VC-1 ever?

[SHIELD]

HD DVD is dead & gone. Panasonic/Sony don't have to worry about MS using VC-1 money to fight them anymore. So why aren't more movies showing up in VC-1?

The way I understand it, it's the most advanced codec available. Highest profile w/ most geometric pixel block configurations & most accurate color reproduction.

What reason would there be not to use it? Why aren't all the movie companies getting on the bandwagon? Seems like only Warner & Lionsgate are.

Some are even still coming w/ MPEG-2!? What's up w/ that?

[Chevypower]

I thought AVC was the best one, if bit-rates were equal

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

I thought AVC was the best one, if bit-rates were equal

I'm almost positive VC-1 is the best w/ all things being equal. It has more block configurations. Which helps it store more information with less data. Something about it also allows more accurate color reproduction. Cant remember what though.

[gvortex7]

WB and New Line still use VC-1 exclusively, and from time to time so does Lionsgate. BTW, AVC is at least as good if not better than VC-1.

[Alan Gordon]

I'll let someone with more "technical" knowledge field this one...

~Alan

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by gvortex7

WB and New Line still use VC-1 exclusively, and from time to time so does Lionsgate. BTW, AVC is at least as good if not better than VC-1.

Paramount has started using VC-1 on Blu-ray as well...

~Alan

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by gvortex7

AVC is at least as good if not better than VC-1.

Can you explain how that is? Because all evidence I've seen points in the opposite direction.

[BStecke]

According to Amir (yeah, I know), they did two transfers of Transformers, one with AVC and one with VC1, and the VC1 version was "closer to the master." Take what you will from that . . . I definitely wouldn't say that AVC is incapable of the same results.

[theprophecy247]

Originally Posted by BStecke

According to Amir (yeah, I know), they did two transfers of Transformers, one with AVC and one with VC1, and the VC1 version was "closer to the master." Take what you will from that . . . I definitely wouldn't say that AVC is incapable of the same results.

Interesting

[gvortex7]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

Can you explain how that is? Because all evidence I've seen points in the opposite direction.

And what evidence is that?

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by gvortex7

And what evidence is that?

You still haven't answered me. Answering a question with a question, not effective in proving something.

& I gave my reasons already in this thread, in the post right before your proclamation AVC is equal if not better.

Take this example

26.6MB h.264 AVC :resolution 960 x 540

24.6MB WMV (essentially VC-1) :resolution 1280 x 720

download and watch both videos. If you're using a 24 bit display you should notice better color in the WMV one as well.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

Take this example

26.6MB h.264 AVC :resolution 960 x 540

24.6MB WMV (essentially VC-1) :resolution 1280 x 720

download and watch both videos. If you're using a 24 bit display you should notice better color in the WMV one as well.

A 960 x 540 AVC encode vs a 1280 x 720 WMV encode? Not a good example (for several reasons).

~Alan

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

A 960 x 540 AVC encode vs a 1280 x 720 WMV encode? Not a good example (for several reasons).

~Alan

look at the file sizes.

[Clark Kent]

At the low bitrates the HD DVD studios were using VC-1 it tended to smooth out the picture slightly. Check many Warner releases for examples. It definitely wasn't preserving the original grain structure of the film as well as Mpeg4 or even Mpeg2. It's why I think many were fooled by the general picture quality of HD DVD because most seem to prefer that grainless HD look which the HD DVD encodes were providing. I have found high bitrate Mpeg4 to be the most faithful to the original source, though high bitrate VC-1 looks almost as good. The compression industry is moving away from VC-1 though for Blu-ray. The main advantage of VC-1 was it took less processing power than Mpeg4(ie cheaper) but there is still more active development of Mpeg4 on a global basis. I believe there are indications that Microsoft has stopped active development of VC-1 as a tool for HD media.

[AlexCruz]

If you look at the top rated Blu-ray titles, most of them have Mpeg-4 AVC encodes. A lot of people complain about Warner's titles since all they use is VC-1. I prefer AVC, but that's just my opinion.

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

At the low bitrates the HD DVD studios were using VC-1 it tended to smooth out the picture slightly. Check many Warner releases for examples. It definitely wasn't preserving the original grain structure of the film as well as Mpeg4 or even Mpeg2. It's why I think many were fooled by the general picture quality of HD DVD because most seem to prefer that grainless HD look which the HD DVD encodes were providing. I have found high bitrate Mpeg4 to be the most faithful to the original source, though high bitrate VC-1 looks almost as good. The compression industry is moving away from VC-1 though for Blu-ray. The main advantage of VC-1 was it took less processing power than Mpeg4(ie cheaper) but there is still more active development of Mpeg4 on a global basis. I believe there are indications that Microsoft has stopped active development of VC-1 as a tool for HD media.

actually VC-1 supports FGM, so the grain isn't an issue. The reason you didn't see it on films like V for Vendetta & King Kong was because there was none in the source.

VC-1 also uses a different profile for high bitrate which the people at AVS seem to think is better (holding more information w/ the same amount of data). The fact that some HD DVD movies in VC-1 were as good as ones at a higher bitrate on BD w/ h.264 speaks in itself. This was common in highdefdigest comparisons.

[AlexCruz]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

You still haven't answered me. Answering a question with a question, not effective in proving something.

& I gave my reasons already in this thread, in the post right before your proclamation AVC is equal if not better.

Take this example

26.6MB h.264 AVC :resolution 960 x 540

24.6MB WMV (essentially VC-1) :resolution 1280 x 720

download and watch both videos. If you're using a 24 bit display you should notice better color in the WMV one as well.

I have a 32 bit display and I would have to say the first one looks better. The second one looks like it was compressed to hell.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

look at the file sizes.

What about them?

If both files were the same resolution, and you could see a difference, they might be better examples... but other wise, I'm not sure what it proves.

Another thing is that you're comparing SMALL low-bitrate encodes, whereas Blu-ray would be HIGH-bitrate encodes.

A better example would be:

"Flags Of Our Fathers" - HD DVD (VC-1)
"Flags Of Our Fathers" - Blu-ray (AVC)

But again, I'm not quite as technical about this as most people...

~Alan

[Chevypower]

OK we need to do comparisons where the footage is the same, the resolution is the same, framerate is the same, bitrate is the same, but only differences are AVCHD and VC1. At the moment, I believe it to be AVC being the better of the two, but will remain open minded until one is proven to be the better of the two. I am hoping its not VC1 cos i really don't like Microsoft.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

VC-1 also uses a different profile for high bitrate which the people at AVS seem to think is better (holding more information w/ the same amount of data). The fact that some HD DVD movies in VC-1 were as good as ones at a higher bitrate on BD w/ h.264 speaks in itself. This was common in highdefdigest comparisons.

I generally don't trust AVS or HDD comparisons as they are often quite biased... but I already used a HDD comparison for a reference as well...

I personally find AVC and VC-1 to be quite equal when both are given HIGH-bitrate encodes.

~Alan