AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Something VC1 has that MPEG-2 does not...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Something VC1 has that MPEG-2 does not... - Page 20  

post #571 of 711
3/15/07 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man View Post

Not only that.
If you are not familiar with TheLion's postings from the past, you will see that he calls em as he sees em (Lion, remember the thread with the pre-screening of a demo disc in SoCal with a Sony executive from Japan in attendance ).and frequently gets bashed by blinded advocates of the opposite position, whatever the current topic of discussion is..be it high-def optical disc formats, codecs, displays, players -whatever.

Another person that comes to mind, who takes a similar position and is often rewarded for every good deed with punishment is Kris Derring.

I think there have been countless times of him being criticized for statements he's made on Secrets that were contrary to owners of a certain DVD player. And I think his views on MPEG-2 generally go ignored by some because they don't want to hear it.

I sure do... Always reminds me of a quote of another member regarding the format war: "Does a given video file look better if played back from a Seagate or Western Digital harddisk?"

Thank you for the kind words btw, I certainly appreciate it.

AVS Top Picks

post #572 of 711
3/15/07 at 10:45am
Member bashing remarks removed, warnings sent.

Doc
post #573 of 711
3/15/07 at 12:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

So you believe some rumours more than a compressionist (Cjplay) who has clearly stated that Warner does not use noise filtering for HD-DVD encodings (neither before nor during encoding)? Somehow I begin to doubt your objectivity.

Let's make that clear:
(1) Either you believe VC-1 itself is doing noise filtering.
(2) Or you believe VC-1 studios are doing noise filtering directly before feeding their masters into the VC-1 encoder.
(3) Or you believe VC-1 studios are doing noise filtering during scanning/DI (which would be totally unrelated to HD DVD).

That's the only 3 cases I can think of. All MS guys clearly stated that (1) is not true. Cjplay clearly stated that (2) is not true. Unless you mean to say that either the MS guys or Cjplay (or both) were flat out lying, the only thing that makes sense is (3). But (3) has *nothing* whatsoever to do with which codec might later be used for HD disc encodings. Actually the HD master is usually made/used for both SD and HD disc releases. So there's no way you could blame (3) on VC-1.

Don't worry. I still put the blame squarely in VC1s lap. My opinion hasn't changed. Since the MS people keep saying it is not VC1s fault I was just perhaps offering an alternate explanation and a plea to fix the problem (wherever it lies). But the issues I have with VC1 are not just on Warner titles they are also on Universal, Paramount, and believe it or not even on the Disney titles. Flightplan at 27Mbps still shows the signature smoothing effect. Now I suppose its possible that every film that gets encoded in VC1 just happens to be filtered beforehand, while other films encoded in other codecs don't. But that seems like more of a stretch to me than to just look at the simplest explanation of what all those movies have in common. Or maybe one of the rules of VC1 encoding is to filter beforehand? That would be interesting. But again I will say wherever the problem lies I want it to be fixed. If its VC1s fault then I would lobby to not use that codec anymore. If its not VC1s fault then I would lobby to fix whatever the problem is. All I want is HD films the way they are supposed to look. If VC1 can consistently deliver that then I have no problem with it. But from where I am sitting as an end user it has not done that so far. I don't know anything about masters. All I know is what movies I see at home and what codec they use. And that is all I can base my opinion on.
post #574 of 711
3/15/07 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

But the issues I have with VC1 are not just on Warner titles they are also on Universal, Paramount, and believe it or not even on the Disney titles. Flightplan at 27Mbps still shows the signature smoothing effect.

So it's your contention that MPEG4 AVC titles don't have this "smoothing effect"?

Would you care to check titles such as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or even Casino Royale and then argue the same point?
post #575 of 711
3/15/07 at 2:39pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

So it's your contention that MPEG4 AVC titles don't have this "smoothing effect"?

Yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Would you care to check titles such as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or even Casino Royale and then argue the same point?

Yes

But I notice that you agree with me that VC1 has the smoothing effect.
post #576 of 711
3/15/07 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

Yes


Yes

But I notice that you agree with me that VC1 has the smoothing effect.


OK, we know that you have that opinion. Please let us see into your methods for determining this.
post #577 of 711
3/15/07 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLion View Post

I sure do... Always reminds me of a quote of another member regarding the format war: "Does a given video file look better if played back from a Seagate or Western Digital harddisk?"

I'm not surprised at your reaction, the correct answer is obviously Hitachi!
post #578 of 711
3/15/07 at 3:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

Yes


Yes

But I notice that you agree with me that VC1 has the smoothing effect.

Where in that post did Josh either say or imply that???
post #579 of 711
3/15/07 at 3:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorS View Post

Where in that post did Josh either say or imply that???

Implication was via absence of refutation.

Of course a more direct means to that end would be...

Josh, do you dispute it?
post #580 of 711
3/15/07 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLion View Post

And before you ask, rdjam - Sony doesn't pay me either to post here And I have my serious doubts about the supposed moon landing...

Really! I thought the moon landing was a slam dunk, but there's no question the government/military is up to something with Area 51!
post #581 of 711
3/15/07 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

When watching the disc for my review, I did not spot anything that I found distracting during normal playback, and nor will most viewers. The issue with Chapter 33 only came to light with frame-by-frame scrutiny, which is not the way people watch movies unless they're specifically hunting for artifacts.

I can assure you that you do not need frame by frame analysis to see DNR issues, as much as you don't need that for seeing EE. What you need is to know what it looks like and a system that shows what is on the disk, e.g. proper motion rendition for DNR issues. If you are unsure about what to look for I suggest you watch the DVDs of "The Aviator" and "Mr. and Mrs. Smith". If you see the issues there you know what to look for. If you don't you are not sensitive to the issue at all.
Seeing issues/reviewing discs is a bitch as it's masochistic trying to watch and enjoy the film and check for quality at the same time. You can't just focus on the lead couples faces or whatever is the point of interest at the moment but should pay attention to the whole frame all the time. Kind of spoils all the fun. I don't envy reviewers.
post #582 of 711
3/15/07 at 3:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

Don't worry. I still put the blame squarely in VC1s lap. My opinion hasn't changed. Since the MS people keep saying it is not VC1s fault I was just perhaps offering an alternate explanation and a plea to fix the problem (wherever it lies). But the issues I have with VC1 are not just on Warner titles they are also on Universal, Paramount, and believe it or not even on the Disney titles. Flightplan at 27Mbps still shows the signature smoothing effect.

The smoothing effect in chapter 33 is not an effect you would get with some block filtering as VC-1 does. VC-1 does not do that as countless encodes show clearly. I doubt you can do that with VC-1 even if you want to unless you use very low bit rates. "Flight Plan" looked grain reduced on 35mm prints. A DI filtering job. Have not seen the HD yet. "Big Fish" is filtered. "Seabiscuit" was horrible on 35mm. The HD-DVD was from another master. "Kill Bill" is somehwat filtered. "Aviator" was filtered from start to finish. "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" probably too (most of it has bad smearing). Grain filtering is standard practice on DIs. If you don't see it there was none or they did a good job. If you see it, well, it stinks.
post #583 of 711
3/15/07 at 4:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsaliga View Post

I don't necessarily disagree with that Rob, but there aren't many here who are in a legitimate position to tell us that. Before people start jumping all over what factors into legitimacy, let me just say that I am not doing that calculus the same way some of you are and leave it at that.

All that aside, what concerns me the most is how the people with the most expensive displays seem to be the ones having most of the trouble. It even seems that the situation worsens as you spend more and more money. Spend a paltry $1,500 and apparently you're in high definition nirvana. Throw down 10 grand or more on a display and suddenly it comes alive with an endless parade of nasty artifacts. I've heard of hidden value, but this gives it new meaning.

I find this all somewhat troubling, though there are some important lessons to be learned here. Most people who know me understand that I prize picture quality above all else. For that reason I am now on a mission to go out and find me the lowest rent rickety piece of sh*t HD display on the market.

--Jerome

post #584 of 711
3/15/07 at 4:25pm
There is some justice in that the nitpickers will never simply enjoy a movie
post #585 of 711
3/15/07 at 4:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhafner View Post

I can assure you that you do not need frame by frame analysis to see DNR issues, as much as you don't need that for seeing EE. What you need is to know what it looks like and a system that shows what is on the disk, e.g. proper motion rendition for DNR issues. If you are unsure about what to look for I suggest you watch the DVDs of "The Aviator" and "Mr. and Mrs. Smith". If you see the issues there you know what to look for. If you don't you are not sensitive to the issue at all.

For those unfamiliar with Michel's experience with DNR..
Might I suggest this as a primer(from thee ole days )

http://www.cinedrome.ch/hometheater/dvd/dnr/text.html

B.T.W.
Michel do you ever hear from Bjoern ?
post #586 of 711
3/15/07 at 6:24pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrevorS View Post

Where in that post did Josh either say or imply that???

He didn't dispute it. And his first statement implies he agrees the smoothing effect is there. And he deflected the issue to something else which I guess is standard practice in these discussions. But perhaps his point is that since other codecs might have the same issue then its OK for VC1 to have it too. But since we've been hearing lately how much more amazingly advanced VC1 is over AVC I don't see why that should be true.
post #587 of 711
3/15/07 at 8:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

> So it's your contention that MPEG4 AVC titles don't have this "smoothing effect"?

Yes

Based on what evidence?

Quote:


> Would you care to check titles such as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or even Casino Royale and then argue the same point?

Yes

Yes what? Yes, you'll check out those discs? Yes, you've seen them? Yes, they have "smoothing"? What exactly are you trying to say?

Quote:


But I notice that you agree with me that VC1 has the smoothing effect.

Don't put words in my mouth. Misdirection only weakens your argument.
post #588 of 711
3/15/07 at 8:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

He didn't dispute it. And his first statement implies he agrees the smoothing effect is there. And he deflected the issue to something else which I guess is standard practice in these discussions.

This post is an act of absolute desperation, and I think you know it.

I didn't not disagree with what you didn't say, so therefore I must be conceding the point? That's your logic and you accuse me of deflecting the issue? For shame.

Quote:


But perhaps his point is that since other codecs might have the same issue then its OK for VC1 to have it too. But since we've been hearing lately how much more amazingly advanced VC1 is over AVC I don't see why that should be true.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that this "smoothing effect" is largely in your mind, and has nothing to do with any codec. By your reasoning, any movie with supposedly "soft" scenes must be a codec flaw, specifically in your mind a VC-1 codec flaw. Well, how could that be true when AVC discs like Hitchhiker's Guide and Casino Royale also have "soft" scenes?

Are you arguing that those movies have no soft scenes, which will then degenerate into another frame-by-frame analysis like happened with The Departed?
post #589 of 711
3/15/07 at 8:23pm
who is refereeing this? Is benes right or wrong? Shouldn't we have a consensus by now ?
post #590 of 711
3/15/07 at 8:24pm
So Josh, to understand you clearly (since you skipped over my direct question), you are stating that you do not believe VC-1 has a smoothing effect, correct?

You berate people for not debating up to your standards, but when it comes the time to make clear 'yes' or 'no' statements on your own part, the words seem to elude.
post #591 of 711
3/15/07 at 8:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xbdestroya View Post

So Josh, to understand you clearly (since you skipped over my direct question), you are stating that you do not believe VC-1 has a smoothing effect, correct?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I do not believe that VC-1 has this so-called "smoothing effect". If there is any supposed "smoothing", it would be present on the master prior to digital compression. Whether this would be an attribute of the original photography itself or noise reduction applied to the DI, I do not pretend to know. Nor do I even concede that this "smoothing effect" really exists.

Quote:


You berate people for not debating up to your standards, but when it comes the time to make clear 'yes' or 'no' statements on your own part, the words seem to elude.

This thread is almost 600 posts long. Forgive me for missing yours, o mighty one.
post #592 of 711
3/15/07 at 9:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Based on what evidence?

Based on the evidence of having seen over 130 movies now on both formats in all codecs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Yes what? Yes, you'll check out those discs? Yes, you've seen them? Yes, they have "smoothing"? What exactly are you trying to say?

Yes I've seen them. No they don't have smoothing. Both HHGTG and Casino Royale have a fine amount of graininess to them.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Don't put words in my mouth. Misdirection only weakens your argument.

Well considering you didn't really say anything regarding the topic at hand (VC1 smoothing) you'll forgive me for trying to make some interpretation of your statements.
post #593 of 711
3/15/07 at 9:31pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Yes, that is what I'm saying. I do not believe that VC-1 has this so-called "smoothing effect". If there is any supposed "smoothing", it would be present on the master prior to digital compression.

What evidence do you have of this? Do you look at every master before they are encoded? I would love to hear about them.
post #594 of 711
3/15/07 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

What evidence do you have of this? Do you look at every master before they are encoded? I would love to hear about them.


benes, do you look at every master before they are encoded? As well, would you please offer me, (perhaps you've went over this before) what your viewing setup is?
post #595 of 711
3/15/07 at 10:59pm
Well, I don't find it coincidence that some of the grainiest titles "U2: Rattle and Hum" & "Babel" were AVC instead of VC-1 on HD DVD.

Why would filmmakers wishing to preserve the grain use something that according to the MS folks would eliminate it or soften the result unacceptably?

"X-MEN: The Last Stand", "First Blood", "Casino Royale", etc...all have grain, all use AVC, no smoothing, no artifacts. How do you apologists explain it?
post #596 of 711
3/15/07 at 11:04pm
Quote:


Would you care to check titles such as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or even Casino Royale and then argue the same point?

Quote:


Yes, you've seen them? Yes, they have "smoothing"? What exactly are you trying to say?

Did you watch the BLU-RAY version of "Casino Royale"??? It's fairly (naturally) grainy, and certainly not smooth. You really need a new setup there Josh, or you're not telling the truth.
post #597 of 711
3/15/07 at 11:09pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius View Post

benes, do you look at every master before they are encoded?

No. So its a circular debate isn't it? How can anyone of us say definitively whether its the codec or the master? Perhaps if we had the same movie encoded in VC1 and another codec. I wonder if such titles exist...
post #598 of 711
3/15/07 at 11:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

No. So its a circular debate isn't it? How can anyone of us say definitively whether its the codec or the master? Perhaps if we had the same movie encoded in VC1 and another codec. I wonder if such titles exist...

All I know is that the MPEG2 Batmobile Chase clip from "Batman Begins" looks a LOT better than the VC-1 version. Clearer, more 3 dimensional. I directly compared today using the PS3 and a Toshiba HD-A2 with a Sony 60" XBR SXRD.
post #599 of 711
3/15/07 at 11:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

Well, I don't find it coincidence that some of the grainiest titles "U2: Rattle and Hum" & "Babel" were AVC instead of VC-1 on HD DVD.

Why would filmmakers wishing to preserve the grain use something that according to the MS folks would eliminate it or soften the result unacceptably?

Question answered - perhaps they didn't wish to preserve the grain?
post #600 of 711
3/15/07 at 11:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post

Question answered - perhaps they didn't wish to preserve the grain?

From what I've seen Studio Canal usually uses VC-1 and "Babel" is scheduled from them. Are you willing to put your reputation on the line that if they do that one with VC-1 and we compare it to the HD DVD version from Paramount, it will show that the AVC version does not preserve the grain and the VC-1 version does?

--Darin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Software Media Discussion
This thread is locked  

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › HDTV Software Media Discussion › Something VC1 has that MPEG-2 does not...