AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
 http://www.***************.com/fusio...hp?tid/137357/


From the reviewer:


The AVC/MPEG-4 encode on the BD disc, just doesn't match up the the VC-1 presentation on the HD DVD. In comparison, it looks rather flat, especially when it comes to the color saturation and in the detail department. The overall look of this encode is much softer and lacks the depth that the competing format has presented with what I assume is the same master of the film. The only plus that the Blu-ray encode has over the HD DVD is that it doesn't look quite as compressed. The film has a bit more grain on the HD DVD encode compared to the Blu-ray, and I am thinking that some type of filtering in the AVC encoding process may be the culprit of the softer looking presentation.


To compare the titles, I watched ½ of the movie on HD DVD and ½ of the movie on BD, but I would switch between the discs about every 4 chapters or so. My wife was doing laundry the night we watched the movie, so when she would leave the room, I would change between the players. We started the movie on HD DVD and when I made the transition to the BD version, she noticed something was amiss as soon as she sat back down and questioned what did I do to the picture? I played dumb and we continued to watch the movie. About 25 minutes later, she left the room again and I switched back to HD DVD. When she came back in again, she commented that whatever I did when she was gone, it looks much better now. I had noticed the same thing, but kept my mouth shut. The last change back to the BD disc she was in the room and she finally figured out what I was doing and commented Wow, normally they look exactly the same!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,160 Posts
There's also already a thread here in more general terms about encode comparisons that I already mentioned this in:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=847293


I'm not sure this thread was needed, especially since Flags of our Fathers Part I (Perfect Shootout Thread) got shut down.


The fact is there is more involved to good PQ than just the codec or bitrate. Mpeg2, AVC, and VC-1 all have quality releases, so all codecs are capable of performing. I'd prefer if we debated the quality of each release and stop the bickering about which codec is best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
It doesn't seem like a "Perfect" comparison to me. If I'm correct it is a HD DVD 30 vs a BD 25. I don't think anyone disputes that VC-1 is superior to AVC at lower bitrates, and the whole point of Blu-ray is that the disk is able to store more data than an HD DVD 30. If you take that advantage away I don't feel like it can be a "Perfect" comparison because both sides aren't able to use all of their advantages.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,194 Posts

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


Who won part 1?

Flags of our Father Blu-ray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·

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


It doesn't seem like a "Perfect" comparison to me. If I'm correct it is a HD DVD 30 vs a BD 25. I don't think anyone disputes that VC-1 is superior to AVC at lower bitrates, and the whole point of Blu-ray is that the disk is able to store more data than an HD DVD 30. If you take that advantage away I don't feel like it can be a "Perfect" comparison because both sides aren't able to use all of their advantages.

So would it be safe to say that VC-1 beats AVC at lower bitrates and it is debatable which one would win out at higher bitrates? As far as HD DVD vs. BD, I wasn't comparing HD DVD vs. Bluray, but if you're saying Bluray has the advantage of 50GB, then why not encode all movies on BD50? It seems like HD DVD has an advantage currently if studios like paramount use AVC for BD and VC-1 for HD DVD assuming that BD25 is used on lower selling titles like Coming to America because of the lower cost of BD25 vs. BD50. It seems like that advantage will be there at least until the cost difference between BD25 and BD50 are negligible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,160 Posts

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


So would it be safe to say that VC-1 beats AVC at lower bitrates and it is debatable which one would win out at higher bitrates?

It makes sense from what we have seen, but we only have a few examples to go on. It disturbs me there is so much speculation on the differences and issues with these codecs from people that have no experience or knowledge of the process, and when insiders that do know give us input, everyone accuses them of propaganda and misinformation.


I mean, comeon, there are tier 0 examples from each current codec and tier 5 examples from each as well. They are all equally capable. I just don't think a bunch of people who don't know what they are talking about should be judging or criticizing based on loose speculation and limited exposure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,708 Posts

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


Flags of our Father Blu-ray.

For the record, I never stated that. Doing the same types of comparisons with Flags of our Fathers showed that in A-B testing, you couldn't distinguish one from the other.


In this particular case, there is a difference between the transfers that is quite noticeable, in so much that my wife who didn't know I switched the movies noticed that something was amiss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Vaughn /forum/post/0


For the record, I never stated that. Doing the same types of comparisons with Flags of our Fathers showed that in A-B testing, you couldn't distinguish one from the other.


In this particular case, there is a difference between the transfers that is quite noticeable, in so much that my wife who didn't know I switched the movies noticed that something was amiss.

Hi Dave, yeah, I think he was referring to the bluray review of flags of our fathers on hidefdigest. The reviewer seems to see the tiniest difference. You can take that comment for what it's worth.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/flagsofourfathers.html


Quote:

As has become customary with Paramount releases, 'Flags of our Fathers' comes with different encodes depending on which next-gen format you prefer. In a side by side comparison of the film between the the AVC MPEG-4 transfer on this Blu-ray version and the VC-1 transfer on the HD DVD, it does seem that the Blu-ray/AVC encode is the tiniest bit sharper, while the HD DVD/VC-1 is the slightest bit softer. Neither is an advantage to my eyes and each encode is identical otherwise -- fans of both camps should be ecstatic to see this film looking so good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,708 Posts
From that quote, he seems to be saying that they are pretty much identical...I gues I could take out a ruler and measure the distance between two fine objects to see if one is a bit sharper in one transfer to the next



As I stated in the Coming to America review...If I didn't have both discs that I could go back and forth to, I would have probably never noticed the difference between the two and would have been content with either one. But seeing them both at the same time, it was easy to see their differences. (This is also a first in this regard...in pretty much every other case, I couldn't see a difference at all between the two formats with the same discs).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,850 Posts

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


Flags of our Father Blu-ray.

I don't know that I would call that a "win".


If there was a difference in quality, it was VERY slight. Especially when one considers that there was 58% more data thrown at the AVC version.


If "Coming to America" has a closer bitrate between the VC1 and AVC versions, it could actually prove VC1's superiority to AVC...


Here are some blowup shots (200%) from Flags - BD AVC (32.9 Gigs) on left - HD DVD VC1 (20.8 gigs) on Right:








Massively impressive performance by VC1 against AVC with 58% more horsepower given to it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,309 Posts
Too bad everybody but you shot down the 58% advantage theory. Doesn't stop you from spreading your FUD.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,850 Posts

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


Too bad everybody but you shot down the 58% advantage theory. Doesn't stop you from spreading your FUD.

Kindly explain how this 58% difference in file size has been "shot down". Just repeating that mantra over and over doesn't make the extra 12.1 Gigs of bit budget go away. So how do you reckon it isn't relevant?


Whenever the VC1 vs. Mpeg2 comparisons had even the slightest difference in filesize, there were folks who complained bitterly that it was unfair to make a comparison, given that the sizes were not the same.


Yet, here is an AVC encode that is 12.1 Gigabytes Larger than the VC1 encode. And no one is complaining that the comparison is unfair, since VC1 has quite clearly matched the PQ of this larger AVC encode.


But even now, those BD fans who I thought would be happy at this comparison are still complaining that somehow this 58% advantage is not REALLY a 58% advantage, yet seem unable to explain their logic behind this sort of statement??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
Raster, if you can make the HD-DVD image one pixel higher than it is. Not sure why but the VC1 encode is exactly one pixel lower than the Blu-ray. Would help with direct comparisons
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,234 Posts

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


Kindly explain how this 58% difference in file size has been "shot down".

Quote:
But even now, those BD fans who I thought would be happy at this comparison are still complaining that somehow this 58% advantage is not REALLY a 58% advantage, yet seem unable to explain their logic behind this sort of statement??

The logic you keep missing is that the avc encode could have been 21 GB or 33 GB or 300 GB, and still revealed to be subtly different from the vc-1 encode. You don't have the appropriate data points to discern if vc-1 is operating at a 0%, 58%, or 1400% advantage in data efficiency. From the data we have currently, it could be anywhere between 0 and 58%- way too early to be running around between 4 different topics proclaiming the "discovery of the century".


The comparison, itself, is quite fine. Both codecs appear to be operating in a bitrate regime that is satisfactory for optimal results. It's the zany deductions that you are deriving from the comparison that cause a disturbance here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
It's actually more than a pixel. Like 2 or 3. Not to be picky.


A couple other titles have the same height difference. No idea why it is.
 
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
Top