Originally Posted by What'sHD
Amir, it was actually 2 of your posts in the Insiders' thread
that conveyed to me and others that PQ was not the reason for MPEG2 being chosen by Paramount (see here
for 2 such posts of yours).
Did I misunderstand your posts? Here is my post in reply to which you said that an assumption of mine is wrong:
"Based on the insider thread info, Paramount chose mpeg2 for the BD title for reasons besides PQ. I would have thought that since Paramount was willing to spend the money on two separate encodes, BDA could have requested for a max bitrate VC1 encode to demo the advantage of higher bitrate."
To re-iterate, you said in the Insiders thread (or I understood you to have said) that PQ was not the reason (see above 2 links).
Now, when I wrote as much in this thread, you say no insider explained dealings with Paramount. Besides PQ, the other "assumption" of mine in the quoted post is that of financial incentives.
That is actually based on insider info from Penton-man. Check here
for a post by Penton on the subject of absence of financial incentives for Paramount to use MPEG2. Penton also mentioned that Paramount was motivated by PQ. One of you is incorrect..
Other insiders reading this (including Penton and Paidgeek): Did Paramount choose MPEg2 for PQ or not for PQ? An honest query
I found your post very interesting in that I think it's educational in a number of ways.
We have a question here about Paramount and why they chose to release an HD-DVD VC1 encoded title with Mpeg2 when shipping the BD-50 version. I would think this would seem odd to everyone. After you've already spent the time and effort to do the VC1 encode, why go back and do it all over again with a different codec for the BD release?
So the question gets posed, and the responses come.Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Or perhaps Paramount felt that the MPEG2 encode was more faithful to the source and used it by choice rather than the VC1 stream for the HD DVD? I just want to know.
The response from Amir.......I can't disclose the real reason but I can assure you that this is not the reason.Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
It seems a very odd move to release simultaneous BD/HD DVD at this time with different video encodes.
The response from Amir.......Given public facts, I agree it seems odd. But given the non-public facts, it is not as much.Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Or perhaps Paramount felt that the MPEG2 encode was more faithful to the source and used it by choice rather than the VC1 stream for the HD DVD? I just want to know. It seems a very odd move to release simultaneous BD/HD DVD at this time with different video encodes.
The response from Penton-Man........Paramount had to pay to have the MPEG2 stream encoded when they could have chosen to recycle the VC1 stream and reduce costs.
They were not incentivized in any way to use MPEG2; other than to achieve what they believed to be the best picture quality possible with this title.
So we seem to have conflicting statements from two sources. In a situation like this I believe it's always best to sit back and review what we know.
1. Paramount must have had some reason for going out of their way to do this.
2. If Paramounts motive was to produce a better looking movie for Blu-Ray (as Penton-Man implies), the effort was not successful (comments in the review describe the BD version looking a little coarser, but ultimately calling it a draw between formats).
3. Amir is saying that the decision was not made based on Paramounts belief that MPEG2 would be more faithful to the source. If Amir is correct, then there are no surprises for Paramount in the reviews of the finished product.
4. We know Amir is an insider because he is open about who he is and what he does. He's a supporter of VC1 and HD-DVD technologies because he is involved with their development, and benefits from their success. The statements he makes are publicly attributable to Amir Majidimehr Corporate Vice President, Consumer Media Technology Group, Microsoft.
5. We know Penton-Man is an insider because the Mods vouch for him as one. Statements he makes are publicly attributable to Penton-Man.
It's up to each of us to figure out what the significance is of the information we have.