Originally Posted by Forceflow
Yes, banding is an issue but I don't think we can say whether it was an encode issue or a soure issue. In other words, who knows if high bitrate MPEG-2 would have solved the banding problem or introduced other issues.
But it wasn't in the original, so it's an encode problem, whether mpeg2 would have solved it or not. I'm really, really not bashing VC-1, which is clearly more efficient than mpeg2, and thanks to MS's investment is more polished than AVC (as I said in my first posts). I just don't think that any codec has gotten good enough (or automatic enough) that compression artists can fall asleep at the wheel and still tunr out flawless results.
Click took a beating for using Panavision Genesis cameras that got noisy during dark scenes. The same is being brought against SR. Frankly, the camera is important to the aesthetics of the movie. Some film stock is grainier than others, so one has to be cognizant of those factors when assessing an encode. Grain is good if it belonged there due to these factors, but certainly additional grain or noise is bad if it shouldn't be there.
Agreed, on all accounts.
I assure you that BB looks excellent.
I don't doubt it, I just can't comment on it sinse I haven't seen it. Hopefully this will be rectified soon
I tend to believe Amir when he says that VC-1 can make HD look great at 10mbps because of the innovation that has gone into VC-1 to make it superior to other codecs. When AVC gets the same toolset as VC-1 then we can see whether MSFT continues innovating or rests on its laurels.
I don't doubt that Amir believes it, and I don't doubt that more investment has been made into VC-1 to make it the "codec of tomorrow, today!" and whatnot. But Amir and MSFT have an obvious (and totally justified) bias towards their product, and I simply will not accept their claims without being able to verify them independently. Sort of like I can't say anything one way or another about BB, because I have seen it (or Crank, for that matter, even though I don't entertain any serius doubt that either has fantastic PQ).
So back to the OP, I certainly would not accept the claim (at this time) that VC-1 is twice as efficient as mpeg2, although I wouldn't rule out the possibility that is may eventually be. And I see no evidence that VC-1 is in any significant way superior to AVC, although (again like I said originally) the tools are clearly under-developed compared to VC-1.