Why is the HD DVD camp bashing MPEG2?

[domerdel]

correct me if i'm wrong (and according to the blu-ray.com faq) both blu-ray and hd-dvd support Mpeg2 authoring. Whenever a movie is released on blu-ray and it's mpeg2, the hd-dvd camp is jump to say.. 'they're still using ancient authoring'... isn't hd-dvd doing the same thing with select titles?

From what i've seen, mpeg2 puts out a stellar picture on my hdtv, it's just less compressed giving it an inflated file size while mpeg4 is more efficient with it's file size giving it an equal if not better picture.

[cawgijoe]

People are just ignorant.

[Musashi]

Early BD titles used M-PEG2, and some new ones from smaller producers do also since it's cheaper. Both formats can and have used it. It's just that Universal and the neutral Warner Bros. tend to use VC-1, so HD-DVD zealots automatically think it's est and, in typical fashion, look for more ways to criticize blu-ray, valid or not.

[Blaumann]

mpeg2 can look great, it just needs more bandwidth as it´s more prone to artefacts. If it isn´t bitrate starved, it is still very competitive with the new codecs regarding pq imho. D-Theater was mpeg2 as well and many titles looked spectacular.

[WickyWoo]

It's the BS myth that MPEG-2 was responsible for the cruddy first run of Blu discs rather than the real culprit- Inexperience and rushjobbing

[dialog_gvf]

HD DVD doesn't have enough bandwidth or capacity to use MPEG-2 properly. Therefore, MPEG-2 must be crap.

It's the whole "whatever we can't do can't be important" logic of HD DVD.

[aristotles]

The HD DVD camp is dissing MPEG2 because HD DVD lacks the capacity and bandwidth to support MPEG2 properly.

As others have said, some early Blu-ray Discs were 25GB single layer discs with MPEG2 and they were less than stellar but any 50GB MPEG2 release should look great assuming the digital transfer was of good quality.

[CAB]

Saying blu-ray does movies on mpeg2 and HD-DVD uses new technology (VC-1) tells enough truth to make the casual observer believe that it's always the case. Not delving too deep leaves the proper impression on the impressionable. I wander through bigbox stores quite a bit to listen to the average consumer and the sales people and it's no surprise that the mpeg2 a half-truth is passed on frequently.

These are all details that the average consumer doesn't want to deal with. Who besides us looks at the back of the box for the A/V encode information? For you and me, it's a technical debate and competition. For the real world, the question is, who's got the movies they want to see. Studio support will be the savior or the death of one or both formats.

[Blu As Hell]

Mpeg2 can look incredible. Just look at "Kingdom of Heaven" that's an example of Mpeg2 done right.

[w_tanoto]

I have mpeg2 titles, and looks great. Nowadays, it's mostly VC1 for BD

[phranctoast]

I rather them use vc1 or avc (mpeg4). They can get a really great encode using the BD's higher bit rates. They can make a transfer that look much better than anything hddvd will be able to do. Think about it. They have an extra 20 gig to play around with !!!

[tron3]

Any form of compression will hinder PQ, and potentially cause artifacting because of it. Just depends on how much lossy compression you do. A 90 minute movie could look stunning. Maybe it only compressed down to 85 or 90 percent.

Now try sticking a 3 hour+ movie like LOTR. Unless a lossess compression is used, you WILL notice a crappier transfer. Lossess compression is harder and takes more space because nothing is thrown away.

I don't pretend to understand all the formats they are sticking on ol' blu, but I do know something about compression.

This is why I will be wary of any Paramount offerings when they go back to supporting blu-ray. Ripping Transformers from HD-DVD and sticking it on blu-ray is something pirates do, not studios! Let's see what they do. After the Sony fiasco with The 5th Element, anything is possible.

[Blaumann]

Originally Posted by tron3

Any form of compression will hinder PQ, and potentially cause artifacting because of it. Just depends on how much lossy compression you do. A 90 minute movie could look stunning. Maybe it only compressed down to 85 or 90 percent.

Now try sticking a 3 hour+ movie like LOTR. Unless a lossess compression is used, you WILL notice a crappier transfer. Lossess compression is harder and takes more space because nothing is thrown away.

I don't pretend to understand all the formats they are sticking on ol' blu, but I do know something about compression.

....

Not quite sure what you mean. All video codecs vc1/avc/mpeg2 are lossy.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by tron3

...
Now try sticking a 3 hour+ movie like LOTR.
...

Yesterday I watched The Deer Hunter (1978) in hi-def on cable. The movie clocked in at 3h 05m. The studio? Universal. Now how do they propose to squeeze that onto a 30GB HD-DVD? I suppose it wouldn't be much better than the version on TV.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by Blaumann

Not quite sure what you mean. All video codecs vc1/avc/mpeg2 are lossy.

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. Maybe the dual layer movies will be lossless. But, there is still the issue of getting 3hours to fit on a 15 or 30 GB disc.

[Blaumann]

Originally Posted by tron3

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. Maybe the dual layer movies will be lossless. But, there is still the issue of getting 3hours to fit on a 15 or 30 GB disc.

3hours non-bitrate starved avc/vc1 will need some space, no questions asked. Add one or two lossless audio tracks...

btw, i think uncompressed video is huge, i mean really huge. This link here says 1300 GB (1.3 TB) for two hours 1920x1080 resolution at 24 frames per second

http://telecom.esa.int/telecom/www/o...?fobjectid=413

[Zaphod]

Shooter is another example of a good MPEG-2 encode.

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by tron3

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. Maybe the dual layer movies will be lossless. But, there is still the issue of getting 3hours to fit on a 15 or 30 GB disc.

No, it's that the situation with the video codecs is not analogous to that w/ the audio codecs.

Uncompressed video (properly so-called) would consist e.g. in flashing individually stored complete frames in succession-- having a separate file for each frame, like a separate digital version of each frame on a film reel. Huge waste of space (file sizes of the movies would be outrageous). No one is using this. The whole point of video compression is to avoid this situation by chopping out the "redundant" visual information (in a variety of ways); what's common to a series of frames or what looks to be common to a series of frames. There might be a wikipedia or something on this ... (I haven't checked).

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by Teazle

There might be a wikipedia or something on this ... (I haven't checked).

Yes Teazle you are correct. There is and here it is: Click ---> Here <--- or ---> Here <--- for lossless compression.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by Teazle

No, it's that the situation with the video codecs is not analogous to that w/ the audio codecs.

Uncompressed video (properly so-called) would consist e.g. in flashing individually stored complete frames in succession-- having a separate file for each frame, like a separate digital version of each frame on a film reel. Huge waste of space (file sizes of the movies would be outrageous). No one is using this. The whole point of video compression is to avoid this situation by chopping out the "redundant" visual information (in a variety of ways); what's common to a series of frames or what looks to be common to a series of frames. There might be a wikipedia or something on this ... (I haven't checked).

Emphasis added by me.

It would be improper to say no one is doing this. It would be proper to say no HD DVD or Blu-ray disks intended for the general public are using lossless compression for video.

Also, when done properly and as a multi pass compression methodology even lossless compressed motion imagery (as it is then called in the industry where they do such things) does not utilize independent files for each frame.