Warner promo vs Blade Runner / 300 / V for Vendetta comparison PIX - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 57 Old 08-07-2009, 05:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Here is the mojo on 300- looks like they are fairly similar with some give and take from area to area of the scene. The shot does illustrate well the strategy of "careful flirting with teh blocks at the extremes".




LL
LL

I need your sweet love, Rosetta Stone girl!
Mr. Hanky is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 57 Old 08-07-2009, 05:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr. Hanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Here is the Vendetta spread (not really sure how to comment on this):




LL
LL

I need your sweet love, Rosetta Stone girl!
Mr. Hanky is offline  
post #33 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 02:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mhafner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 4,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul View Post

Warner Bros hasn't figured out compression yet.

But I have to add that the difference in the Blade Runner examples is not due to bit rate of VC-1 alone. VC-1 can be very sharp at 17 Mbit/s. It looks more like a general grain filtering job before compression so compression at this rather low bit rate will work better.
mhafner is offline  
post #34 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 02:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 19
WB kicks customer's arse by committing big blunders on deserving titles. Instead of figuring out compression they have figured out how to apply over-compression, waste space, and of course find ways to sue for $10M.

I would love to see comparison shots of Hancock Blu-ray Vs. Trailer which is on similar lines with AVP-2. Perfect example on how over-processing shouldn't be done.

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #35 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 08:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by stumlad View Post

So you're saying the DC looks more like the "PROMO" screen shots? I haven't watched it (only saw Final Cut), so I wouldn't know...

No I am not saying that, the DC has quite a different look to it because it was not touch-up so much and the live-action shots have more film grain and more detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

WB kicks customer's arse by committing big blunders on deserving titles. Instead of figuring out compression they have figured out how to apply over-compression, waste space, and of course find ways to sue for $10M.

I get the impression nothing WB does could possibly please you.

Myself, I will continue to enjoy the flim-like experience WB gives me on it's classics with, for most titles, a excellent level of detail.
wuther is online now  
post #36 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 08:47 AM
 
Thunderbolt8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
for most titles??
Thunderbolt8 is offline  
post #37 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 12:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

I get the impression nothing WB does could possibly please you.

Myself, I will continue to enjoy the flim-like experience WB gives me on it's classics with, for most titles, a excellent level of detail.

Not a big fan of classics though I like a few of them. Warner's attitude towards Blu-ray quality has slightly changed in the recent times but doesn't suffice. They have to give customers a lot for the illogical compromises they have taken so far.

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #38 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ChuckZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Thanks a ton for the comparisons, msgohan!

This is the single most reason why I'm holding off purchasing these three titles especially.

They are low bit rate encodes (V for Vendetta is really low) with OBVIOUS compression artifacts; for a project that they invested in so heavily in Blade Runner, they really should have done separate encodes.

Do you think you could get hold of the new 300 release on Blu-ray and compare that as well?
ChuckZ is offline  
post #39 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 03:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eric.exe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

It looks more like a general grain filtering job before compression so compression at this rather low bit rate will work better.

I'm sure that's that case. I don't see why people think compression can change the image that much.
eric.exe is offline  
post #40 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 03:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
AlexBC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,095
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

I get the impression nothing WB does could possibly please you

I can't aswer for lgans, but all they have to do is do it right, like most other studios. Even small ones like Lionsgate, Weistein, Anchor Bay, Blue Underground have figured it out.

How hard can it be?

To WB apparently, very much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eric.exe View Post

I'm sure that's that case. I don't see why people think compression can change the image that much.

With WB, it's killer mix with both filtering and bad compression.
AlexBC is offline  
post #41 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 11:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
darkedgex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post

Do you think you could get hold of the new 300 release on Blu-ray and compare that as well?

It uses the EXACT same encode as the original release of 300 on Blu-ray Disc. The only changes are in the supplements/extras, and in my mind that makes it an instant no-sale for me (I already own the original release, and the extras aren't worth the expensive double dip they're asking for).

Shame on Warner for continuing to not give their movies the tender loving care they (to fans anyways) deserve.

Fight mediocrity: Insist on BD50 discs for all movies longer than 100 minutes, optimized video encodes that fully utilize the available space, lossless audio track, and new masters for catalog titles!
darkedgex is offline  
post #42 of 57 Old 08-08-2009, 11:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

It uses the EXACT same encode as the original release of 300 on Blu-ray Disc. The only changes are in the supplements/extras, and in my mind that makes it an instant no-sale for me (I already own the original release, and the extras aren't worth the expensive double dip they're asking for).

Shame on Warner for continuing to not give their movies the tender loving care they (to fans anyways) deserve.

The PCM track is also gone. This is on similar lines to what Sony did to Casino Royale: Collector's Edition.

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #43 of 57 Old 08-09-2009, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AlexBC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,095
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
At least Casino Royale had a very good video encode to begin with, something that cannot be said about 300.
AlexBC is offline  
post #44 of 57 Old 08-09-2009, 10:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

I can't aswer for lgans, but all they have to do is do it right, like most other studios. Even small ones like Lionsgate, Weistein, Anchor Bay, Blue Underground have figured it out.

All too often the 'most other studios' got their classics wrong, the studio's you mention barely do classics if at all.

Quote:


With WB, it's killer mix with both filtering and bad compression.

Again 'most other studios' did more filtering then WB especially on their classics or simply slapped a crummy DVD master onto a blu-ray disc. That is why WB classics look film-like and sadly more then a few from others look videoized. It does not matter how high a compression rate you use on a sub-par source, you still end up with a poor transfer. And yes I know WB did some sharping filter on some titles which was wrong but it was still not as destructive as the DNR other studios used.
wuther is online now  
post #45 of 57 Old 10-26-2009, 07:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ChuckZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

At least Casino Royale had a very good video encode to begin with, something that cannot be said about 300.

Who cares? Lossless and uncompressed sound identical to one another. If they can save more space for video, I'm all for it.
ChuckZ is offline  
post #46 of 57 Old 10-27-2009, 05:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AlexBC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,095
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
wuther,

you missed the point entirely.
AlexBC is offline  
post #47 of 57 Old 10-27-2009, 07:12 AM
Senior Member
 
FitzRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 322
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Definitely more fine detail on the promo of Blade Runner. Look at the striped dress on the right side, the filtering sort of blurs the stripes, everything just looks slightly out of focus.

Dillon: My men were in that chopper when it got hit! Hopper's orders were to go in and remove grain and the detail just disappeared.
Dutch: It didn't disappear. It was scrubbed alive!
FitzRoy is offline  
post #48 of 57 Old 12-26-2012, 03:07 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
msgohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
All-new for 2012!!! Shocks! Thrills! Drama! Confusion! (actually I'm a year late on these)

Now that I have access to my Blu-ray drive again, I can provide proof of the claims I made a couple months back.

Inception - Blu-ray vs 12.97Mbps AVC promo
abk5G0Mr.jpg adxHslpC.jpg

Blu-ray downsized & overlaid onto promo PNG vs promo PNG (above)

I'm guessing the Inception clips are ultimately sourced from theatrical trailers for the movie, but I don't own the set so I can't check that.

"Insider Rewards" promo - VC-1 vs 9.91Mbps AVC
aczdkKYO.jpg adkuPlE9.jpg (Inception)
acgn55yW.jpg adfRRykB.jpg acmjjSiu.jpg (The Matrix jaggy pre-green tint master)

A nice demonstration of how Warner's VC-1 implementation destroys detail, even compared to their own low-bitrate AVC. I forgot to measure the VC-1 version while I still had the disc, but it was in the same neighborhood.
ChuckZ likes this.
msgohan is offline  
post #49 of 57 Old 12-26-2012, 03:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Thanks msgohan but the pics appear only as a thumbnail and doesn't get enlarged. confused.gif

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #50 of 57 Old 12-26-2012, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Phantom Stranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Between the known and the unknown...
Posts: 3,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Only people in the employ of Warner or Microsoft didn't notice the overall softening their low-bitrate VC-1 encodes produced on BD. Warner's current AVC video encodes reproduce cinematic detail much better.
Phantom Stranger is online now  
post #51 of 57 Old 12-26-2012, 09:53 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
msgohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

Thanks msgohan but the pics appear only as a thumbnail and doesn't get enlarged. confused.gif

This new forum software is a jerk and a half. Fixed.

EDIT: I need some help with this. Can anyone give me approximate timecodes in the movie for these frames?


Tail from ~30:xx that hit the cutting room floor
acgShEsC.jpg

~1:57:xx
acdlIq4F.jpg

abk5VV0K.jpg

aciwVF8e.jpg
lgans316 likes this.
msgohan is offline  
post #52 of 57 Old 12-27-2012, 04:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 19
The AVC caps looks better and resolves details better. Warner really screwed us with the compression on many high profile releases by encoding using VC-1 at shockingly low bit rates.

I will get back to you with the exact time codes in the evening.

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #53 of 57 Old 12-27-2012, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 19
30:04~30:07
1:55:36~1:55:41

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #54 of 57 Old 12-27-2012, 01:37 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
msgohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Err, I had those two close enough for my purposes. It's the other two I need still!
msgohan is offline  
post #55 of 57 Old 12-27-2012, 03:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lgans316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Barking, Essex, London
Posts: 6,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Sorry mate. Will try to get you the time codes this weekend.frown.gif

Blu-ray : 340
lgans316 is offline  
post #56 of 57 Old 12-28-2012, 03:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ChuckZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here are my thoughts:

As for the Inception collection of pictures, the VC-1 is superior. The reason is because all of the other shots show vignetting in the corner of the frames! It's pretty clear that they zoomed in to cover that. As for encode quality, the only one that matches the VC-1 encode from a technical standpoint is the "Blu-ray promo (Warner 2011)" and even then it's a toss up. It looks slightly smoother and has some small blocking in the bricks whereas the VC-1 encode looks like it has a "coarser" quantization with more grain like elements to the picture. The other AVC encodes show obvious, if not significant, artifacting.

The Matrix pictures are bad, no bones about it. I've been very vocal about my dissatisfaction with the color timing changes to the film, so I won't get into that here. The existing masters are terrible, with significant horizontal aliasing everywhere. Even the new master is pretty soft, likely scanned on something like a Spirit Datacine. For one of Warner's VC-1 encodes, the artifacts are pretty minimal and likely have low perceptibility in motion (at least in that scene/shot).
ChuckZ is offline  
post #57 of 57 Old 12-28-2012, 03:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ChuckZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,097
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
By the way, msgohan, do you still have the screenshots from your original post? The screenshot comparison website rebuilt its database after switching hosts in 2010 and all of the pictures are lost.

If you take the time to send them to me, I won't mind re-uploading them. cool.gif
ChuckZ is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

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