In-Depth video codec analysis...

[Whytewash]

Sorry if this has already been posted... Just another statistical proof of BD superiority...

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?opt...k=view&id=6326

[richard lichtenfelt]

To people who don't want to read the whole thing you can at least check out the numerical charts for some immensely telling info on which format is clearly superior.

[Whytewash]

that is all I looked at. It was too technical for me; however, the charts are very easily identifiable. They clearly show the truth

[bootman]

The superiority of blu comes from the greater space to allow less compression and higher bit rate for higher quality encoding, not really the actual codec themselves since both formats can use the same ones.

[Neo65]

Originally Posted by bootman

The superiority of blu comes from the greater space to allow less compression and higher bit rate for higher quality encoding, not really the actual codec themselves since both formats can use the same ones.

Actually, the bigger space only helps for longer movies, but the fundamental advantage is the higher bandwidth. IE: how fast data can be read from the optical disk. This is the main technical advantage of BD.

Average Bitrates of 20Mbps is fine as movies tend to have simple sections along with tough ones. But in tough complex sections of many movies, you would need higher bitrates sustained for long periods to avoid encoding artifacts in AVC or VC-1.

Lower bandwidth (how fast data can be read) also means that if you include a TrueHD track (variable bitrate), you could lose up to 6Mbps from your limit. Doing Pip could also lose a few more Mbps. This is the main reason why any movie with complex scenes that did not go through a grain-removal filter is not likely to have TrueHD on HD DVD.

[Hussla]

For humorous commentary please visit:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=928758