Need help understanding the video codecs.

[Grisle]

I'm ignorant when it comes to the difference between the video codecs. I was reading a review of M:I III on dvdtalk and here's what they said:

Video:
The Mission: Impossible III Blu-ray is encoded in High Definition 1080p format using MPEG2 compression on a single-layer 25 gb disc. Why Paramount has been using MPEG2 on Blu-ray when they already have (more efficient, and equal or better quality) VC-1 encodings prepared for HD DVD that could be ported over is anybody's guess. The movie is presented in its theatrical aspect ratio of approximately 2.35:1 with letterbox bars at the top and bottom of the 16:9 frame.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=24719

I've been reading that Blu is getting some ports from Warner and it's not quite showcasing all that BD has to offer. Is this reviewer just an HD-DVD fanboy or is the video better on the HD-DVD version of M:I III? What would the direct comparisons be on VC-1 vs MPEG2 or MPEG4? I thought MPEG 4 was the best, but I guess it all depends on the bitrate. Can anyone help me understand so I can tell if an upcoming BD has the best video available?

[Luis_A51]

There are many examples of excellent quality MPEG2 and MPEG4 AVC.

MPEG4 AVC is generally better quality than VC-1 mostly because studios that use AVC work to blu-ray spec (40mpbs) but studios that use VC-1 usually limit themselves to HDDVD spec (less than 30mbps)

It would be interesting to see warner release VC-1 movies at a high bitrate, but currently there are no warner movies that make me go "wow that PQ is awesome" because they just dont compare to high-bitrate MPEG2 and MPEG4 stuff.

[gand41f]

"Picture quality" depends on may things, such as quality of the master, bitrate, style of the director, codec, etc. You can have 50GB MPEG-4 AVC or VC-1 with a terrible master and it will look no better than a DVD. (Hypothetically speaking, that is.)

As far as codecs go, AVC and VC-1 are usually more efficient than MPEG-2, but that doesn't mean 25GB MPEG-2 cannot look good. M:I-3 and Sony's Tears of the Sun are excellent examples of good looking MPEG-2 titles on a single-layer BD.

By the way, most new BD titles are in BD50. A Sony Pictures insider mentioned that they decide the codec after a short "test run". For Sony, that means they first try MPEG-2 and AVC and only use AVC if it will give a visible advantage (it takes much longer to encode in AVC due to it being more computationally intensive). With BD50, there really isn't that much reason to try to cram the movie into as small a size as possible (which is what AVC is better than MPEG-2 at), so I wouldn't worry if the movie is in MPEG-2.

In the end, what matters most is the amount of care and love the studio put into the transfer. You can't change the director's intent but the rest is really up to the studio. So, rent the movie and judge for yourself before you buy, or find some reviewer or PQ tier list that you trust and stick to them.

enjoy
gandalf

[Grisle]

Thanks Gand41f. Unfortunately there isn't too many options for me to rent BD. I've got the Blockbuster online, but their titles are never available...at least in my area. I found M:I III on Ebay brand new for $17.49 with shipping included so I picked it up.

[Grisle]

Originally Posted by Luis_A51

There are many examples of excellent quality MPEG2 and MPEG4 AVC.

MPEG4 AVC is generally better quality than VC-1 mostly because studios that use AVC work to blu-ray spec (40mpbs) but studios that use VC-1 usually limit themselves to HDDVD spec (less than 30mbps)

It would be interesting to see warner release VC-1 movies at a high bitrate, but currently there are no warner movies that make me go "wow that PQ is awesome" because they just dont compare to high-bitrate MPEG2 and MPEG4 stuff.

Have you seen Troy yet? I picked it up on Tuesday, but I haven't had time to watch it. I heard it looks great.

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by Grisle

Thanks Gand41f. Unfortunately there isn't too many options for me to rent BD. I've got the Blockbuster online, but their titles are never available...at least in my area. I found M:I III on Ebay brand new for $17.49 with shipping included so I picked it up.

I see. Here's one link that I use from time to time.

http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewt...ef3553cb044642

This is one man's opinion, so you may or may not agree with him, alhought I can say I agree with him far more than I disagree.

Also, this list is mostly for "eye candy" value, so a movie low in this list doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad-looking movie, it could be that it just that it doesn't give you the "wow" factor because it's an old movie that didn't get preserved well in film.

enjoy
gandalf

[Therickus]

Originally Posted by gand41f

I see. Here's one link that I use from time to time.

http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewt...ef3553cb044642

This is one man's opinion, so you may or may not agree with him, alhought I can say I agree with him far more than I disagree.

Also, this list is mostly for "eye candy" value, so a movie low in this list doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad-looking movie, it could be that it just that it doesn't give you the "wow" factor because it's an old movie that didn't get preserved well in film.

enjoy
gandalf

Waaaaaaaaay off topic, but I cannot beleive that Casino Royale and The Prestige arent gold. As you said, one man's opinion though...

[Grisle]

Thanks for the link. I purchased POTC 1 last week, but have not had a chance to watch it yet and I just got POTC 2 which I also haven't watched. I've heard that Pearl looks amazing, but it's not Platinum. Does Dead Man's Chest look even better?

[mastertang]

VC1 = windows media format version of Mpeg 4
Mpeg 4 = Better than Mpeg 2, open format standard (avc)
Mpeg 2 = Used by all terrestrial broadcasters for HDTV at about 19 Mbps.

There is no problem with using Mpeg 2 at high bitrates, but Mpeg 4 at high bitrates would be even better. VC1 requires more decoding power than mpeg 2 as well. I have shooter and kingdom of heaven, and they look amazing even though they both use Mpeg 2.