Coming to America; VC-1 beats AVC

[Helicon]

I have read about differences before, but it was newer so big, that it resultet in different ratings.

This must be the first time, one of the codecs gets better rating than the other At least from this reviewer.


http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/comingtoamerica.html

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

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by Helicon

I have read about differences before, but it was newer so big, that it resultet in different ratings.

This must be the first time, one of the codecs gets better rating than the other At least from this reviewer.


http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/comingtoamerica.html

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

Just Consider the source, he's probably said this in response to the poor press HDDVD is getting over the Bit-starved HD30/VC-1 transport on The BloodDiamond BD in an effort to Even the scales so to speak. I'll wait until a reviewer Like Chad or David Vaughn from HTS, with Legit Hometheatre setups reports on this. Highdefdigests reviews have more holes than swiss cheese.

[degas]

Actually, I think David Vaughn was the first to mention this.
I read about it last week on hometheaterspot.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Yep. Apparently, Paramount screwed the pooch on the AVC transfer which is why the VC-1 encode achieved a higher rating.

[gandley]

AVC on a BD25?

[Spankey]

What I find odd, is the fact that Paramount has never used VC-1 on Blu-ray. Do they have some aversion to the codec in general and feel it is necessary on HD-DVD, or did they feel that AVC produced a better image on a 25gb disc than VC-1?

[BLu-Balls]

Paramount sucks! They release so many soft transfers and soft titles. Where the hell is Top Gun with a PCM track? They are sitting on their laurels and know that BD supporters will buy into their shite!

Not withstanding, Paramount has released some reference titles. However, they have sullied the BD catalog with weak and inferior transfers that was made for hd dud

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by sltmag

What I find odd, is the fact that Paramount has never used VC-1 on Blu-ray. Do they have some aversion to the codec in general and feel it is necessary on HD-DVD, or did they feel that AVC produced a better image on a 25gb disc than VC-1?

It has been widely whispered for a long time that Sony is encoding the Paramount releases. When was the last time you saw Sony use VC-1? This seems to make sense since Paramount used MPEG2 when Sony was using MPEG2, and when Sony started using AVC...magically Paramount started using AVC as well.

[dialog_gvf]

VC-1 is a fine codec when given enough bits. Deja Vu showed this.

I would think that 3/3.5 PQ is sufficient proof the master was poor. And perhaps AVC isn't quite as good as VC-1 with a poor master. Or perhaps this was just a goof up. It happens with those humans sometimes.

Gary

[Balian]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

VC-1 is a fine codec when given enough bits. Deja Vu showed this.

I would think that 3/3.5 PQ is sufficient proof the master was poor. And perhaps AVC isn't quite as good as VC-1 with a poor master. Or perhaps this was just a goof up. It happens with those humans sometimes.
Gary

It could also be the fact that the HD DVD version has 5 GB more to work with. In this case, since Paramount is using BD-25 ...its 25 GB vs 30 GB.

Originally Posted by Esox50

It has been widely whispered for a long time that Sony is encoding the Paramount releases. When was the last time you saw Sony use VC-1? This seems to make sense since Paramount used MPEG2 when Sony was using MPEG2, and when Sony started using AVC...magically Paramount started using AVC as well.

Sony might be doing the encoding for Paramount but Paramount decides the target output. The target for this title happens to be a BD-25 disc. Don't blame Sony for this.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Balian

It could also be the fact that the HD DVD version has 5 GB more to work with. In this case, since Paramount is using BD-25 ...its 25 GB vs 30 GB.

BD25 should be enough for this movie. And the HD DVD only got a 3.5.

Gary

[Ascended_Saiyan]

I didn't know that in Coming to America...Cuba Gooding, Jr. was the guy in the Barber's chair getting a haircut! That's pretty cool. His first start in movies.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

VC-1 is a fine codec when given enough bits. Deja Vu showed this.

I would think that 3/3.5 PQ is sufficient proof the master was poor. And perhaps AVC isn't quite as good as VC-1 with a poor master. Or perhaps this was just a goof up. It happens with those humans sometimes.

Gary

Read the review on hometheaterspot.com. David said it might be the filter they used on the BD side of things.

[David Vaughn]

It may be filtering (which AVC has in the process if needed), which Paramount did use on U2's Rattle and Hum.

As for the Encoding...Sony is doing Paramounts on the BD side and I "think" Universal is doing their HD DVD encodes (or the same production house that Universal uses). When you go back and forth between the two, the HD DVD has a little more depth and "pop" to the presentation.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Balian

Sony might be doing the encoding for Paramount but Paramount decides the target output. The target for this title happens to be a BD-25 disc. Don't blame Sony for this.

I wasn't blaming Sony for anything. I was merely answering the question as to why Paramount hasn't used VC-1 on BD.

[ProvenFlipper]

I'm sure the difference is negilible, and wouldn't be noticible to the average joe. My only gripe with Paramount is that they haven't included PCM or Dolby TrueHD on any of their releases. At least give us Dolby TrueHD as it seems like most players are compatible, or becoming that way in the near future.

[blitz6speed]

Originally Posted by ProvenFlipper

I'm sure the difference is negilible, and wouldn't be noticible to the average joe. My only gripe with Paramount is that they haven't included PCM or Dolby TrueHD on any of their releases. At least give us Dolby TrueHD as it seems like most players are compatible, or becoming that way in the near future.

Top Gun BD will have a PCM track.

[Scorxpion]

HERE i recommend to change this title of Thread to AVC beats VC-1 and not Vice versa.All in One if we want to take this title Coming to America and Prove VC-1 is better than AVC because all we Know AVC is unbeatable when it is done right.Even David did not mention on his review that The BD is in a lower step Than HD-DVD but he notice that.But i Would to refresh the HD-DVD which they are still believe blindly they have a better codec.

This is the Real explosion in Face of HD-DVD who is saying that VC-1 is better than AVC

video:
"Video:
"Coming to America" is nicely presented in 1.85:1 widescreen and mastered with a MPEG-4 codec. The film is twenty years old and it certainly doesn´t look like a spring chicken. The quality never approaches stunning and rarely exhibits a pleasing three dimensional look. However, it is consistently detailed. The scenes that take place in the African nation of Prince Akeem show how colorful the film can be. Film grain is present throughout the film and there are minor traces of edge enhancement, but I was far more pleased with how "Coming to America" looked when compared to the very disappointing "Norbit." This film isn´t going to compete with top-shelf quality transfers and it won´t hold its own to most second-shelf titles either. However, this is a film that has never been visually awe inspiring. I can safely report that this is the best the film has ever looked on home video and that although it isn´t stunning, it looks very nice. The film features a transfer that is effectively identical to the HD-DVD release. Although this is mastered in AVC MPEG-4 compared to the HD-DVD´s VC-1, there are no apparent visual differences between the two."


Link:

http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/coming-to-america/4797/1

[aaronwt]

It's only half a star difference. That doesn't sound like much. 3 or 3.5 stars doesn't sound like very good quality anyway.
I got the HD DVD version for the better audio but for $17.95 I guess it's ok. It wouldn't be worth the $25 that the more expensive titles cost especially for a BD 25.

[zombieking]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

HERE i recommend to change this title of Thread to AVC beats VC-1 and not Vice versa.All in One if we want to take this title Coming to America and Prove VC-1 is better than AVC because all we Know AVC is unbeatable when it is done right.Even David did not mention on his review that The BD is in a lower step Than HD-DVD but he notice that.But i Would to refresh the HD-DVD which they are still believe blindly they have a better codec.

This is the Real explosion in Face of HD-DVD who is saying that VC-1 is better than AVC

video:
"Video:
"Coming to America" is nicely presented in 1.85:1 widescreen and mastered with a MPEG-4 codec. The film is twenty years old and it certainly doesn´t look like a spring chicken. The quality never approaches stunning and rarely exhibits a pleasing three dimensional look. However, it is consistently detailed. The scenes that take place in the African nation of Prince Akeem show how colorful the film can be. Film grain is present throughout the film and there are minor traces of edge enhancement, but I was far more pleased with how "Coming to America" looked when compared to the very disappointing "Norbit." This film isn´t going to compete with top-shelf quality transfers and it won´t hold its own to most second-shelf titles either. However, this is a film that has never been visually awe inspiring. I can safely report that this is the best the film has ever looked on home video and that although it isn´t stunning, it looks very nice. The film features a transfer that is effectively identical to the HD-DVD release. Although this is mastered in AVC MPEG-4 compared to the HD-DVD´s VC-1, there are no apparent visual differences between the two."


Link:

http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/coming-to-america/4797/1

He did say the movie is the best it ever looked on home video, and that's good enough for me!!! FUNNY movie! SEXUAL CHOCOLATE