or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Warner promo vs Blade Runner / 300 / V for Vendetta comparison PIX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Warner promo vs Blade Runner / 300 / V for Vendetta comparison PIX - Page 2

post #31 of 57
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
post #32 of 57
Here is the Vendetta spread (not really sure how to comment on this):




LL
LL
post #33 of 57
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.
post #34 of 57
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.
post #35 of 57
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.
post #36 of 57
for most titles??
post #37 of 57
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.
post #38 of 57
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?
post #39 of 57
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.
post #40 of 57
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.
post #41 of 57
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.
post #42 of 57
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.
post #43 of 57
At least Casino Royale had a very good video encode to begin with, something that cannot be said about 300.
post #44 of 57
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.
post #45 of 57
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.
post #46 of 57
wuther,

you missed the point entirely.
post #47 of 57
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.
post #48 of 57
Thread Starter 
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.
Edited by msgohan - 12/27/12 at 6:56pm
post #49 of 57
Thanks msgohan but the pics appear only as a thumbnail and doesn't get enlarged. confused.gif
post #50 of 57
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.
post #51 of 57
Thread Starter 
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
Edited by msgohan - 12/26/12 at 11:11pm
post #52 of 57
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.
post #53 of 57
30:04~30:07
1:55:36~1:55:41
post #54 of 57
Thread Starter 
Err, I had those two close enough for my purposes. It's the other two I need still!
post #55 of 57
Sorry mate. Will try to get you the time codes this weekend.frown.gif
post #56 of 57
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).
post #57 of 57
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Warner promo vs Blade Runner / 300 / V for Vendetta comparison PIX