 at that time and it was a bit jarring to watch a BLU-RAY title that was so highly regarded have so much noise and grain present and the movie is only a couple of years old. Some scenes looked great but some of the noise simply pulls you out of the movie.

If given a choice between overly sharp and added grain\
oise and a slight smoothing with little grain\
oise I will take the smoothing effect every time.
swanlee is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 12:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 75
So now the BR scene has sharpening effect added? Where's the ringing then?

How do you turn the "sharpness of the film way too high"?

It sounds like you are simply creating a difference and then rationalizing why that difference is preferable in all cases for your format of choice.

It seems like the proper criteria is that the codec shouldn't soften or harden or change anything about the image it is fed, in the first place.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 12:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked: 213
"It's sounds like you are simply creating a difference and then rationalizing why that difference is preferable in all cases for your format of choice."

Uh I'm format neutral I' have actually spent more on my BLU-RAY player Panasonic than my HD-DVD player (360-Add-on)

I'm not creating differences, look at the pictures their is a difference, We know VC-1 does have a smoothing effect at times compared to MPEG2, I've seen this with my own eyes as I own both formats 70 HD-DVD and 40 BLU-RAY titles. I know what
MPEG2, AVC, VC-1 encodes looks like and MPEG2 tends be overly sharp and exposes grain and noise and is also not as efficient as AVC or VC-1.

Sounds like some people get so snippy about formats they even go down to being snippy about codecs presumably associating the format with the codec.

As a format neutral person I don't freakin care, I know what my eyes like and they prefer VC-1 it could be on BLU-RAY or HD-DVD for all I care.

I prefer AVC to MPEG2 as well and VC-1 to AVC.

"It seems like the proper criteria is that the codec shouldn't soften or harden or change anything about the image it is fed, in the first place."

Well the MPEG2 version sure isn't cutting it, I don't think that car had grain on it in real life and those flames didn't have that blockyness to it. Since we are most likely never getting Lossless HD video we are talking 20 terrabytes or more of space needed, we have to deal with lossy codecs, none are perfect but some look better and are more efficient than others. MPEG2 simply doesn't cut it for me anymore
swanlee is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 12:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 75
"Format neutral"? Fair enough. Clearly, you aren't "codec neutral", which is really no better than not being "format neutral". Essentially, you have picked one codec to root for, and then any other codec that looks different to that is automatically the one doing something "overly".

It's fine if you "prefer" the way vc-1 does something to the image, but then to accuse other codecs of being "overly" something because they don't do it the same way as vc-1 is pretty ridiculous. The world doesn't revolve around the way vc-1 does something.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 12:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Issac Hunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
removing detail from a frame is not a good thing in my opinion. some may prefer that flim grain is removed, and be willing to accept a subsequent loss of fine detail along with that. it's their choice. as i understand it this type of softening of the image is not a pre-requesite of vc-1 use, simply an option at the encoder's disposal. for myself i hope encoders quit monkeying around with the image like this on future vc-1 encodes.
Issac Hunt is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked: 213
"Format neutral"? Fair enough. Clearly, you aren't "codec neutral", which is really no better than not being "format neutral". Essentially, you have picked one codec to root for, and then any other codec that looks different to that is automatically the one doing something "overly".

Sorry you want to be argumentative about this but after viewing over 110 HD titles on HD-DVD and BLU-RAY and also watching a lot of HD cable over the years you tend to notice differences in the codecs, they do have their own distinct differences and after time I have gained a preference. I've gained this preference by viewing and NOTHING else the codec you cliamed I've PICKED has simply been a preference based on alot of movie watching.

Sorry we all have preferences, the pictures in this thread points to the differences I've spoke of so I don't know what your problem is.
swanlee is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

Well the MPEG2 version sure isn't cutting it, I don't think that car had grain on it in real life and those flames didn't have that blockyness to it.

Then vc-1 shouldn't be "cutting it" for you, as well, because both pictures have grain on the car.

"Blockiness" is damn near indistinguishable w/o serious examination, and yet, you can find them in both pix, if you stare long enough. So even there, vc-1 should not be cutting it in your book, either.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

Sorry we all have preferences, the pictures in this thread points to the differences I've spoke of so I don't know what your problem is.

Your preferences are fine, as long as you submit them as simply your preferences. As soon as you start making judgement calls about how other codecs are "wrong" for doing something differently, then you have crossed the line from simply acknowledging a "preference".

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked: 213
"Then vc-1 shouldn't be "cutting it" for you, as well, because both pictures have grain on the car.

"Blockiness" is damn near indistinguishable w/o serious examination, and yet, you can find them in both pix. So even there, vc-1 should not be cutting it in your book, either."


Yea and the VC-1 version has less grain and less crap while still preserving the detail of the picture, it simply looks better. I'll always take the codec that looks better thank you.

Man some of you guys really seem to get so defensive about this stuff, what is the deal?
swanlee is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 75
Can you point out some specific picture elements there where "crap" is occuring?...where detail is preserved in one picture but not the other? How do you determine what the right amount of grain is for the picture? Could you even tell, if the pictures weren't labeled? I'm guessing, suddenly you would be hesitant to provide definitive comments.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
joshd2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,821
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
From post #12:



Which is Blu-ray and which is HD DVD?
joshd2012 is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Using this link
http://xylon.haloapplications.com/fo...mpossible3/01/

it's very easy to see the differences, area's of the sky are grainier with more artifacts noise in them, on the car the bumper right near the white reflection has more noise around it while the HD-DVD version maintains this detail without the noise.

The easiest way to explain the differences is go to your tv turn the shaprness all the way up then turn the sharpness to where it normally is. Having the sharpness up doesn't always give you more detail in the example above it is giving you more crap than anything.

Why oh why are the skies in MPEG2 encodes almost always filled with grain and noise? This is the one thing I have really really noticed, when I go outside I don't see grain and noise in the sky, why does a modern film like Kingdom of heaven need that added noise and grain in the sky? The other parts of the movie weren't like that and it stuck out like a sore thumb. I think this movie would have looked a lot better done with VC-1 or AVC.

I do not find that appealing and any codec that can help get rid of that crap gets my vote.
swanlee is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,457
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 75
It sounds more like your gripe is against inherent film media characteristics, than codecs. Both codecs are going to pass the grain through, when used appropriately.

When looking at the whole picture, the examples you give are nearly indistinguishable between the 2 pix. Essentially, this brief moment in the film will have passed (under normal viewing conditions), and no one will have noticed a difference.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 01:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Issac Hunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

Using this link
http://xylon.haloapplications.com/fo...mpossible3/01/

that is certainly a very interesting way of comparing the two frames. what it exposes is that the bd has more detail, and also more grain. note that grain is not noise as some people on here incorrectly state. grain is an intrinsic facet of film: removing it is always likely to result in a concurent loss of fine detail. as is the case in this instance.

the most noticable are for this loss of fine detail is in the lower left hand corner. there's a truck or some sort of vehicle in the background. sweep the line back and forth over the truck and it comes into sharp relief on the bd side. this is particularly noticable on the crane arm on top of the truck.
Issac Hunt is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 02:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
swanlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,503
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
Liked: 213
"note that grain is not noise as some people on here incorrectly state."

Using that link look at the right above the car, the clouds clearly show more noise, mosquito noise is the term I hear used more, this is not film grain but actual compression artifacts. Right above the top of the car next to Tom, you can also clearly see this noise which is not film grain. Also the part of the explosion right above tom's knee shows a lot more noise. again not grain but artifact noise which is not apart of the film or the directors intent.

Using that link I don't see more actual detail I see a higher sharpness and I see more crap which should not be there but I do not see more detail, there isn't anything I'm missing on the HD-DVD side. Higher sharpness doesn't mean higher detail in this case it just means more crap that should not be there in the first place.
swanlee is offline  
Old 04-02-2007, 02:11 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 10,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

"Format neutral"? Fair enough. Clearly, you aren't "codec neutral", which is really no better than not being "format neutral".

Whoa - being format neutral means giving both a chance, since they can use any of the three codecs.

However - since when is no-one allowed to prefer one codec over another?? God forbid someone doesn't like Mpeg2, since they are breaking your rules

Why should you get upset that people prefer VC1? Bluray releases can use it also, you know?
rdjam is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off