or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Watchmen - Warner (DC) vs Paramount (TC) Blu-ray comparison PIX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Watchmen - Warner (DC) vs Paramount (TC) Blu-ray comparison PIX - Page 2

post #31 of 142
This and the ‘Blade Runner / 300 / V For Vendetta’ comparison thread remind me of the format war days, back when Amir & Co. were feeding us that crap about transparent low VC-1 bit-rate encodes (specially WB stuff).

Now, the apologetic crowd is calling us sick people, with OCD and stuff. I gotta laugh at these things.



BTW, does anyone wanna bet Sony’s international version of Terminator Salvation is going to surpass US WB version again?
post #32 of 142
Warner did low bitrate vc-1 encodes so they could fit them on 30 gb hd dvd. They just re-cycled them for blu-ray. If compression artifacts are to be gotten rid of, they need to do encodes at 20 mbps or more. They should have done this with Watchmen.
post #33 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

Isn't everything in that frame CGI? There's tons of little particles floating around in a lot of the Dr. Manhattan scenes.
These are my own caps taken from plenty of high-motion periods.

Possibly. Would have to recheck the scene. But on the frame it looks like typical dust.
post #34 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by S-Blu View Post

Warner did low bitrate vc-1 encodes so they could fit them on 30 gb hd dvd. They just re-cycled them for blu-ray. If compression artifacts are to be gotten rid of, they need to do encodes at 20 mbps or more. They should have done this with Watchmen.

Actually it's worse than that.

Back in the HD DVD vs. Blu-ray Disc hey-day, Warner subscribed to a "least common denominator" approach to encoding for both formats:

1) They limited themselves to 25 GB, as most of their releases were for single-layer Blu-ray Discs (this didn't really impact HD DVD too badly since they usually included lossless audio on the HD DVD, while leaving the Blu-ray with lossy Dolby Digital).
2) They limited themselves to the max bitrates of HD DVD.

It's not clear to me if they've ever turned off their "least common denominator" encoding system. I'd hoped they'd do it with The Dark Knight, but it doesn't seem that they have even with Watchmen.
post #35 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

Possibly. Would have to recheck the scene. But on the frame it looks like typical dust.

Sorry, I wasn't clear at all. It's definitely just the particles that are meant to be there and float around throughout the scene. The DI is pretty much flawless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

It's not clear to me if they've ever turned off their "least common denominator" encoding system. I'd hoped they'd do it with The Dark Knight, but it doesn't seem that they have even with Watchmen.

Well both are on BD-50 discs and use more than HD DVD bandwidth, though the Paramount does peak higher I think. The Warner disc is limited by the PiP used for the Maximum Movie Mode, and the average bitrate also can't be as high due to using the longer cut of course. But this isn't a "lowest common denominator" encode of yesteryear.

They could have increased it by around 5Mbps if they filled up the disc without changing anything else. I'm guessing they want the breathing room so they can reuse the encode for the Ultimate edition or whatever.
post #36 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkedgex View Post

2) They limited themselves to the max bitrates of HD DVD.

It is worth noting that they were typically well under those limits, as well.
post #37 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by S-Blu View Post

Warner did low bitrate vc-1 encodes so they could fit them on 30 gb hd dvd. They just re-cycled them for blu-ray. If compression artifacts are to be gotten rid of, they need to do encodes at 20 mbps or more. They should have done this with Watchmen.

Funny how quickly people have forgotten about BD25 or even HD15. I guess if the bitrate is high it must be DNR and if the bitrate is low, blame the lack of bits. And if all else fails, blame VC-1 and the other format.
post #38 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCrawn View Post

Funny how quickly people have forgotten about BD25 or even HD15. I guess if the bitrate is high it must be DNR and if the bitrate is low, blame the lack of bits. And if all else fails, blame VC-1 and the other format.

Was there ever an HD15 release for a feature length film?
post #39 of 142
Thread Starter 
Yes, several. The HD DVD specs list shows the following are all under HD DVD-15 disc size:

An American Werewolf in London
Animal House
The Ant Bully
Army of Darkness
The Breakfast Club
Dazed and Confused
District B13
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)
(EU) Lady in the Water
Land of the Dead: Director's Cut
(EU) Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
Out for Justice
The Polar Express
The Scorpion King
A Scanner Darkly
Slither (2006)
Smokey and the Bandit
Timecop

Note that A Scanner Darkly is actually a dual layer disc despite fitting under the single layer size limit.
post #40 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBC View Post

This and the Blade Runner / 300 / V For Vendetta' comparison thread remind me of the format war days, back when Amir & Co. were feeding us that crap about transparent low VC-1 bit-rate encodes (specially WB stuff).

Now, the apologetic crowd is calling us sick people, with OCD and stuff. I gotta laugh at these things.



BTW, does anyone wanna bet Sony's international version of Terminator Salvation is going to surpass US WB version again?

It's transparent if you have no source frame (or better encode) to compare to

Both version look good, but UK version shows that it can look better. You need a big screen to see difference in motion, but you will see it.

Andrew
post #41 of 142
If spending 72bucks on a decent T2 Blu Ray taught me anything, its that VC1 is the worst attack on the moving picture since Pan/ Scan and the MPAA combined!!!!!
post #42 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

If spending 72bucks on a decent T2 Blu Ray taught me anything, its that VC1 is the worst attack on the moving picture since Pan/ Scan and the MPAA combined!!!!!

So you claim everything on VC1 is bad and everything on AVC (or whatever) is good?
post #43 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

If spending 72bucks on a decent T2 Blu Ray taught me anything, its that VC1 is the worst attack on the moving picture since Pan/ Scan and the MPAA combined!!!!!

Are you serious? It's a modern video codec. I've seen good looking MPEG2 discs and VC1 is FAR more advanced.
post #44 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

If spending 72bucks on a decent T2 Blu Ray taught me anything, its that VC1 is the worst attack on the moving picture since Pan/ Scan and the MPAA combined!!!!!

Sorry, but that is pure ignorance.

If you're going to post such nonsense at least try to back it up.
post #45 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

They could have increased it by around 5Mbps if they filled up the disc without changing anything else. I'm guessing they want the breathing room so they can reuse the encode for the Ultimate edition or whatever.

That is my guess as well, that someone at Warner has decided in advance that certain properties need as much bandwidth as possible for extras, and let the video encode suffer as it may. Other studios appear to do the same thing, but they are much more selective with this practice.
post #46 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckZ View Post

Sorry, but that is pure ignorance.

If you're going to post such nonsense at least try to back it up.

T2 is one of the greatest films ever made.
Perhaps the definitive boys adventure film, Vc1 on Skynet Edition isn't as good as AVC on the Geneon Premium Edition. Anything that degrades T2 is an abomination. Thus- VC1 is one of the worst things ever.
Everybody on AVS hates VC1 as well, this thread is essentially devoted to it.
post #47 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

Vc1 on Skynet Edition isn't as good as AVC on the Geneon Premium Edition. Anything that degrades T2 is an abomination. Thus- VC1 is one of the worst things ever.

So I will ask again, do you claim everything on VC1 is bad and everything on AVC (or whatever) is good?

Quote:


Everybody on AVS hates VC1 as well, this thread is essentially devoted to it.

Funny, I thought people on AVS loved movies rather then codecs or even, dare I say it, video formats.
post #48 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

T2 is one of the greatest films ever made.
Perhaps the definitive boys adventure film, Vc1 on Skynet Edition isn't as good as AVC on the Geneon Premium Edition. Anything that degrades T2 is an abomination. Thus- VC1 is one of the worst things ever.

Yet, the French/UK HD DVD is VC-1 and it is quite possibly the best transfer of the film out there.

You logic is along the lines of *insert dictator here* had a mustache, *insert dictator here* was evil, therefore, mustaches are evil.
post #49 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitestang06 View Post

Yet, the French/UK HD DVD is VC-1 and it is quite possibly the best transfer of the film out there.

Sheesh, and I thought that was the one he was talking about.
post #50 of 142
High bitrate encode of ANY codec = Good
Low starved bitrate encode of ANY codec = Bad
post #51 of 142
The Skynet T2 release was DNRed before the encode even took place.
post #52 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Banana View Post

The differences on mouseover 13 are quite pronounced. The actor's left eyebrow and right upper lip are far more detailed in the UK edition.

I think the differences must be to do with the VC-1 implementation that Warner is using. Shame RDjam no longer posts here much as he was very much the go-to man for VC-1 info.

There is only one main implementation of VC-1 codec used by professional studios. There is nothing wrong with it and also with US Watchmen version. It's quite low bitrate encode and that's all. UK version uses highier bitrate (for me on the proper level) and difference is visible- mutch better high frequencies retention (as expected). There are some interesting things about these encodes:
- encoders spread data slightly different- AVC puts much more to I frames when VC-1 to B frames (encoding settings)- this makes VC-1 encode look "better" in static frames, but in motion good quality I frames are more important, as long as there is no visible "pumping effect" (to bad quality B frames in compare to I frames),
- AVC encode has quite small B frames, but even so they are still better quality then VC-1 ones (very visible on the frist frame),
- frames 19 (I frame for VC-1 and B frame for AVC) shows that you should try to compare the same type of frames as I frames are always better quality than B ones- US looks not lot, but still sharper,
- frame 13 shows big difference, becuase both encodes are B frame+AVC is bigger,
- the biggest difference is probably visible on the 3rd frame, becuase AVC is I one and VC-1 is B,
- frame 12 is interesting- even if AVC one is much smaller still VC-1 looks way less detailed- does it prove that AVC is more efficient???


There is nothing wrong with US version- just to low average bitrate, to achieve good transparency. It would be nice to have source frames- than people would see how much is removed during encode The difference between source and AVC would be probably about the same as between these 2 versions.


Andrew
post #53 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

T2 is one of the greatest films ever made.
Perhaps the definitive boys adventure film, Vc1 on Skynet Edition isn't as good as AVC on the Geneon Premium Edition. Anything that degrades T2 is an abomination. Thus- VC1 is one of the worst things ever.
Everybody on AVS hates VC1 as well, this thread is essentially devoted to it.

Sweet Jesus...
post #54 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by raoul_duke View Post

Sweet Jesus...

What's a matter? You joined AVS for the codecs right?
post #55 of 142
I joined for the blue blazer and bubble pipe.
post #56 of 142
for most of the shots the difference is small bordering on OCD level nitpicking though i can see how someone with a triple digit screen size would easily appreciate the higher bitrate version

but let's face it warner got within 3GB of the full space of a BD50 and at best they might have been able to squeeze a couple more Mbps out of the encode (which wouldn't have made much difference anyway)
post #57 of 142
Thread Starter 
Paramount's disc is the one that's 3GB short. Warner's disc is 42,729,422,944 bytes.
post #58 of 142
So what are we looking at here, im just curious. Is the bitrate resolving more detail somehow? Did the u.s. have slight dnr, does the uk have more grain?


Also im just curious to those that watched both, and if i could get a god honest answer with no agenda's. Can you really see the difference during the movies? If they are noticeable i do upgrade. But i dont wish to upgrade if you cant really tell a difference while watching them. And if you did what was the difference between them. More grain in one? Sharper image? More 3d?
post #59 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murilo View Post

So what are we looking at here, im just curious. Is the bitrate resolving more detail somehow? Did the u.s. have slight dnr, does the uk have more grain?


Also im just curious to those that watched both, and if i could get a god honest answer with no agenda's. Can you really see the difference during the movies? If they are noticeable i do upgrade. But i dont wish to upgrade if you cant really tell a difference while watching them. And if you did what was the difference between them. More grain in one? Sharper image? More 3d?

If you have one version already there is no point to upgrade.
You should see the difference (mostly in sharpnes, clarity, grain look), but only on a good big screen 50 or better 60inch one.
You also should see it easier if you watch them simultaneously- eye adopts realy quickly to the motion picture.


Andrew
post #60 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by msgohan View Post

Something happened to the horizontal resolution of Paramount's master. They both have lines as fine as one pixel high, but the Warner version also has lines that are only one pixel across. These are averaged out in the Paramount version, losing the incredibly tiny details. I guess they used different resize settings to prevent aliasing? (see image #17, the computer screen)

MovieSwede, AlexBC, and Andrew_HD have been discussing this in the big Watchmen discussion thread. Come back to the PIX thread if you want to discuss single-pixel details guys.





Note the incredibly slight ringing on the second Paramount image. Also the fact that Warner's resize appears to cause false color patterns in the computer screen.

Anyone know whether the DI is 2k or 4k?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Watchmen - Warner (DC) vs Paramount (TC) Blu-ray comparison PIX