Question about MPEG-2 vs. AVC, etc.

[tykittaa]

I'm not exactly very knowledgeable when it comes to these kind of things, so please forgive me if I'm asking a really stupid question.

Anyway, I was told a few days ago to avoid buying Blu-Ray discs that were encoded with MPEG-2 because apparently this meant it wasn't true Hi-Def and would sacrifice image and sound quality.

However, in reading some reviews on this site, I noticed Ice Age 2 (a movie I hesitated purchasing since the case said MPEG-2) received a 5/5 for image quality.

Is this a fluke or was I lied to?

What exactly IS the difference?

[Moefiz]

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ighlight=mpeg4

Welcome to the crew.

[bageleaterkkjji]

Originally Posted by tykittaa

I'm not exactly very knowledgeable when it comes to these kind of things, so please forgive me if I'm asking a really stupid question.

Anyway, I was told a few days ago to avoid buying Blu-Ray discs that were encoded with MPEG-2 because apparently this meant it wasn't true Hi-Def and would sacrifice image and sound quality.

However, in reading some reviews on this site, I noticed Ice Age 2 (a movie I hesitated purchasing since the case said MPEG-2) received a 5/5 for image quality.

Is this a fluke or was I lied to?

What exactly IS the difference?

well i say the image quality is 100% not a 5 more like a 4 this movie came out in nov 06 (everyone probably thought it looked awesome back then) until cars and ratatouille came out (5/5's) and this movie is not even close to as good looking as they are... mpeg 2 has nothing to do with sound also

[Canada]

AVC and VC-1 will generally look better than MPEG-2 just because because AVC and VC-1 are more efficent codes. That being said MPEG-2 can look great examples Kingdom of Heaven and Black Hawk Down. They can also look absolutly atroshious like The Italian Job.

[JadedRaverLA]

Don't base your movie buying on the video codec used. AVC, VC-1, and MPEG-2 can all produce terrific results, though MPEG-2 requires more bitrate to get the same quality as the others. The resolution is independent of the video codec, and pretty much all Blu-ray discs are encoded at 1080p24 or 1080i60 regardless of codec (so, yes, MPEG-2 at 1080p or 1080i is just as "high def" as either other codec at that resolution). And the audio codec is completely independent of the video codec, so those really have nothing to do with one another.

Early on (back in 2006 especially), there were a number of titles released from old masters, on BD25s, and using the MPEG-2 codec. A lot of those titles don't look as good as they should... but that really doesn't mean MPEG-2 is the big problem. MPEG-2 combined with only a single-layer disc isn't ideal... but it was the quality of the old masters that was generally to blame for the (lack of) quality on certain early releases.

Anyway, if video quality is the most important thing to you, then definitely check out reviews before buying pretty much ANY title... but avoiding MPEG-2 altogether was bad advice, as there are some great releases out there using that codec -- and some of the worst tranfers out there use one of the other codecs.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

The MPEG-2 codec is not something that should be avoided completely... but it definitely is still a gamble. Since 98% of the Blu-rays released with an MPEG-2 encode were among the first on the market, there are some good and some bad. The one that proves to me MPEG-2 on Blu-ray is still WAY BETTER THAN MPEG-2 on DVD is 'Crank.' But, do keep in mind that there are some doozies out there that will look awful... although still better than the DVD version.

The trick is in being able to tell what kind of bitrate is attached to the codec. With MPEG-2, a bitrate of 30Mbps is going to look great. An MPEG-2 encode with a bitrate of 20Mbps or less could easily shift in the bad direction.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by tykittaa

I'm not exactly very knowledgeable when it comes to these kind of things, so please forgive me if I'm asking a really stupid question.

No worries there mate.

Anyway, I was told a few days ago to avoid buying Blu-Ray discs that were encoded with MPEG-2 because apparently this meant it wasn't true Hi-Def and would sacrifice image and sound quality.

Ah, but then if there's a title that you want it so badly but it's only in MPEG-2, what ya gonna do?
Don't worry too much about this. If there's a title you want, just get it.
Unless there are rare instances where an improved version is released, which to be honest, no title comes to my head right now.

If you are just collecting Blu-ray titles to fill up your shelf with demo materials, then generally yes. MPEG4 (AVC) and VC-1 are developed with HD in mind, and they perform much better even at lower bitrates.

However, most of the Blu-ray titles that were encoded in MPEG-2 were mainly the first wave when Blu-ray was first rolled out to consumers. Since then, most if not all of the studios that used MPEG2 previously have now switched to MPEG4 or VC1. (I'm quite sure 20th Century Fox was one who switched from MPEG2 to MPEG4, and Paramount switched from MPEG2 to VC1)

And like others have mentioned, MPEG2 is quite capable of delivering results worthy of High Definition standards, that is if the studios encoded it right.

So if you come across a title that's encoded in MPEG2, perhaps do a little bit of homework. Check online, there are quite a few review sites, check the forums, I'm sure you can somewhat gather enough information to make a sound decision in purchasing that said MPEG2 title.

Is this a fluke or was I lied to?
What exactly IS the difference?

How old are you? Do you ever came upon a time back when people struggled to distribute video on the internet? And then came DivX?
These codecs were developed to either improve picture quality or to maintain that same quality but at a lower bitrate.

The keyword here is optimization. And that's pretty much the case with MPEG4 and VC1. Compare the original Fantastic Four and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. One was encoded in MPEG2, the other in MPEG4. One was encoded at around 25Mbps and the other was encoded at around 18Mbps.
Quite a big difference ain't it?
The newer codecs are able to maintain or perhaps improve the picture quality, at a lower bitrate.
With that said, now the amount of storage space saved can be used for extras, or commentaries without comprimising on the video quality.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

The trick is in being able to tell what kind of bitrate is attached to the codec. With MPEG-2, a bitrate of 30Mbps is going to look great. An MPEG-2 encode with a bitrate of 20Mbps or less could easily shift in the bad direction.

*Using this to reach the OP*
Kingdom of Heaven had an average bitrate of 24Mbps and was amazing. It's a blending of 2 things that gives you great results...1) a good film master...2) decent bitrates. They are equally important. One is not more important than the other. I believe Tears of the Sun was around 18Mbps and is still one of the best PQ on Blu-ray. It was on a 25GB disc. It had a great master for it's transfer.

Bottom line is that it's almost impossible to know the bitrates on a film without renting or purchasing it. People shouldn't even look at the video codec used. Just look at the review ratings for titles and read what they say about the PQ. Nothing else matters.

Another example of MPEG-2 not being the problem:
Mission Impossible 3. On HD DVD, VC-1 was used. On Blu-ray, MPEG-2 was used. Supposedly, the same master was used for the transfer. The Blu-ray version (MPEG-2) had more details in it.

[tykittaa]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Unless there are rare instances where an improved version is released, which to be honest, no title comes to my head right now.

The Fifth Element.



Thanks for your answers everybody!