Home Theater Spot on VC-1... - Page 4  

If anyone has the link to that statement, it would be very much welcome.

Search the post from Cjplay. I remember when Rio suggest Warner titles or certain HD DVD studio filter the noise before encoding, Cjplay answered that Warner never did so and always against filtering fine grain.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ng#post8955325

Thanks very much for that link.

As I read it, Cjplay's response denies that VC-1 has "inherent filtering." It does not to my reading state that Warner never filters.

There are 2 more quotes from CJ referencing filtering. He basically shoots down that Warner filters in the second, but he doesn't speak for Warner itself. He's not a Warner rep, just a compressionist that does Warner titles (and his coworkers). He says in that quote that they DO NOT filter and they handle Warner's stuff. That ipso facto says Warner doesn't have filtered HD DVD titles.

As a user of VC-1's pro tools he does extol the virtues of VC-1 often, such as sub frame optomizations for cleaner, more detailed blacks and shadows, a nice package for total control over bitrate sequences to hand tune titles to max out the pq and the great deblocking filter which he comments on in the quote I linked. That deblocking filter is what makes VC-1 and AVC so great at lower bitrates.

If the guys doing the compression and encoding love VC-1 and want to move away from MPEG-2, why is this under discussion? They're literally the experts. They do this for their livlihood and pride themselves on the quality of their work (as CJ fervently noted about Corpse Bride). Frankly, I see no reason why Chad knows anything close to what CJ knows in terms of what is a good codec (produces results with the least drawbacks) and what is an outdated codec.

Thanks again for that very detailed response.

One point of course is that I believe CJplay is still silenced.

And the fact that Cjplay has been silenced also suggests that the flow of information on these topics is not free.

Since both Home Theater Spot & HighDefDigest both give glowing reviews for the PQ of "The Covenant", and it is mpeg2 on a single layer 25 GB BR disk from Sony . . . I guess we can assume Sony has fired the staff that put out 'The Fifth Element" and 'House of Flying Daggers"?

Sounds like a fun movie to watch. I have the SD DVD on the way from Netflix; it will be interesting to see if Sony is doing any better on their SD mpeg2 encodings . . . .

Excellent points. The quality of the print, how much edge-enhancement + other more exotic filtering and the effort spent during encoding are going to make far, far more difference in the quality of what we see than whether it's a blu ray or HD Dvd disc.

At a technology level vc-1 is a much better codec than mpeg 2. Mpeg 2 is fundamentally more limited (you always have 16x16 blocks, while vc1 can use different size blocks and provide hints for block boundary smoothing). Mpeg is just older. period. Now, that said, there is more maturity in the professional MPEG 2 encoders along with more people who are trained in using them. See this for Thomson's comments about encoding
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/careers/7427.html

Obviously, movie studios want just one thing. To sell/resell as many discs as possible. In some cases that means dedicating space for a higher quality film encode. In other cases means using that space for "unreleased" material, or horrible "fully interactive games" or insurance quotes or ads for the movie's video game tie in.

The technology choice really doesn't mean squat though. In the end it is all about long term profits.
The question of cost came up. The answer is, it depends on which large corporation you partner with. Please insert (mostly) in front of each "you pay":
If you use vc-1 you pay microsoft. If you use mpeg-2 you pay sony.
If you print HD-DVD you pay tosh. If you print blu ray discs you pay sony
For example, dual layer blu ray disks are much more expensive than DL hd-dvd. Production line efficiency for dual layer blu ray is not good. But, for Sony, a win in this format war is worth so much more money in the long term it is eaten without concern.

I so don't understand people taking such passionate sides in these consumer format wars. You all might as well be arguing that movies played from Segate hard drives look better than those played from Hitachi hard drives because Segate offers slightly larger hard drives and encourages people to use mpeg-2.

True, isn't it nice that VC-1 made those block sizes even smaller than AVC? I think VC-1 can do 4x2 blocks and has a great deblocking filter in case something goes wrong.



Shouldn't studios invest in human capital if there is a return? I think training compressionists in VC-1/AVC would be great as compressionists can take more control in the encode and bump parts of frames if necessary with VC-1 to make sure the most difficult of scenes look spectacular. That kind of control is something that the compressionists on this forum seem to really appreciate as they portray themselves (and I agree) as artists striving for the tools to make their works perfect. MPEG-2 just can't cut it in some scenes and is limited, using an excuse of that's what people are used to/trained for is just weak IMO. Its like saying why build a B-2 when we're used to building B-17s.


Probably because it sucks we have a war to begin with. Its difficult for people to get both technologies and then not to favor one over the other. Cost is also a big factor.


Seagate vs. Hitachi isn't really what is going on, unless the Seagate plays one particular type of file that the Hitachi doesn't. Its like picking a perpendicular HDD vs. a SCSI (or SATA). Differing strengths vs. benefits. SCSI has been around for forever, but perpendicular recording is just damn novel and thrifty with its space...

Thats very exciting to say the least.

To operate optimally an authoring package needs to take into account time based requirements for all concurrent data streams.

MS if you want to contract me ill do it for you!

Chad:

A few points.

1. I can't recall any VC1 title that looked this transparent to film

This is just silly. This whole thread is based on this statement. Chad, are we supposed to believe you AB the finished BR or HDDVD with the film itself? Or at least compare each master to the final encode? Give it 5 stars, say it looks great, artifact free, film-like blah blah blah, just don't pretend you are in any position to judge it's transparency to film.

And no, I don't think much of the I saw it in the theater a couple of months ago and I know

2. Ignorant was probably the word Art wanted. You probably didn't like his inference that you are doing something stupid.

It was arrogant, however, when you tried to tell him what he meant to say.

3. MPEG2 is less compressed and been around a lot longer, so it's had more time to be refined. Ha ha, the office copier where I work has been around a lot longer than the new models out there, it's had plenty of time to be refined too. But it's not more refined, it's just older.

4. BD has a lot of room to grow and HDDVD is tapped out Time for some Cake and Eat it Too! Since most of the BRs being released are 25GB, they have to say these discs are great. The 25GB BR Covenant looks great. Now add 20 per cent more room to the 25GB disc and a more efficient codec and what do you get? tapped out.

For you, 50GB is room to grow. For me, it's unused/underused space I'm expected to pay for.

5. 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 you think HD DVD is not going to be around 12 months from now, why don't you just come out and say it?

6. 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.

Why bring this up in a discussion about a 25GB disc that looks better than most of Blurays 50GB discs.

7. Microsoft has been spreading their propoganda

OK, you don't like Microsoft, and you can't spell. Are you spreading your own propaganda in an attempt to even things out?



8. doubted most would be able to tell the difference

After all this, you conclude that most people couldn't tell the difference. Presumably because they don't have the sophisticated equipment that you do, like that poor guy Art.

9. What scares me is that most here seem happier if studios filter out grain, sacrificing some detail prior to compression

Why insinu8te this instead of just coming out and saying it. Are you saying more than one studio using VC1 is filtering out grain prior to compression? Which two or more studios are doing this?

Where's the filtering? That's quite a litany of accusations that he fails to backup. Sure he has a laundry list of excuses when a BD title looks bad. Just read his reviews of Dinosaur
or Talladega Nights where we are told that depending on how your display is configured, it may look awesome!

Its not like Home Theater Spot itself is against VC-1, but Chad certainly has a personal crusade on his hands...

The analogy is incorrect.

The studios have improved their mpeg2 encoders over time. MPEg2 as a standard is old but the latest mpeg2 encoders have had ages to be optimized. The latest vc1 encoder is a kid, relatively speaking. Its good and all but I am sure kinks exist, like they did with mpeg2 when it was as new.

You are forcing a round peg into a square hole, Imo. There might be a better analogy out there but your point is subtantially wrong anyways. Chad is right on that one, whatever your opinion may be on his other claims.

That kid is standing on the shoulder of the old man.

What "kinks" do you speak of and why does VC-1 need to have them like MPEG-2 did when it was new? Couldn't VC-1 have been created with the massed knowledge of how MPEG-2 was improved? Couldn't VC-1 simply be better?

The Spot does not have a bias for or against VC-1, or Microsoft in general. Chad is entitled to his opinion though.

With all do respect, I stopped visiting HTS for comments like that. There were also times where they would say something like "This is best best HD PQ on any format" and when I get the disc home it is far from it.

No disrespect to HTS, we just don't see eye to eye.

Crippler...what disc are you referring to?

I stopped visitsing HTS as well. I want to read reviews of the movies, not personal bias of the reviewers of one format or another.

Chad is entitled to his opinion, but keep it out of the reviews, because there is no justification for his statements.

I watched The Covenant last night. It does unquestionably look more "film-like" than, say, Hulk or Scorpion King, but neither of those seem at all lacking in detail. A title that looks "processed" is Fantastic Four, but that is Mpeg2, not VC1. I am not sure where any of this leads.

I agree completely with you Dave. The old adage that opinions are like....well, you get the idea...clearly applies--even to reviewers.

But I would hope that readers prefer reviewers to at least make some attempt at objectivity when possible. Reviewers should also keep their comments within the boundaries of their expertise. It is pretty easy to tell from Chad's Covenant review that he is biased against VC-1, and it's obvious to anyone reading his posts here that he has an axe to grind against Microsoft. The latter is fine on a forum such as this, since there is already a lot of firey rhetoric on this board, most of which is not backed up by facts or insightful analysis. However, Chad's clear bias undermines his credibility as a reviewer. Take his review of Convenant with what he had to say in the Dinosaur review and from where I sit it looks pretty bad. In Dinosaur it certainly appears to me that he's making an awful lot of excuses when he should have stuck to his commentary on the video quality and left it at that. Ditto for the Covenant review. Use the video review section to critique the video quality, not to spin anti VC-1 rhetoric or make excuses about why a particular title looks bad.

Yes, Chad is entitled to his opinion, and as a reader I am entitled to turn to other, more balanced and credible reviewers.

--Jerome

The thing which worries me is how many people on these forums complain about grain as if grain is a crime when it's probably part of the original image.....then they complain when a film looks too smooth ( such as Superman Returns ) when once again thats how it was shot........too many people reviewing things don't make an effort to understand everything they review.....i'm not saying this is true of your review site but i also worry that perhaps big business influences or is paying the reviewers in some way......be it through more adverts to a site or just plain money in the backpocket i do worry about the truth of reviews and that's for both formats but particularly Blu-Ray as Sony has bet their house on this format and stand to lose much more than Toshiba or the HD DVD camp.

Perhaps all opinions including mine should be taken with a pinch of salt......i do love reading views from the actual compressionists who work here though.

One final opinion......i would think VC-1 is a better codec than MPEG2 and has been built to reflect changing times...it's new and improved and has already caught MPEG 2 up and according to compressionists who write here has lots of room for even more improvement....doesn't this excite anyone ?

Foxy...the studio's do NOT pay us for reviews...the only thing they do is give us the movies as promotional copies. We all volunteer our time, and at lest at The Spot, don't get paid. We do it for the love of the movies. I stand up and defend Chad, nor will I agree with anyone taking shots at him, he is a big boy and can defend his position on his own. I just don't want the whole site swept with a broad brush saying that WE (The Spot) have declared WAR on VC-1, which is further from the truth. One of our Senior Editors (Chad) has an issue with them, not everyone. I honestly think that good VC-1 and good MPEG-2 can look just as good, it's just that the MPEG-2 takes up too much space to look just as good. That is why BD needs 50GB discs if that is the codec they choose.

As for opinions in reviews, that is all that they are from all of us. We try to have the best equipment that we can afford (or what our wives will let us afford ), and make audio and video critiques based upon our experience and what we have seen in the past vs. what we are seeing on the screen at the given time and what our ears are taking in at the moment. Sometimes we make mistakes too...there are a couple of discs I would love to revisit, especially some of the early releases and either increase or decrease their score now that I have seen well over 100 HD discs...in the beginning, it was much harder to pick out flaws because the jump over DVD in quality was so huge.

My whole point is, if you have an issue with Chad, that is fine, but don't say that the whole website has declared war when that is further from the truth.

@Dave, good comment. Thanks for chiming in here!

Thanks Madshi.

Dave,

The thread title should probably be edited to say that Chad has a personal issue with VC-1 that he has failed to articulate. I doubt many could make a strong case against VC-1 and maintain their credibility. Very few actually deal with the professional toolset and those that do invariably have come out speaking for VC-1. I agree that MPEG-2 with enough bandwidth can look great, but there are things that will never improve on MPEG-2 relative to VC-1 like ripples in water, or other complex movements. VC-1's smaller block sizes and inter-frame optomizations allow a compressionist more leeway and ability to perfect a title whereas MPEG-2 is simply 2 or three passes and boosting some frames that didn't turn out right (if that...).

The only argument I accept as to why MPEG-2 is better is if someone said my studio doesn't have time (VC-1 automation is lightyears better, but no where near as automated as MPEG-2) or they don't have the resources. Those immediately scream that the product wasn't gonna be good in the first place or they'd committ on those two fronts (time and money). Its a wash, but I'd accept those reasons.

Well put Force...I agree with you. One "issue" with VC-1 though is posterization, which CJPlay noted at one point. For some reason, it is worse with VC-1over MPEG-2, but I don't recall the exact reason why. With 8-bit sources though (HD DVD and BD), it is going to happen with both though, but VC-1 tends to highlight it a bit more. The underwater sequences in Superman Returns really show this phenomenon, but for the most part, I am completely happy with VC-1 and think it is an excellent codec.

BTW, I watched The Matador last night and that looked pretty good too for the most part and it was encoded with MPEG-4....there was some softness in a few backgrounds at times, but other than that, it looked great.

Simple point was older does not guarantee better, in and of itself. Consumer electronics is definitely not the exception to this rule.

Chad implies that because Mpeg2 is less compressed and it is older (more refined) it is better. Unfortunately, Chad later goes on to say, it is a better that most people will not be able to notice. Perhaps this is where the slogan Beyond High Definition comes from. Improvements so refined you won't be able to notice them!

As to my opinions and Chads claims, my problem with what Chad wrote is that he doesn't come out and make claims, he tries to sneak them in as a given.

Does the buck stop anywhere at The Spot?

Can't someone say, Chad if you want to do an editorial do an editorial. This doesn't belong in a movie review.

Imagine in a review of some gas guzzling car in Car and Driver magazine certain asides about global warming-"no sane scientist believes in it", "debunked several years ago" etc etc.