enough is enough. Please stop the profanity or take your attitude to the newsgroups.
I have read your comments about MPEG2 bitrate on this and the various other superbit threads here. You keep on calling others 'clowns' (Savageone79 on the other thread, now the folks at Widescreen Review) and insult their equipment and opinions.
Some quotes from you:
|Fixing the bitrate at 7 megabits for video will, without a doubt, produce a remarkable difference in picture quality and should be easily noticable. Anybody who understands how MPEG works will know this.
A fixed bitrate is probably the dumbest thing you can do to a MPEG stream. You are wasting bits where you don't need them and don't have peaking capabilities where you need them.
|Even during a static scene, even when those of you would cry foul about "wasted bits", the bits are not wasted. The encoder simply uses all the available bitspace to encode the image. This will result in much less artifacting, better color quality in low contrast scenes, less pixilization, etc. etc.
Trust me guys, this is a good thing.
Nonsense, like Savageone79 said in the another thread, there is a point of diminishing returns bitrate wise at every frame of the stream (I,B or P frame). Above that more bitrate is a waste of space.
|You'll love it, trust me. That clown who so brazenly told me I am "wrong" for stating (the fact) that these SuperBit discs will look better simply do not understand.
From his post, it seemed like this 'clown' Savageone79 knows more about MPEG than you do.
|I've seen MPEG comparisons at the bitrates in question... hands down: higher fixed rate is always better than lower VBR.
Of course 7Mbit constant will look better than 3-6 (4.5 average), doh! Thats comparing apples to oranges. To be fair you would have to compare 2 streams with the same average bitrate. 5-9 variable (7 average) would certainly look better than 7 constant.
A fixed bitrate simply is stupid. Who said that the superbit DVDs are going to have a fixed bitrate anyway? Higher average yes, but fixed? If a movie is so short that you can max out your bitrate all the time, thats a different story.
While i agree that a higher bitrate won't make the picture worse, i don't agree at all that increasing the bitrate alone would increase the picture quality marginally on most of today DVDs.
The most prominent problems with todays transfers are:
a) edge enhancement
b) black level detail, contrast and shadow delineation
e) correct color temperature and saturation
f) MPEG artefacts
g) print flaws
Higher bitrate can't help with a), b), c), e) and g).
f) is only a problem if detail or noise is too much for a given bitrate. A very detailed AND noisy transfer needs quite a high bitrate. Very detailed but noisefree transfers like Gladiator, Braveheart or Rules don't.
Columbia/Sony transfer weaknesses are typically in the a), b) and c) areas. MPEG artefacting is the one area where CTHV has excelled since 1997 with only a few exceptions. So simply increasing the bitrate on the same transfer would do NOTHING to their transfers.
What they could do, however, is 1) filtering the picture a little less, thus revealing a bit more detail, and 2) using less digital noise reduction. Then they could use the higher bitrate to compensate for any slight MPEG artefacting that might occur with the higher detail/noise visible.
Then use no EE, pay attention to black detail and contrast and bingo, you have a killer tranfer like the other studios put out constantly without calling it superbit.
Warner should call their 'Pledge' transfer MEGABIT http://www.avsforum.com/ubb/smile.gif
"Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity" (Bullet Tooth Tony in 'Snatch')My HT in action (Screenshot Page)
| My Ultimate 'Edge Enhancement' Guide
| My DVD/LD SPL page