Home Theater Spot on VC-1...  

Only the two other people who watch this trash movie could ever test the veracity of his opinion.

it's contradictory to everything certain AVS members would have you believe, those that have been around and viewed HD films for a long time know the capability of Mpeg2 and it is no different or lower quality than any other, it just takes more space to get things done

this VC1 is better than Mpeg2 quality is nothing but newbie ignorance or misunderstanding

VC1 also seems to be fixated on lowering bitrates, which is not a good thing, ideally Mpeg2 is perfection at 25 Mbps, VC1 I would like to see 18 Mbps or better

all that matters is that in the end we don't want to end up with Directv on a disc

-Gary

Reading through that forum thoughout the year I have noticed that Chad likes to swing towards the BRD side of things but everyone is entitled to their opinions and like most things in life I take reviews with a grain of salt until I get a chance to see the movie on my setup. I have never seen any of the issues he states with VC1 but my TV is a 65" RP CRT.

I for one find this very insulting. Anyway the only reason VC1 got added to HD-DVDand Blu-Ray specs is that it proved it self better in blind tests.

That's exactly how I feel. Everyone has their opinion, and each person's opinion is shaped by the setup they use and their pre-conceived notions/biases going into each viewing.

For example, he gave Enemy of the State a perfect score for audio. I personally thought that it was a little above the average Blu-Ray soundtrack in terms of what I expected. Who knows how much of his opinion was determined by the soundtrack being 48/24 PCM. Simply seeing that audio spec probably determined his score for the most part.

This 18-Mbps-is-required-to-get-good-VC-1 is nothing but newbie ignorance or misunderstanding.

Anybody who wants to put one format or encoding method against another when either one is capable of giving exceptional video is hurting more than helping us get more hidef DVD content.

larry

Gary, do you have some expert video codec design expertise? Those titles like BB and KK which are way below that bitrate needed video quality improvements? Do you have timestamps for their artifacts caused by low video codec bitrates (13 to 15 Mbps)? The VC-1 encoding third pass (with all the goodie tools) for compressionists to do their thing does not work?

did I not say perfection and ideally, do you need a dictionary, nothing is ever perfection, I am slammed for the br side of my comment, why not HD, I said Mpeg2 is ideal at 25 Mbps or so, but I have said many BR titles at less than 20 Mbps are good, the same goes for VC1, many that are less than 18 or so are great, I am just stating what I personally would like to see, which means nothing in the grand scheme because it is just my opinion

I have been in the HD movie game for a long time, anyone who seriously thinks that VC1 looks better than Mpeg2 (both at ideal bitrates) is not worth commenting on, I won't even go there because it is so ignorant

-Gary

do I need to put in my signature that I am a fan of both formats and that I prefer HD-DVD, I guess I do

I am not a monger of either format, all I care about is film picture quality, mpeg2, VC1 and mpeg4 all get that right, if done properly

-Gary

I don't think the review is at all unreasonable. I haven't seen the film (either in a theatre or on disk) but some of the comments resonate with my opinions.

A well-done MPEG2 title seems to look more film-like, while VC-1 can look somewhat artificial, with very clean but overly bland areas.

In a way, I think the "HD aesthetic" (to coin a phrase) may be headed more in the direction of VC-1, with people turning away from a film look more to a processed-video appearance.

However, both can still do an excellent job.

I don't think most people claim that VC1 looks better than mpeg 2 just that it can look as good as mpeg but at significantly lower bitrates.. that in itself is worth using. It frees up space for better audio,extras, and fewer multi disc sets. The whole point of using advanced codecs is to reduce the space needed to give the same quality of older codecs.

The whole point of VC-1 was to deliver video that was transparent to the master at lower bitrates than MPEG2. No one is claiming that MPEG2 can't produce results that are equal, just that it will take much more bandwidth to do it.

So what's the point of some reviewer saying that VC-1 looks inferior to MPEG2? Based on what? You won't see MPEG2 and VC1 encodes of same titles running at identical bitrates, so in that case any insinuation of VC1 inferiority or viral-marketing-placebo-effect reveals a bias against VC1 for reasons not related to actual CODEC performance.

At best, BR will give you ~50GIG of space to encode your MPEG2 video. Now then, are you really going to be able to crank the MPEG2 bitrates high enough within that space to create a better image than what you can do with VC1 in a 30GIG space? Not so far.

I think any hate for VC1 stems from a format bias against HD-DVD. There is nothing wrong with MPEG2, it's just not as efficient, and I don't think it's going to be practical from a bandwidth standpoint to get the best overall results out of either format compared to VC1.

Can MPEG2 look as good, yes. Do we have the space available on either format for high enough bitrates to facilitate that? Not if you want top notch video, audio, and lots of extras too.

EDIT: took too long to post... savageone just said it much more succinctly.

Can't you guys read what the reviewer above is stating. He implicitly states that mpeg2 is inferior by virtue of its dependence on size:. MPEG2 releases like this lend strength to their claim that less compressed still is better if disc space can support it. Less space less efficient is mpeg2 compression.

Why is the BD movie review here .. let me guess. To stir the pot ?

First off, as recently as a few months ago, Gary was flaming me for suggesting that Blu-ray could ever look as good as HD-DVD, and that no PS3 user would ever watch a Blu-ray disc since real movie watchers don't watch movies on game consoles. Bear that in mind when reading his comments.

To the point, this compression codec nonsense is just that: nonsense. AVC, VC-1 and MPEG2 all have the ability to deliver stunning 1080p picture with no noticeable noise. This "less compressed is better" business is true for all codecs, not just MPEG2. VC-1 at 40Mbps compared to AVC at 40Mbps compared to MPEG2 at 40Mbps will all probably look the same. If the disc space is available (a la a BD-50), then releasing in MPEG2 is hardly a problem.

I am really stunned at this constant "if it isn't in VC-1 and DD+ it's not good enough" idiocy. Movies should be judged on their look and sound... the codecs used are incidental. If a movie looks bad, then you can say things like, "Had they used AVC or VC-1 on this BD-25 release, the picture may have been improved given the space constraints", but saying things like "This movie at MPEG2 on BD50 proves MPEG2 is still the best at high rates" is idiotic given the same film in VC-1 at the same rate would have looked.............. the same.

Kudos to "HPForMe" for at least coming most of the way to the point - but the real issue is that MPEG2 is not 'inferior' to VC-1 if given appropriate bandwidth. Under the right conditions both can create an identical picture.

People should really focus their anger at the real problem when it comes to bad picture quality: the studios. The fact that Talladega Nights looks awful despite being on a BD50 disc with tons of bandwidth isn't because it's in MPEG2 - it's just a bad encode of a bad print. Conversely, King Kong doesn't look great on HD-DVD 30 because it's in VC-1 - it's just an excellent encode of an excellent print.

You could do a BD-50 MPEG2 encode of KK that looked just as good, I'm sure.

Of course, all of this is extremely simplified and doesn't take into account the 'compressibility' of content. Some content compresses well. Some content doesn't. Check out Ice Age 2 on Blu-ray. It's not -amazing-, but it's pretty darn good and it's BD-25 MPEG2. The reason it looks as good as it does is because content wise, it's easier to compress than a grainy, live-action film.

People keep trying to crunch all of this BD vs. HD and MPEG2 vs. VC-1 stuff down into these oversimplified half correct arguments and it's just not constructive.

the one BD I did like was Underworld 2 - mpeg2, very good encode, still holding one to it in case I get 'rayed' in the near future. Chronos looked very very good in Mpeg2 and 1080i. mpeg2 can look very exceptional, just as VC-1. But I have yet to detect any real differences in tone or feel in terms of PQ

good post. that's basically the reasoning behind VC-1, and it's not unwarranted.

Yea the reviewer is drawing conclusions from things that logically should not allow one to draw those conclusions.

As has been said, no one is saying VC 1 is better but that it can result is images equal to MPEG2 at significantly lower bit rates. None the less ,seeing a title that only exists in MPEG 2 then saying it's better then VC1 is simply ignorant.

Art

How many threads are we going to have here on the same damn subject(s) ? It's almost as if there are only "Best Buy bla-bla-bla", "MPEG2 vs VC1 bla-bla-bla" these days...

This thread only serves one purpose : to try to discredit VC-1 and to get HD-DVD supporters to argue. I guess the OP was successful.

No offense Gary, but what's just as ignorant is assuming that higher bitrate = higher quality. Not a given by ANY means. That being said, I agree with you. The source, the authoring software, and the compressionist using it are much more important in determining the quality of the end product than the codec or bitrate being used. This is the bottom line, but one of the problems with MPEG-2 is that it's been around forever and there are some questionable software tools out there for it. Just look at the state of SD DVD transfers (MPEG-2 one and all) here in 2007. There is simply NO REASON that every single major SD DVD release produced over the past 5-6 years couldn't be representative of the very best that the technology can offer. Instead we consider ourselves lucky when we get a reference disc. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when you sit down and think about it.

it's a shame I agree with the rest of your post

thanks for taking my past comments out of context, 1) I apologized that I trashed BR and it's fanboys because I was flat out wrong, my viewing of the format up until that time had NOT been on my own system 2) the PS3 had little or no impact on software sales if you can believe a few news stories posted here and there, PS3's aren't being sold to playback BR movies, that is for certain(AVS members would disagree, but so would any niche inside of a niche)

-Gary

Maybe VC-1 and AVC are too processor intensive to decode at 25MB/s. That could be why noone is using it that high.

And because players CAN decode MPEG at that bitrate and the software is mature and cheap, its just easier.

I have something to that nature in my signature, but some fanboys still fail to comprehend.

Unfortunately certain fanboys here have no understanding of supporting both formats and evaluating them objectively.

or because codecs are relevant to both formats?

Wow. I am facinated by the stuff you have been coming up with lately. VC-1 is BY FAR a superior codec. No question. And this is why:


See, we ARE limited by space contraints. Therefore, we need the most advanced codec. Hey, lets just release everything on 1TB hard discs RAW. It's better than ALL the codecs available!

Take a 2.5 hour movie. Let's say action. You have 18GB (we are saving 12GB for extras and audio - all the same) to do it. MPEG-2 vs VC-1. There is NO DOUBT the VC-1 will look better. Period. You can have the same compressionist at the dial and the VC-1 encode will look better.

Even flipping to the BR side. Leave 12GB for audio and extras. Even with 38GB, you are still looking at a superior transfer. Better yet, you can lower the bitrate of the VC-1 encode and get an identical transfer to the MPEG-2 one and have ROOM FOR MORE STUFF.

I really don't understand how it can get clearer here. If you can get an IDENTICAL TRANSFER between the two and one comes out 20GB and the other comes out 35GB how is the one that creates smaller file not superior?

I would disagree.

First of all, anecdotal evidence from here at AVSForum suggests most people are using their PlayStation 3's -primarily- for Blu-ray playback, given the lack of games.

Also, the numbers to really back up the PS3's impact on BD disc sales aren't available yet, given many PS3's were probably X-mas gifts. Let's see what the stats say in a month.

That said, more anecdotal evidence from retailers suggests that -lately-, BD has been selling as well as HD-DVD. That didn't just happen for no reason.

Time will tell, but I think that unlike the PS2 with DVD (which was no cheaper than DVD players at the time - indeed, it was more expensive when it was released), the PS3 is being seen by a lot of people as 'their first Blu-ray player', given it's price compared to other BD players.

Some of you really need to lighten up. Sheesh, you'd think you work for Microsoft taking a simple observation so personally. In the review I'm not saying MPEG2 is better than VC1. Though, it is less compressed and been around a lot longer, so it's had more time to be refined. Whether you want to believe it or not, VC1 and AVC are still working out some of the kinks.

Art, the word you're looking for is arrogant, not ignorant. And I didn't make an emphatic statement. You just arrogantly interpreted it that way.

As for bias, there's all kinds. There's the blind bias of people that have invested in only one format and choose to make arrogant and ignorant judgements on the other that they haven't seen for themselves, can't qualify or in any way support outside of hearsay. I am not denying I have a bias for BD. I had a bias for HD DVD after being very impressed by Warner and Universal's early titles and very disappointed by some of Sony's early ones on BD. But, I've seen the best both formats have to offer and a large sample of titles from both on a system that I'm intimately familiar with and should be capable of revealing any difference about as well as any. So I think I can qualify any bias I may have. There's noting wrong with having a bias. It's perfectly natural. You can't help it if you try. Being able to recognize what biases you is what truely allows one to remain objective. I do feel BD is delivering stronger video presentations on average (likely spurred by such negative publicity early on) and I think I can support my opinion as well as any. And BD is virtually smoking HD in sound with complete lossless support from just about all the exclusive studios, where lossless on HD DVD is sparse and offers questionable improvement even when used. It could be the mixes themselves, or it could be the lesser TrueHD stream they're currently using. I've never judged a disc based on the codec used, and if you've read enough of my reviews you'd have no doubt that's true. I didn't rate Gone in 60 Seconds all that well, and that was when I was under the impression it was 24bit rather than the 16bit it latered proved to be. Dinosaur was another 24bit disc that didn't overwhelm me. But the level of detail and utter clarity from PCM in general has proven far more impressive than anything I've heard from lossy compressed or TrueHD so far. Doesn't matter what should or should not be. Again I don't judge based on specs. I trust what my eyes and ears tell me.

I also think BD has a lot of room to grow, where it seems pretty clear that HD DVD is already tapped out. But in the end, all I care about is that when my favorite films come out in high definition they have the best presentation possible. I still buy new HD DVDs almost every week (mostly from Universal), but HD DVD has to get some major studio support soon if they are going to still be in the running a year from now. If they can pull another rabbit out of their hat and get more industry support this year and prove they can do more with a 30GB disc than they are now, more importantly prove they can do better quality in 30GB than BD can in 50, great. But right now that doesn't seem very realistic.

Microsoft has been spreading their propoganda here for months claiming things of VC1 that they've yet to support. Why didn't KK feature lossless audio? It had no extras and is only 3 hours long on a disc supposedly able to do 4 hours in VC1. Why has Universal been dropping their audio back to 640kbps from their usual 1.5mb on their 15GB hybrids of 90 minute films with no extras on the HD side? Why does Lady in the Water look so soft? I saw it theatrically and it had more detail. Did Warner filter it like Universal has some of their HD titles prior to compression? And if so why? Did VC1 need the help or does the studio perceive that cleaner but softer is what most people want?

I think Dan Ramer of DVDFile said it well, when he said that the best he's seen from BD looked better than the best he's seen from HD DVD, but that he doubted most would be able to tell the difference. I'm not sure about the first part, but I agree with the last. But, you really have to evaluate on a title by title basis. What scares me is that most here seem happier if studios filter out grain, sacrificing some detail prior to compression. It's the same unsympathetic syndrome I saw on HTF in the early years of DVD when a few people like myself complained about ringing/edge enhancement and others would selfishly criticized us for it, with such ignorant arguments as you've got too big a TV, because they couldn't see it on their 27-36" 4:3 TVs. Years later when they finally upgraded to a high def display they finally cared too.