AVS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 2128 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

Update: It looks like one of my imagehost bite the bullet (imageviper). Will re-up as soon as I can.



***Please no hotlinking!!! ***




After reading through the previous HD vs SD comparison screenshots thread its time to go further with the topic. What is the difference between HD optical formats and HD broadcasts? Blu-ray and HD DVD?


We are already familiar with MPEG-2 broadcasts here in the US. In Europe however namely SKY, BBC and Premiere HD stations they use H.264 codec and has effectively trounced anything we see here. For more info go here.


Since its impossible for me to choose which movie frame to capture that will effectively show the best and the worst shot of a movie I will need feedback from members to help me find them. Macroblocking, grain, posterization, whatever.


The screenshots are best viewed using a high resolution monitor (DVI or HDMI) hooked up to your HD capable viewing set. These pictures are big files so dont "qoute" the pictures just indicate the reply #. All HD files are captured using MPC with external filters, captured as 1920x1080 BMP (except some H.264 files. They are saved as 1920x1088), using Photoshop saved as Bicubic quality PNG-24.


I highly recommend hooking up your monitor using digital connections. They show PQ closer to what you are seeing with your HD DVD/BD player.


All screenshots are made with the help of my Tandem 1.0 HTPC.

Disclaimer: Pictures are for information purposes only.

 

 

XylonHD , YouTube Channel , @XylonHD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
King Kong


15.40 GB*11.00 Mbps........................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ......................................................17.00 GB*12.00 Mbps



24.00 GB*17.50 Mbps........................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ......................................................26.90 GB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
The OAR mpeg-2 shots might be best viewed with the DScaler5 IVTC mod.


Compression in open matte/cropped verison seems better than OAR with much less blocking. OM might be a tad sharper but since it's not OAR who cares.


Compare the skin texture/pores on her face in the HD-DVD to the broadcast versions.



Update:


The h.264 is much closer in detail to the vc-1 HD-DVD than the other versions. Skin pores are intact and the vines on the rock are crisp.


There are still color differences between broadcast and disc that I can't explain. Even when adjusted to pc levels the broadcast versions don't have the level of saturation that the HD-DVD has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
X-Men: The Last Stand


10.60 GB*14.48 Mbps........................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ .......................................................20.00 GB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Xylon do you happen to have screenshot comparisons of King Kong open matte H.264 that aired on premire HD ? id really like to see that measured up against the HD DVD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by inurenegade /forum/post/0


Xylon do you happen to have screenshot comparisons of King Kong open matte H.264 that aired on premire HD ? id really like to see that measured up against the HD DVD

Yes. I have it somewhere but I dont remember which hard drive I put it on. I have so many
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Kettell /forum/post/0


Those X-Men shots look very close. But the Blu-ray frame looks a touch sharper.

Very impressive for a HD broadcast. I will post more shots of X-Men later on. This time with more close ups and action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,205 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Mission: Impossible III


21.50 GB Mpeg-2 ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ 20.10 GB VC-1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Holy crap, I didn't realize how much difference there'd be between VC-1 and MPEG-2. Unfortunately, this is a bit hard to see by just scrolling up and down. But clearly the MPEG-2 version can't cope with the grain and introduces noisy artifacts.


I'll try and post either a video or a detailed comparison to better show this. I think the two images posted by Xylon could be quite the eye-openers for some.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts
Here we go:


Download both of these images and switch them back and forth (even though the difference in quality is easy to tell apart directly here in the thread).

They are simply a cropped region of the M:i-III screenshots with a slight brightness adjustment.





Now guess which is VC-1 and which is MPEG-2. In case you have a hard time telling mosquito artifacts and compression noise from film grain, here's the reminder.


Film grain:



Heavily compressed film grain:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,850 Posts
The difference between the Mpeg2 broadcast King Kong and the VC1 King Kong is tremendous.


As I have said before, VC1 encodes usually have higher contrast and detail than the mpeg encodes. These pictures seem to bear this out quite nicely.


The fact that the Bluray AVC pictures look very similar to the Mpeg broadcast shots is quite likely more down to the care taken in encoding - but I have yet to see an AVC release that has the sharpness and contrast preserved as well as VC1 does...


Another exellent thread, Xylon!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
I don't think I could watch an OTA HD broadcast of a movie after seeing so many HD DVD and Blu Ray Discs.......the compression artifacts are just horrendous!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_TC /forum/post/0




the second image seems to have lost some detail, but these aren't perhaps the best images for judging grain compression. perhaps a pic of someone's face, or a crowd scene?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
634 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Issac Hunt /forum/post/0


the second image seems to have lost some detail, but these aren't perhaps the best images for judging grain compression. perhaps a pic of someone's face, or a crowd scene?

A crowd scene would be horrible if you want to see how well the grain compresses. Way too much going on.


Also, the second image hasn't really lost much detail (not much to lose on this wall), but it contains less natural looking grain coupled with mosquito artifacts.


You need to look at relatively flat shaded areas, such as the sky or a wall. If you switch the cropped pictures back and forth, the difference becomes very obvious.


VC-1 in these screenshots has its own problems compressing the grain but it does a much better job than MPEG-2 when it comes to preserving the natural look and introducing only minor artifacts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,673 Posts
we're gonna have to agree to disagree on which source shots to use when comparing codec performance. relatively bland shots lacking in detail are of little use to my own way of thinking when it comes to really testing a compression codec. it's at the boundries where the algorithm is strained to breaking point where interesting things start happening - hence high motion, or crowd scenes.


as to these specific shots, there's very little discernable detail in the croped frames to start with. but there is a clear lowering of detail in the second file: look at the arch face which starts middle top of each picture and sweeps down and to the left. there are two lines running up the middle of this face, which are much more continuous in the first picture than in the last.


there is also, as you say, a lowering of grain in the second picture. though i'm not sure it's a gain worth having at the loss of this kind of detail.
 
1 - 20 of 2128 Posts
Top