Standardized video codecs?

[Canada]

Blu-Ray has been out for more than a year now and they still use two or the codecs on a regular basis.

MPEG-4
VC1
and MPEG-2

why isn't there a standard video codec that all studios use?

[Chad Varnadore]

I think a number of things factor in, but foresee most studios leaning toward AVC as time goes on. Warner being the sole exception, as long as HD DVD survives anyway. We're already starting to see an end of the use of MPEG-2, not that the codec hasn't performed splendidly at higher bitrates especially. But, AVC offers some flexibility that MPEG-2 and VC-1 don't. As the codec continues to be refined and more compressionists get experience with it, there'll be little reason to use MPEG-2 anymore, unless out of efficiency similar to how HD DVD uses it for transferring extras to the new format.

[LeoneFan]

I agree, AVC would be the best option and I'm glad that more and more Blu-ray studios are using the codec. Nothing wrong with MPEG-2, but why waste disc space.

[Chad Varnadore]

There should be no real difference in space requirements for MPEG-2 at 30mbps and AVC at 30mbps. It's not the same as comparing a compressed codec like TrueHD to uncompressed PCM. MPEG-4 is just newer, was designed with high def more in mind, and allows compressionists more flexibility and greater control in their job, allowing them to push bitrates lower with less obvious artifacting should disc space be strained due to a films length or the volume of extras. But the least amount of compression they use the better.

[jbuttler007]

Progression and advancement in technology will with no doubt go with vc-1.

[jorg]

Originally Posted by Canada

Blu-Ray has been out for more than a year now and they still use two or the codecs on a regular basis.

MPEG-4
VC1
and MPEG-2

why isn't there a standard video codec that all studios use?

and to answer your question it is becuase studios know relize that some movies just look better using avc(mpeg-4) then vc1 or mpeg2 and vice versa. with dvd if your movies dient look god with mpeg-2 thats to bad but know we can be like wekk mpeg-2 dosent look as good but look at vc-1(knowen to be softer and not as sharp[can be a good thing look at king kong])or maybe "aa vc-1 isent getting the look i wnat lets try avc

[Chad Varnadore]

Originally Posted by jbuttler007

Progression and advancement in technology will with no doubt go with vc-1.

Based on the majority of what they're doing now, lets hope not.

I think Microsoft is using HD DVD as a test platform to refine VC-1 (read: find the limits that will still fool most people) for VOD. That's why they deny that the few high bitrate encodes that Disney has done are any better than low bitrate from Warner. They need to get bitrates lower for HD quality VOD and don't want people to realize there's a performance cost that would give packaged media another edge. Of course the same argument could be made regarding BD and HD DVD now. But, everybody now knows that HD DVD isn't Microsoft's long term goal.

[Frode]

Cost and encoding time also figures into the equation. It's far faster and easier to get an mpeg2 encode ready than it is to do the same for VC1 or AVC.

[KenThompson]

Mpeg 2 may be old but it sure can look good when it has room to breath. High bit rate avc or mpeg 2 use up the same amount of space if coded at same rate, so just sit back and enjoy our great looking movies.