Replace MPEG-2 with AVC/VC-1 Codecs?

[adamclark83]

Since early Blu-rays were given MPEG-2 video codecs, should those be given new AVC/VC-1 codecs? Would people notice any differences?

[OrlandoEastwood]

As far as I know, MPEG2 is the cheapest codec to use for authoring. Smaller studios who used it probably couldn't afford the AVC. Isn't VC1 a dead codec?

[Tns49]

Originally Posted by OrlandoEastwood

As far as I know, MPEG2 is the cheapest codec to use for authoring. Smaller studios who used it probably couldn't afford the AVC. Isn't VC1 a dead codec?

Actually its not the cheapest. Just the oldest. Certainly a good mpeg2 can match the others unless they choose to seriously up the bit rate. Of course of the reduction in size they can definitely do that.

VC-1 is not dead, but has turned out to be less popular.

[adamclark83]

Why is that? What's the difference between VC-1 and AVC?

[Deciazulado]

Windows vs Apple
Coke vs Pepsi
McDonalds vs Burger King







on about the op, MPEG-4 codecs are more efficient than MPEG-2 and have other advanced features/options so in general, with them you can compress more (reduce file size) and have similar quality. (or have a similar rate but get better image quality)

[Tns49]

Originally Posted by adamclark83

Why is that? What's the difference between VC-1 and AVC?

Look at wikipedia and some of the sources pointed to for that.

Initially VC-1 was aiming at less computer power needed to encode and decode. AVC originally hadn't started as an effort to encode HD at all, and had to be added to the standard.

Not sure if the favoritism a AVC has to do with which is better, or if its just which is cheaper. Note some of the additions and modifications to AVC are improvements over VC-1 (not sure if VC-1 plans to incorporate them). Things like extended color space and the 3d version of MVC.

[Booker Dewitt]

Originally Posted by adamclark83

Since early Blu-rays were given MPEG-2 video codecs, should those be given new AVC/VC-1 codecs? Would people notice any differences?

If they were on single-layer discs, possibly. Behemoths like Kingdom of Heaven that take up the whole dual-layer disc, probably not.

[DarknessBDJM]

Some MPEG-2 disks still hold up extremely well, so while an update could improve upon them even more it isn't too necessary. Chronos still looks better than most disks made today (though it's came out in AVC recently or is coming out). Resident Evil Apocalypse still looks quite good, and the the German disks of the Nightmare Detective movies look excellent as well (especially part 1).

I'd love to see Robocop, Predator (un-dnr'd), and The Monster Squad in AVC.

[Clark Kent]

The preference would be for all discs to get redone with the most recent AVC encoders. VC-1 stopped development years ago, while AVC continued to be improved. The newest AVC hardware encoders run circles around the encodes made in 2007. At this point almost all of the distributors are using AVC, though I do see a few stragglers with the occasional VC-1 encode.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by adamclark83

Since early Blu-rays were given MPEG-2 video codecs, should those be given new AVC/VC-1 codecs? Would people notice any differences?

There's a long list of US MPEG-2 titles that would benefit greatly in VC-1 or AVC. Here's a list I made a couple years ago: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=159640

[I KEEL YOU]

Here's the perfect example of this:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergl...D=1260#auswahl

You can clearly see that it's sourced from the exact same master, but one is MPEG2 with a low bit rate while the other is AVC with a high bit rate. I definitely see the difference on the screencaps, and I bet the difference is even more visible in motion.