Quote:
Originally Posted by Alkaline 
In short, not at all. Based on what I've read it seems to fall between MPEG-2 and AVC as far as efficiency (closer to AVC). So in a "complex" or high grain/noise scenario, VC-1 would probably need a slightly higher bitrate than AVC to look just as good, all other factors/settings equal. Likewise on such material at an equal bitrate, VC-1 may look slightly weaker/not resolve everything as well in an A/B comparison (other times no difference, depending on the material). This is, again, what I've been led to believe just doing some reading around. It's not the codec at fault here - it's the dated master and mediocre bitrate. Even MPEG-2 can look superb in HD. All three can look top notch with quality source material + quality encode, but things are apparently "easiest" for AVC.

In short, not at all. Based on what I've read it seems to fall between MPEG-2 and AVC as far as efficiency (closer to AVC). So in a "complex" or high grain/noise scenario, VC-1 would probably need a slightly higher bitrate than AVC to look just as good, all other factors/settings equal. Likewise on such material at an equal bitrate, VC-1 may look slightly weaker/not resolve everything as well in an A/B comparison (other times no difference, depending on the material). This is, again, what I've been led to believe just doing some reading around. It's not the codec at fault here - it's the dated master and mediocre bitrate. Even MPEG-2 can look superb in HD. All three can look top notch with quality source material + quality encode, but things are apparently "easiest" for AVC.
Interesting...thanx for that.
















?

