King Kong comparison *PIX* - Page 4

That's the difference I noticed too. I agree that it does look better. Kind of looks like they mastered the two at different color temps.

When it doesn't look like DNR for sure, which is the case here, it's the VC-1 codec.

I'm telling you(not you specifically KMF) unless it's a high bitrate VC-1 encode it just doesn't get along with Blu-ray. Not slamming VC-1, but you got to give it room to breathe on BD. To prove my point I present the case of the Uni BD that's shown biggest improvement, so to speak, from it's HD-DVD counterpart - Miami Vice. According to the specs thread it has a bitrate around 30Mbps, more than 16. If Bourne doesn't follow this same pattern, I'll eat a tiny hat. Since Bourne has a highbitrate, if no DNR is used, I'm betting it will look non DNR-ish.

BTW - does Universal have two separate teams one for catalogs and one for day and date titles. Every single catalog is VC-1 and new releases are AVC? I just think that's weird, that's all...

Here's my theory on what went on- some hot shot encoder dude made a bet that he could best the result that was achieved by the MS team the first time around. So he set out to duplicate the relative quality as best as he could at a whopping 150 Kb/s less than the hdvd version. While the 2 encodes may not be utterly identical frame for frame, it's plausible that the goal was to make them as close to identical as possible, short of simply using the older encode.

Alternately, maybe it was the same encoder guy between these 2 versions, but his thought was that he could squeeze another 150 Kb/s out of the encode if he just tweaks a few more things this time around.

no, of course, I was referring to Mr. Corwin's post directly above my own. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

So, that leaves me with the Kong Production diaries, the SD set, the HD DVD set, and now I guess the new BD.

Wacky.

Damn, you figured me out. I'll try not to be such a hot shot next time.

I think it looks great, but my concern is that it could look even better, and they didn't take advantage of that...

VERY nice turn!

Sorry, I was trying to make a joke. I don't think it went very well however.

If the still is exactly the same shot and same frame on both then why would there be a different grain pattern ?

I looked at it again and i still think the Blu Ray has had some very minor DNR work done to that scene because the grain is fine on the HD DVD shot yet shows tell tale signs of minor degraining on the Blu Ray shot. It's the backgrounds i'm looking at when i make that assessment.

Not saying it makes the Blu Ray bad but i'm just disagreeing with you about that shot of Naomi's face. I may be very wrong but i gotta go with my gut instinct here.

I'm sure the actual film when in motion looks just fine though.

Different source materials?

But the way they are encoded can affect the minor differences we are seeing in grain pattern and sharpness. As I said before, the encode seems to favor the BD on fast moving scenes, but the HD DVD on slowing moving scenes. I too don't see any DNR in this case, nor does it make sense to me they would do just a very light DNR in that particular shot.

Thanks for the comparison shots, Xylon. Especially with how early you have them up - I'll feel a lot better about picking this one up next week knowing how it turned out.

I don't know but to me the the BD looks a little sharper in a couple of shots. However I can see slightly more grain in some of the HDDVD shots. But I agree with the notion that it's just a different grain pattern and that the colors are slightly of lower saturation on the BD version. Both look excellent and IMO is all down to a different encode. Both look great IMHO.

Because it is a different encode. Every single time there is a difference, you call DNR.

Xylon,

Thanks for the confirmation. I hope the members who were worried about DNR will now calm down and accept the facts. Unlike eric.exe, you seem to have chosen some peculiar frames for comparison.

Personally I think it's just lousy vc-1 encoding that looks like dnr.

Now that all the shots are up, I still say its a draw overall between the two. Both look slightly dif from eachother in some shots, and some shots I simply cant see any dif between the two, but both look fantastic and it is too close to declare a "winner" IMO.

I'm glad Xylon chose different frames. It would be repetitive to use similar frames that eric used.

First, thanks to Xylon for the grabs. Excellent work as always.

My first reaction was that the BD had very slight DNR, but after looking at the shots, you can clearly tell that while the video frames are spot on, the film grain indicates otherwise.


+1

Why are studios still leaving space on their BD50 releases? Can't they figure out how much room the extras & sound tracks are going to take and then use the remaining space for a nice high bit rate encode? Is there some technical or quality problem that we don't know about that's making the studios hold back?

Either way I'll rent this so I can be the judge on how it looks and sounds on my own setup.

I'm glad people are actually coming to the sensible conclusion here - two different passes of the a compression algorithm are producing different sets of compression "errors" (or rather, loss of information) - I saw equal numbers of frames that looked better in the HD-DVD as I did the Blu-Ray. And bits within the same frame that looked better on one and other bits that looked better on the other!

Theoretically the Blu-Ray should win out, but who knows, since we don't know that what encoding settings they used for the HD-DVD's VC-1 pass, versus those for the Blu-Ray's. Heck, they could have used different versions of the encoder, period!

They look equally good, theoretically the Blu-Ray a bit better but not comparably so - enough said!

Sometimes it seems like their minds already are set. Where are their lust for adventure? I want the studios to explore the wast spaces. To boldly go where.....well you know...

You are absolutely correct, good as it can be is not something that is defined as it pertains to putting a movie on a disc. However, I do believe that it only serves to hurt us as discerning consumers when we in any way accept what is given to us simply because it is better than what we've had previously.

What I expect is that studios put movies out on Blu Ray in the most faithful way to the master or director's intent as possible by utilizing technology to the fullest extent possible. Nothing more, nothing less. I have no need for DNR, EE, or anything else that would in any way take away from the A/V experience the disc is capable of putting out.

Not that this disc is the victim of such tampering, I mean in general.

Ha, ha! Way too just post anything you want under my quote.
Did you not see my posts title???
"Off Topic"
Did you not see my post 1st sentence???
"no pics yet"
How in the world did you think I was speaking off the PQ or amount of DNR on these titles when there had been no pics yet & the title was off topic???

Well, if we just get too make up stuff about what someone did or didn't post...
here's what I'm posting about you:



Awesome. You think "Patton" looks GREAT!!!

That's a great thread!
Wish it was a sticky in all the HD software forums.
Was just asking him if he'd be willing too do one as well.
Maybe from worst too least DNR. Although I like your alphabetical listing as well.

Thanks for the captures Xylon - sticking with my HD DVD.