Is MPEG2 Inherently Inferior?

[phloyd]

This has come up in other threads so I thought I would offer to shed some light on this

There are a number of sources of MPEG2 that are pretty exceptional IMHO. These include Japan's BSHi broadcasts, Dish Network's HD PPVs, and HDNet and HDNet Movies (when they get it right). Of course the pinnacle is perhaps the DTheater tapes that were released some time back.

However perhaps the clincher for me is this review of U-571, where the author draws a comparison between the VC-1 HD DVD and the MPEG2 DTheater tape.

Also, note that 'U-571' is the first HD-DVD title that has also been released on the now-defunct D-VHS format, which makes for an interesting comparison. Clearly, both come from the same source material, so it really is a wash between the two for me. Both match each other in every respect -- detail, sharpness, contrast and depth of color.

Read the whole review here

Now IIRC, U-571 was the first DTheater tape (or at least first wave). The DTheater tapes are just under 23 Mbps MPEG2 video. This movie as encoded on the DTheater tape should fit no problem on a 25 GB Bluray disc. Of course, there would be limited room for extras but it should fit with that level of quality, equal quality to the VC-1 HD DVD according to that review.

So, my assertion is that Sony has poor encoding techniques and quality control. If the U-571 VC-1 HD DVD is 'transparent to the master', the MPEG2 version is also. Sony, and especially Lions Gate with their sparse extras, should be able to achieve the same with MPEG2 on Bluray disc.

[BTBuck1]

I think the 5 or so audio tracks including the space HOG pcm 5.1 are whats starving the bit rate to fit it all in on 25gb's. The Lionsgate films all pretty much get solid reviews, as does the shorter film "Ultra Violet"

Sony needs to stick with shorter movies, & or dump the PCM lossless tracks until they get their 50gb DL's up.

I prefer less compression if possible, we just need a disc that can handle it. And from most reports 50gb should suffice.

Until then, DTS-ES & DOLBY Digital EX are no slouches. I'll take a little good on both ends than crappy picture, great sound I.E. HOFD

[hmurchison]

MPEG2 really looks great above 25Mbps. DVHS took advantage of this and the videos can look superb.

If we were willing to give up the storage capacity necessary MPEG2 high bitrate would suffice.

The need for VC-1 and AVC was born of the desire to have high quality video at smaller datarates/data sizes so that streaming and storing digital content was easier.

Both new codecs have been architected so that they preserve the quality at lower bitrates. MPEG2 struggles in low bitrate environments and begins to artifact and macroblock. It wasn't designed to work in this nether region of bitrate.

I think the only reason why some BD titles don't look as good is because.

1. They have a 25GB ceiling for audio, video and all else.
2. They try not to use the full disc because if you're going to have tracking problems they will likely come out the outside edges of the disc.

The only times I can see MPEG2 being desireable over VC-1 or AVC is when you have limited processing power but storage space isn't an issue.

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

The only times I can see MPEG2 being desireable over VC-1 or AVC is when you have limited processing power but storage space isn't an issue.

and it shouldn't be an issue on DL disks right?

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Brian@BBY

and it shouldn't be an issue on DL disks right?

Nope. DL discs should give that extra room for increased quality and features. In fact the releases for Blu-Ray keep getting better in quality. The Punisher may not be a great movie but I've read little complaints about the quality.

I don't think we have anything to worry about. If they can redo The Fith Element and HoFD they'll have pretty much erased any overtly poor movies.

[BTBuck1]

To Me, i've seen TFE enough times to where i'll be good until Ultra High Def comes out. House of Flying daggers, I bought mainly for the audio.
I had the JDM bootleg a while back and the PQ was Horrid, macroblocking, artifacts the whole nine. I have seen the regular dvd and it wasn't much better but lacked the DTS audio i enjoyed off the JDM title. From what i can remember of the theatrical release this movie was shot several years before it came stateside and was less than glorious (picture-wise) even on the big screen.

So I bought it anyways. I enjoyed the film in pretty poor condition before and anything going forward will be a ten fold upgrade to me.

I agree that HOFD & TFE where pretty much panned, and it's so sad to see how two poor movies could give an entire Launch a bad name. It's not like HDDVD doesnt have Full Metal Jacket, The fugitive & Apollo 13 to do some explaining for, as those movies just aren't up to snuff, much in the same way the poor BR releases aren't.

I am also of the belief that their will be differances in PQ between players much as their has always been with DVD.

[Psiweaver]

Apollo 13 is wonderful on HD DVD picture isn't fantastic but boy is the sound quality amazing. Very good movie too.

[RX-Men-8]

Originally Posted by BTBuck1

House of Flying daggers, I bought mainly for the audio.
I had the JDM bootleg a while back and the PQ was Horrid, macroblocking, artifacts the whole nine. I have seen the regular dvd and it wasn't much better but lacked the DTS audio i enjoyed off the JDM title. From what i can remember of the theatrical release this movie was shot several years before it came stateside and was less than glorious (picture-wise) even on the big screen.

So I bought it anyways. I enjoyed the film in pretty poor condition before and anything going forward will be a ten fold upgrade to me.

Just to add to the audio part of HOFD. In part because of the audio we've been playing/demoing the 3rd chapter a lot lately. Very well made.

However, we find that the Chinese 5.1 PCM and Chinese 5.1 Dolby Digital tracks are marginally louder than the English, Spanish and French 5.1 Dolby tracks. In some parts this results in clipping distortion , an example being the dance in chapter 3. A shame, really as the Chinese version is the authentic one to watch (hear).

Cheers,

RX-Men-8

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by phloyd

The DTheater tapes are just under 23 Mbps MPEG2 video.

And that was 23Mbps CBR (constant bit-rate)!

With the VBR (variable bit-rate) flexibility of BD you can have 21-23MBps ABR with pops to near 40Mbps when needed.

I couldn't believe it when Amir actually tried to imply MPEG-2 VBR was INFERIOR to CBR. He of course didn't actually say that directly, because it would make him look like a moron, but he tried to use all sorts arguments to lead the reader to that conclusion.

Pathethic.

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

Every single anti-BD thing Amir has said has been pretty much shown to be false, and yet people still revere him. Amazing.

Fools and their money ...

Gary

[HDTV1080P]

Originally Posted by phloyd

This has come up in other threads so I thought I would offer to shed some light on this

There are a number of sources of MPEG2 that are pretty exceptional IMHO. These include Japan's BSHi broadcasts, Dish Network's HD PPVs, and HDNet and HDNet Movies (when they get it right). Of course the pinnacle is perhaps the DTheater tapes that were released some time back.

However perhaps the clincher for me is this review of U-571, where the author draws a comparison between the VC-1 HD DVD and the MPEG2 DTheater tape.



Read the whole review here

Now IIRC, U-571 was the first DTheater tape (or at least first wave). The DTheater tapes are just under 23 Mbps MPEG2 video. This movie as encoded on the DTheater tape should fit no problem on a 25 GB Bluray disc. Of course, there would be limited room for extras but it should fit with that level of quality, equal quality to the VC-1 HD DVD according to that review.

So, my assertion is that Sony has poor encoding techniques and quality control. If the U-571 VC-1 HD DVD is 'transparent to the master', the MPEG2 version is also. Sony, and especially Lions Gate with their sparse extras, should be able to achieve the same with MPEG2 on Bluray disc.

At the very minimum HD-DVD and BLU-RAY should try to match the quality of the D-VHS format. The largest cassette tape for D-VHS was a DF-480 which holds 50GB of video and audio data using MPEG-2. There were around 100 titles released in D-theater on D-VHS by 4 different movie studios. Each of the 1080I movies that contained full spectrum 1.54MB DTS tracks used up the entire cassette tape and contained no extras. The bit rate for D-VHS was stored up to 28.8MB per second. The advantage of the BLU-RAY format is that it has 50GB discs which compares to the maximum storage capacity of D-VHS. So if one encoded a BLU-RAY movie with MPEG-2 on a 50GB disc with no extra’s then the picture quality would match or be slightly better then D-VHS. Now if MPEG-4 or VC1 was used then a movie at 30GB would be the same quality or better then a 50GB MPEG-2 movie. MPEG-2 is over ten years old. Satellite, cable, and HDTV optical formats are getting away from MPEG-2. VC1 and MPEG-4 will always be better quality then MPEG-2 when the exact same bit rate is being used.
I hope all future BLU-RAY releases will use 50GB discs with either VC1 or MPEG-4. D-VHS only had MPEG-2, BLU-RAY has the possibility to make movies with a lot better quality then what was experienced on the HDTV D-VHS format.

[fragglerock585]

Forgive me for my ignorance, but is an MPEG-2 1080i encode a much smaller bitrate than a comparable MPEG-2 1080p encode? It should be at least 25% smaller, and at most (but unlikely) 50% smaller.


I guess this explains the difference between the encode qualities between DVHS (1080i) and BD(1080p).

Correct me if im mistaken.

[Deciazulado]

According to the Kell factor (0.7) p could have up to 1.4x more info than i. But as everything in life ymmv!

[phloyd]

The progressive one should be smaller for the same quality.

Interlaced is less efficient.

Combine that with the fact that progressive is 24 fps and interlaced is 30 fps, the progressive version is much more efficient.