Alright, which one is better: VC-1 or AVC? - Blu-ray Forum

Lincoln6Echo · 05-13-2010, 11:03 PM

When I first got into BD in the Fall of '09, and eventually learned of the 3 video codecs used for BD transfers (MPEG-2, MPEG-4/AVC, and VC-1) I thought VC-1 was the better of the 2 true HD codecs. I thought their transfers were smoother looking (little or no grain), and presented what I thought a good HD transfer was supposed to look like. But then when I started seeing more AVC transfers, I notice the grain structures actually increased detail.

If I'm not mistaken, the VC-1 codec was originally licensed or produced or something like that by Microsoft, while the MPEG variants were Apple properties. I may be wrong on that, but I'm just going on memory from what I read on Wikipedia.

42041 · 05-13-2010, 11:08 PM

Not knowing the technical details about the codecs, I can only judge from the final product, but if WB's releases are representative of the compression quality modern implementations of VC1 offer, AVC is miles ahead at this point.

BStecke · 05-13-2010, 11:38 PM

If used correctly it really shouldn't matter. The only thing that should make a difference is the source material. It's like using .zip or .rar. Doesn't make any difference in the end product.

VC-1 got kind of a bad rep due to Warner's almost exclusive use of it during the format war, so people equated soft, bit-starved transfers as being the fault of the codec used, rather than the true limiting factor, which was that they were using the same transfers for HD DVD and Blu-ray.

Clark Kent · 05-13-2010, 11:41 PM

VC-1 is an obsolete compression scheme, given the rapid and continued development of AVC encoders across the world. Any studio still employing it for recent Blu-rays is making a pure business decision that VC-1 is good enough, not that it is the best quality anymore. If Microsoft had not been so dead set on fighting the format war a few years ago, I doubt VC-1 ever gets widely used on Blu-ray.

42041 · 05-13-2010, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStecke

If used correctly it really shouldn't matter. The only thing that should make a difference is the source material. It's like using .zip or .rar. Doesn't make any difference.

That's not true. Zip and rar are not lossy codecs.

BStecke · 05-13-2010, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42041

That's not true. Zip and rar are not lossy codecs.

I think you missed what I was getting at. If I zip up a spreadsheet in .zip or .rar, I'm still getting the same thing. Just an analogy.

Suntory_Times · 05-13-2010, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStecke

I think you missed what I was getting at. If I zip up a spreadsheet in .zip or .rar, I'm still getting the same thing. Just an analogy.

Just not a very good one.

42041 · 05-13-2010, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStecke

I think you missed what I was getting at. If I zip up a spreadsheet in .zip or .rar, I'm still getting the same thing. Just an analogy.

But that's just it, you're NOT getting the same thing. Rar and zip are fundamentally different from lossy perceptual compression, they produce output that is mathematically identical to the input (otherwise your program/spreadsheet wouldnt work at all). Lossy perceptual codecs always degrade quality, hopefully in a manner your eye can't see, and there are significant differences in quality/efficiency between different compression schemes and different implementations of them.

Lincoln6Echo · 05-13-2010, 11:49 PM

Ironically, I'm sitting here watching some T:SCC, and yes, once again, it's a WB title, and it uses VC-1 and the PQ does look quite good, but yeah, it has that soft non-grainy look to it.

Wayfarer · 05-13-2010, 11:47 PM

There are plenty of mediocre VC-1 encodes from the likes of Warner, which give the impression that VC-1 is inferior to AVC.

But Baraka is often hailed as one of the very best looking films on blu, and it is VC-1. Same with Shoot Em Up, and Doomsday, and the UK Pan's Labyrinth. So there are reference quality VC-1 encodes, definitely.

To be honest, I personally prefer AVC just because it seems to yield far fewer poor encodes than VC-1. Studios seem to think that because VC-1 is efficient at lower bitrates, that this is an excuse to keep pumping out bit-starved films.

Of course, this is due to how each codec is used by the studios, as opposed to a shortcoming in the codec itself.

View Poll Results: Which HD codec do you prefer (or is best)?
MPEG-4/AVC	130	86.67%
VC-1	20	13.33%
Voters: 150. You may not vote on this poll

05-13-2010, 11:03 PM	#1
Lincoln6Echo Special Member Top contributor Member since:Sep 2009 Home Theater Gallery:4 4K collection:312 Blu-ray collection:1517 DVD collection:8 Blu-ray reviews: 25	Alright, which one is better: VC-1 or AVC? When I first got into BD in the Fall of '09, and eventually learned of the 3 video codecs used for BD transfers (MPEG-2, MPEG-4/AVC, and VC-1) I thought VC-1 was the better of the 2 true HD codecs. I thought their transfers were smoother looking (little or no grain), and presented what I thought a good HD transfer was supposed to look like. But then when I started seeing more AVC transfers, I notice the grain structures actually increased detail. If I'm not mistaken, the VC-1 codec was originally licensed or produced or something like that by Microsoft, while the MPEG variants were Apple properties. I may be wrong on that, but I'm just going on memory from what I read on Wikipedia.

05-13-2010, 11:38 PM	#3
BStecke Blu-ray Knight Member since:Jun 2007 4K collection:182 Blu-ray collection:567 DVD collection:1 Digital collection:1 iTunes collection:1 Blu-ray reviews: 1 Trading Score:6	If used correctly it really shouldn't matter. The only thing that should make a difference is the source material. It's like using .zip or .rar. Doesn't make any difference in the end product. VC-1 got kind of a bad rep due to Warner's almost exclusive use of it during the format war, so people equated soft, bit-starved transfers as being the fault of the codec used, rather than the true limiting factor, which was that they were using the same transfers for HD DVD and Blu-ray. Last edited by BStecke; 05-13-2010 at 11:40 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
The Descent MPEG vs AVC (need help from AVC owners)	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Eagle_23	105	04-06-2021 03:29 AM
ZODIAC BD AVC VS VC-1,AVC is the winner	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Scorxpion	28	12-27-2013 01:49 AM
Alright, need speaker help	Speakers	skatalite	6	09-03-2009 05:05 AM
The Kids Are Alright	Wish Lists	BIGLAD	1	09-09-2008 05:00 PM
T3- Was alright with me	Blu-ray Movies - North America	photorebel	13	01-02-2008 02:16 PM

05-13-2010, 11:08 PM	#2
42041 Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Oct 2008	Not knowing the technical details about the codecs, I can only judge from the final product, but if WB's releases are representative of the compression quality modern implementations of VC1 offer, AVC is miles ahead at this point.

05-13-2010, 11:41 PM	#4
Clark Kent Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Metropolis Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:184	VC-1 is an obsolete compression scheme, given the rapid and continued development of AVC encoders across the world. Any studio still employing it for recent Blu-rays is making a pure business decision that VC-1 is good enough, not that it is the best quality anymore. If Microsoft had not been so dead set on fighting the format war a few years ago, I doubt VC-1 ever gets widely used on Blu-ray.

05-13-2010, 11:49 PM	#9
Lincoln6Echo Special Member Top contributor Member since:Sep 2009 Home Theater Gallery:4 4K collection:312 Blu-ray collection:1517 DVD collection:8 Blu-ray reviews: 25	Ironically, I'm sitting here watching some T:SCC, and yes, once again, it's a WB title, and it uses VC-1 and the PQ does look quite good, but yeah, it has that soft non-grainy look to it.

05-13-2010, 11:47 PM	#10
Wayfarer Active Member Member since:Nov 2008 Blu-ray collection:161 Blu-ray reviews:1	There are plenty of mediocre VC-1 encodes from the likes of Warner, which give the impression that VC-1 is inferior to AVC. But Baraka is often hailed as one of the very best looking films on blu, and it is VC-1. Same with Shoot Em Up, and Doomsday, and the UK Pan's Labyrinth. So there are reference quality VC-1 encodes, definitely. To be honest, I personally prefer AVC just because it seems to yield far fewer poor encodes than VC-1. Studios seem to think that because VC-1 is efficient at lower bitrates, that this is an excuse to keep pumping out bit-starved films. Of course, this is due to how each codec is used by the studios, as opposed to a shortcoming in the codec itself.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals