Blu-ray, HD-DVD & HD Broadcasts(H.264 & MPEG-2) Screenshots*BIG FILES* - Page 23 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #661 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Once again, you've jumped to conclusions. For all you know, the avc might degrade in the exact same way as the vc-1 if brought to the same compression. Then it could just as well be 0% advantage. You simply lack the information to really tell.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #662 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You're so predictable, rdjam. When mpeg-2 underperforms you jump all over it but when vc-1 falls short the differences are neglible or are "almost identical". C'mon.

Even in your select shots you can see that extra 10gb avc has to play with matters in terms of actual picture details. The detail of the frieze on the top of stadium is missing on the vc-1 side. MISSING. As in not enough bits to resolve.

Of course you have to sit closer or enlarge it to see this subtle detail. Those who have spent the money on their projection setups should be happier with the BRD.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #663 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:26 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
In fact - The MORE I look at these images, the MORE IMPRESSED I am with the VC1 encoding.

Even tho AVC had 58% more bits for the Bluray version, the VC1 version is literally virtually indistinguishable from the MUCH BIGGER AVC version.

This is VERY surprising, even for me, as I had thought AVC and VC1 were much closer in performance than Mpeg2.

Perhaps this confirms what many people have been saying - that you do NOT need a lot more bandwidth and storage space when you are using the next-gen codecs, like you would have for Mpeg2.

BD AVC on left - HD DVD VC1 on Right:







Massively impressive performance by VC1 against AVC with 58% more horsepower given to it...
rdjam is offline  
 
post #664 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
...or it could just as well be 0%. Beyond bias, you simply lack the info.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #665 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:33 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

You're so predictable, rdjam.

Try leaving the personal stuff at the door and talk about the subject...

Quote:


When mpeg-2 underperforms you jump all over it but when vc-1 falls short the differences are neglible or are "almost identical". C'mon.

"falls short"?? Are you looking at these images? They are pretty much identical. And the AVC version CERTAINLY isn't "58% better", if better at all.

Quote:


Even in your select shots you can see that extra 10gb avc has to play with matters in terms of actual picture details. The detail of the frieze on the top of stadium is missing on the vc-1 side. MISSING.

Actually, all I see in the AVC version is a very faint trace of grain. There is very slightly more, but nowhere near what one would expect. And none of the other shots show any difference that one could comment on.

Quote:


Of course you have to sit closer or enlarge it to see this subtle detail. Those who have spent the money on their projection setups should be happier with the BRD.

Don't forget these are already blown up 200%. And yes, I am thrilled with HD DVD and VC1 on my 120" JVC HD1 setup (soon moving to a 156" screen).
rdjam is offline  
post #666 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:35 PM
Member
 
Mukha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is that red tint really on the HD DVD version? It appears to be there to "improve" skin tones, but somebody please say it ain't so.
Mukha is offline  
post #667 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:37 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

Once again, you've jumped to conclusions. For all you know, the avc might degrade in the exact same way as the vc-1 if brought to the same compression. Then it could just as well be 0% advantage. You simply lack the information to really tell.

Well - at the very least these shots from Flags of our fathers show that AVC with 58% more bits (a HUGE extra boost) cannot do much better than the SLIGHTEST pixel improvement here and there.

It seems to show quite clearly that VC1on HD DVD size discs are not going to be easily beaten.

I think it would REALLY have been quite funny to see AVC at THE SAME bitrate as the VC1 - I'm thinking, based on these shots, that the AVC would have looked much worse than VC1, if the bitrates were the same.
rdjam is offline  
post #668 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:38 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mukha View Post

Is that red tint really on the HD DVD version? It appears to be there to "improve" skin tones, but somebody please say it ain't so.

Hmm, nope...

Take a look - the skin tones are identical.

rdjam is offline  
post #669 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:39 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
What if at the same bitrate, they looked exactly the same? Did you forget this scenario? The advantage could be anywhere from 0-58%. That's a pretty big window to really make any solid affirmation.

You are assuming a linear behavior for pq for the degree of compression between the 2 samples, rather than a point of diminishing returns, then a deviation from linear relationship.

What we do know is that the avc goes the extra step to capture even that last drop of pq, and remove nearly any doubt that anything is missing.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #670 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:42 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

What if at the same bitrate, they looked exactly the same? Did you forget this scenario?

You don't think the above shots already look the same?

There are only two possibilities, really.

1) AVC needed the extra 58% bitrate to look identical to VC1
2) AVC didn't need the extra 58%, would look the same at the same bitrate, but the extra bandwidth of Bluray is NOT necessary.
rdjam is offline  
post #671 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:46 PM
Senior Member
 
tindizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What happened to AVC's erase-all-detail deblocking filter?? Good job Paramount for doing two optimized encodes.
tindizzle is offline  
post #672 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
1 is unlikely.

2 is more likely, and only applies for the specific scene, at hand. There may be more stressful scenes where vc-1 is clearly losing pq, and avc successfully utilizes the available bandwidth to retain the pq.

If not 2, then there is a 3, that suggests something in between your 2 extremes.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #673 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 04:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Of course vc-1 would look better, Hanky. It has extra tweaks and Microsoft magic.

Rdjam, can you not see that the avc side is resolving more of the vertical lines on the jacket? I thought more detail would be an improvement.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #674 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 05:27 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just imagine if the avc encode used all of the space on BRD. "150% more space than the vc-1 and it looks the same!"
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #675 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 05:28 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

What if at the same bitrate, they looked exactly the same? Did you forget this scenario? The advantage could be anywhere from 0-58%. That's a pretty big window to really make any solid affirmation.

32.9 gigs, divided by 20.8 gigs, equals = 1.5817, equals = 58.17% additional information in the AVC version...
rdjam is offline  
post #676 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 05:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,959
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

In that case BD50 has provided a clear advantage over HD DVD.

Yes, if magnifying a tiny bit of a film image beyond what you would ever see in your home theater, to show off artifacts on a computer screen then BD50 has a clear advantage.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #677 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 06:31 PM
Member
 
slide83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Yes, if magnifying a tiny bit of a film image beyond what you would ever see in your home theater, to show off artifacts on a computer screen then BD50 has a clear advantage.

Actually, I would say the difference in detail IS noticeable on 120"+ home theater screens.
slide83 is offline  
post #678 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 06:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
jmpage2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,959
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

So basically you're saying that when one encode is slightly inferior to another it is no big deal. Interesting. I wonder if that applies equally across the board.

What I'm saying is I don't watch movies blown up to 10X magnification on a computer screen.

Do you?

Do you honestly think you can see the marginal differences we are looking at between these codecs in 99.9% of situations?

If the answer is "yes" and the price premium and limitations of Blu Ray hardware are of no concern to you then certainly place your money in that camp.
jmpage2 is offline  
post #679 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 06:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
BrickTop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Munroe Falls, Ohio
Posts: 642
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Hmm, nope...

Take a look - the skin tones are identical.



I have no preference either way, but it is being said vertical detail is better on the AVC, but here it looks like there is more horizontal info in the VC-1. The horizontal lines in the herringbone pattern look more defined in the VC-1 encode. Or it could be me...either way it looks like we're splitting hairs. Though that is what this forum is for right?
BrickTop is offline  
post #680 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 07:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Dot50Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Hmm, nope...

Take a look - the skin tones are identical.


Not to me, I an see quite clearly there is a red tint over the entire HD-DVD image; while the Blu-Ray one has a green tint. Which one is in the master is debatable.

As someone who takes pride in showing the minute differences, Im quite surprised you couldn't see it.
Dot50Cal is offline  
post #681 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 07:30 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
dobyblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CANADA
Posts: 1,863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 15
We all know that rdjam can talk about codecs.

He said in another thread that any review site, when looking at just its reviews, will show that HD DVD is far ahead of Blu-ray on PQ.

Here are the June 1st, 2007 updated review tallies from High Def Digest, Home Theater Spot, Home Theater Forum, Upcoming Discs and DVD Talk. Overall there are 783 Blu-ray reviews and 668 HD DVD reviews.

HDD 159HD/198BD, HTS 159HD/190BD, HTF 43HD/71BD, UD 110HD/104BD, Talk 200HD/222BD
06.01.07
Code:
HD DVD        PQ      SQ      TOTAL          Blu-ray   PQ      SQ      TOTAL  
HighDef  3.97    3.67    3.82            HighDef 3.98    3.85    3.92  
HTSpot   4.02    3.87    3.94            HTSpot  4.02    4.25    4.13  
DVDTalk  3.69    3.51    3.60            DVDTalk 3.63    3.68    3.66  
HTForum  4.15    3.82    3.99            HTForum 4.27    4.09    4.18  
UpDisc   4.04    3.86    3.95            UpDisc  4.04    4.15    4.09  
Totals        3.92    3.71    3.82                Totals       3.93    3.96    3.94
For PQ Blu-ray has the lead on two sites, HD DVD has the lead on one and the other two are tied.

All five of course easily have Blu-ray substantially in the lead for SQ compared to the gap in PQ.

Here's another thing you might like to see - all those reviews broken down by studio.

Code:
PQ      Studio
 4.17   Buena Vista
 4.03   Paramount
 3.98   Warner
 3.89   Sony
 3.85   Weinstein
 3.84   Universal
 3.84   Fox
 3.65   Lionsgate
Sony, with their constant use of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 is reviewed higher than Universal.

As for PQ, you'd think that would be obvious but you may be surprised.

Code:
SQ      Studio
 4.36   Buena Vista
 4.08   Sony
 4.08   Fox
 3.89   Paramount
 3.87   Lionsgate
 3.71   Universal
 3.63   Warner
 3.56   Weinstein
Paramount scores higher than Lions Gate despite the latter's use of better audio codecs.

Anyway I'd like rdjam to explain to everyone what he meant by this post.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&#post10655294

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

The fact is, that HD DVD scores higher overall on PQ than Bluray. The fact is that if one looks at the 200-odd "discs" in each format and compares PQ, HD DVD comes out way ahead. But by using multiple reviews for certain discs in your "sample" you end up, whether deliberately or not, fudging the numbers.

dobyblue is offline  
post #682 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 07:32 PM
 
JackBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'd like to thank rdjam for his work. Here is what he is trying to say and he is 100% right. A studio can do a high bitrate, "Lazy" encode of any movie and look as good or usually better then a hand tuned, 2+ week like vc-1 encode done by a team of people. So the studios use blu-rays bigger space (20 gigs), higher bandwidth (18mb/sec more), and crank out amazing, top tier titles one after another while giving us the highest quality possible, vs a team of coders encoding movies frame by frame on vc-1, slowing down release schedules and costing the studios 2-3x as much money. Thanks rdjam, now i get it.
JackBee is offline  
post #683 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 07:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

32.9 gigs, divided by 20.8 gigs, equals = 1.5817, equals = 58.17% additional information in the AVC version...

...but they aren't absolutely identical, so the point is moot. Your analysis lacks the detail of what the relative pq would be at equal program sizes. If they are then identical, at that point, then that would just as easily suggest a 0% advantage between the 2 codecs.

What we can consider is that the vc-1 encode sacrifices the slightest amount of pq at its chosen program size while the avc encode chooses a healthy margin of data coverage to absolutely ensure the pq is the best that is possible. It may seem wasteful to you, but to the disc, it doesn't matter if you do or do not use the space- might as well use that space.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #684 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 08:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Kram Sacul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,232
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah, that's the thing that's confusing. Since when is "good enough" a good attitude on AVS?

Vc-1 isn't the top codec anymore but it doesn't matter because it's good enough and whatever improvement avc can show with huge bitrates and gigantic files sizes is just "wasting space". Like gigabytes are water and we're in the middle of a drought.
Kram Sacul is offline  
post #685 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 08:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Dot50Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

So basically the story goes like this:

A VC1 encode is marginally better than MPEG-2:
OMG! VC1 rules! This is what we've been telling you all along and these screenshots prove it! Look how great HD DVD is! MPEG-2 sucks! We shouldn't be settling for this second-best quality!

A MPEG-2 or AVC encode is marginally better than VC1:
Well thats just splitting hairs. The screenshots don't mean anything. Blu-ray sucks anyway. Who cares. HD DVD is "good enough".


Haha, so true.
Dot50Cal is offline  
post #686 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 08:58 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post

Sony, with their constant use of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 is reviewed higher than Universal.

A few reviewers have commented that they were kind to Bluray releases and scored more easily on them because of their poor start in the beginning.

Quote:


Paramount scores higher than Lions Gate despite the latter's use of better audio codecs.

So you're saying that is unfair?

Quote:


Anyway I'd like rdjam to explain to everyone what he meant by this post.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&#post10655294

The quote speaks for itself, so there is no explanation needed for most folks.

I'd recommend you don't try to bring that debate over here too. It already cluttered one thread...
rdjam is offline  
post #687 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 09:04 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackBee View Post

A studio can do a high bitrate, "Lazy" encode of any movie and look as good or usually better then a hand tuned, 2+ week like vc-1 encode done by a team of people.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that what you are saying is not only incorrect but misleading.

The AVC encoders out there for BD and HD DVD are actually taking twice as long to encode, based on reports from insiders on this forum. And VC1 has generally looked better than AVC - with Flags of our Fathers, however, AVC has been given a 58% higher bitrate and has mostly just matched the VC1 PQ, and "very slightly" edging VC1 in some spots... Hardly a massive achievement, given the difference in bitrate AVC required to achieve it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

...but they aren't absolutely identical, so the point is moot. Your analysis lacks the detail of what the relative pq would be at equal program sizes. If they are then identical, at that point, then that would just as easily suggest a 0% advantage between the 2 codecs.

What we can consider is that the vc-1 encode sacrifices the slightest amount of pq at its chosen program size while the avc encode chooses a healthy margin of data coverage to absolutely ensure the pq is the best that is possible. It may seem wasteful to you, but to the disc, it doesn't matter if you do or do not use the space- might as well use that space.

Give it up, Hanky. It's got 58% more bit budget than the VC1 version. You have no idea how efficiently or inefficiently it uses this extra data rate. But it has 58% more data - that's all there is to it.

It doesn't seem to have been able to achieve much with the extra bit budget, for what it's worth....

Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

So basically the story goes like this:

A VC1 encode is marginally better than MPEG-2:
OMG! VC1 rules! This is what we've been telling you all along and these screenshots prove it! Look how great HD DVD is! MPEG-2 sucks! We shouldn't be settling for this second-best quality!

"marginally"?? Where have you been. The Mpeg encodes in these comparisons have been LOADED with huge macroblocking and artifacting in almost every scene. They were nowhere close to the same league as the VC1 ecodes, for the most part - unlike this AVC comparison, the Mpeg encodes were filled with visible artifacts.

When VC1 had the same bit rate as the Mpeg encodes, or even the slightest bit more, the BD folks whinged and whined about how it was an unfair comparison. Yet here is and AVC encode with almost 60% higher bit budget, and you won't find any of us VC1 supporters whingeing at all. We just wonder where all the bits went in the AVC version, since it looks pretty much identical to the VC1 version

And there are no obvious flaws in either the AVC or VC1 versions here to complain about, unlike the Mpeg samples already covered...
rdjam is offline  
post #688 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 09:38 PM
Senior Member
 
TwisTz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Can't we just give the nod to the Blu Ray version?

No point arguing what can be plainly seen. HD30 is a limitation... I know this and I am currently HD exclusive ATM.
TwisTz is offline  
post #689 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 09:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,234
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 124 Post(s)
Liked: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

It's got 58% more bit budget than the VC1 version. You have no idea how efficiently or inefficiently it uses this extra data rate. But it has 58% more data - that's all there is to it.

...and it was 58% well spent. This is a good thing. It captured things the vc-1 encode missed. The vc-1 approach may be good for dig-cable/sat/ip applications, but is just plain unnecessary for optical disc applications (where space is there for the taking). Case closed.

Quote:


"marginally"?? Where have you been. The Mpeg encodes in these comparisons have been LOADED with huge macroblocking and artifacting in almost every scene. They were nowhere close to the same league as the VC1 ecodes, for the most part - unlike this AVC comparison, the Mpeg encodes were filled with visible artifacts.

...and they also were shorted on program size by factors as far as 0.54x and bitrates well under 20 Mb/s. Did this very relevant detail slip by you, again? That is a pretty different situation than the avc encode we have here, today. This should tell you it is primarily a matter of codec implementation, rather than the identity of the codec, itself. Had the mpeg-2 encodes run into the 30 GB and 30 Mb/s range, it too, may have fared quite favorably, if not better, than the vc-1 encode.

Similarly, had the vc-1 encode been halved in program size, you would be complaining about the implementation of the codec giving the results you see, rather than the fault of the codec, itself. Once again, your points are debunked. Each of these cases had very little to do with the codec, but rather, how they were used. Each time, bitrate ends up being the overwhelmingly dominant factor. Even you have remarked that vc-1 is not immune to a shortage of it.

Margot Robbie is THE most exquisite human creature on the face of the planet, in this moment in time.
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #690 of 2128 Old 06-01-2007, 10:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Dot50Cal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It seems my image links died soon after posting them, so here is the post ressurected:

AVC on top, VC1 on bottom.

In the first shot:



The left soldiers leg. The middle soldiers shoe. The top of the rock, which all display macroblocking on the VC1 encode.

Second shot:



The audience becomes a mess of smeared blocks which you would expect from streaming video in the VC1 encode.

Third shot:



Truck details are smoothed, Field is smoothed, giving way to macroblocks and smearing. People become globs on th VC1 encode.

Gamma adjusted (watch the fanboys harp on this!) the same amount on both shots to illustrate the point, blown up nearly 2x (AVC on top, VC1 on bottom):



The whole sky is mess with the VC1 encode. Also Xylon, it looks like the HD-DVD version has a bit of a red tint to it while the Blu-ray one has a green tint. Any indication if this is how the films are or was this a levels error?

PS: Please please! Get some high motion shots! Static shots like this wont show the difference in bitrate very well!
Dot50Cal is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Software Media Discussion

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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