Do you think Universal will recycle their VC-1 encodes to Blu-ray?

[GasCat]

Edit: Moved to it's own thread.

[phloyd]

Probably not for this thread but from what I can tell the only difference with TrueHD is that it can have dialog normalization, which would make it different from the PCM - otherwise it should be the same.

A potential advantage is getting to use 20 or 24 bits in the same space (or less) as 16 bit.

I am not sure which players can do it - PS3 and Panasonic players can do it with a firmware upgrade. I think that the only problem player is the original Samsung (and Philips) - the other players will be or have been updated to do TrueHD.

I am sure that HD DVD prefers TrueHD since it is more efficient than PCM. That said, what percentage HD DVDs have lossless audio? Check the stats page in my sig - over 50% of the Blu-ray discs released have lossless audio. And with Paramount and Warner moving in that direction, in the future we could have a very high percentage of releases with lossless - which is great news.

[Frode]

Banding and posterization is very typical for compression, and it'll typically increase the problem if there's even a hint of it in the source, like with digital animation. If you want to see how it works, make an image in photoshop with a gradient, and then test it by saving it using different levels of jpeg compression.

This isn't something new and it's well known that animation compresses both worse and better than live action. Lines and gradients are hard for the encoding algorithm to detect and handle, while solid colors compress very well, but at the possible expense of detail not being properly retained that's in the source image.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Frode

Banding and posterization is very typical for compression, and it'll typically increase the problem if there's even a hint of it in the source, like with digital animation. If you want to see how it works, make an image in photoshop with a gradient, and then test it by saving it using different levels of jpeg compression.

This isn't something new and it's well known that animation compresses both worse and better than live action. Lines and gradients are hard for the encoding algorithm to detect and handle, while solid colors compress very well, but at the possible expense of detail not being properly retained that's in the source image.

Excellent response. I have to wonder why Warner utilized so little storage for the movie when they had nigh 2x the space they ended up using.

[WickyWoo]

Universal is indeed using more TrueHD on newer releases. However I don't think they'll go and encode differently. There's not enough evidence that going to AVC or higher bitrates is going to really make a significant difference for catalog titles.

Higher bitrates absolutely make a difference when it's compression artifacts that are a problem

And 10 years of advancement in telecine (most of these titles being released were last transfered in 1997-98 and released no later than 99) is HUGE.

Microsoft keeps screaming "look how few bits we can use and still have it look OK!", and Uni is saving a few cents on a lot of these by using HD15s. It's just bad policy all around. Your HD customers get screwed now, and after it dies your blu people get it too, since a lot of these will never see reissue.

I pray Last Starfighter got a new Telecine

[Manco]

Originally Posted by ReduxInflux

vc1? avc? what? (sorry) and is this a quality issue?

I don't think anyone really answered your question.

VC-1 is a video compression encode, like MPEG-2 or MPEG-4. It was developed by Microsoft.

Both Blu-ray and HD-DVD assocations require player manufacturers to include the VC-1 codec in the hardware.

What is being discussed is that Universal will essentially author their titles on VC-1 and by default it will play on ALL players of either format. Since HD-DVD only has 60% capacity of Blu-ray, they can simply re-author the same crappy HD-DUD transfer over to BD with no effort what so ever. So Blu-ray backers (US!) will get a half-assed viewing experience instead of doing a new transfer using the extra capacity of BD.

[WriteSimply]

The the OP: if they go BD, yes. Until consumers voice their concerns.


fuad

[Deciazulado]

I see ghost images in rapid movement in Happy Feet. But I do think it looks excellent in most respects.

[coolwavepic]

This is one of the reasons I am not in any hurry to see Universal move over to Blu-Ray.

If I owned an HD-DVD and the only backed studio put out GARBAGE like this I would be outraged!!! At least our exclusive studios are pround of the format they are exclusive to.

[Chad Varnadore]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Well bandwith is always finite so hell if you got the space use it but I do believe there's a law of diminishing returns. Even in video production we're seeing that high quality yet high compression codecs are proliferating (Cineform, Avid DNx, Apple ProRes 422)

Of course the content really is the Master here. Do what the content requires should be the mantra.

The laws of diminishing returns are very subjective. What's a marginal difference for one person is a major difference for another. Everybody does it. "Well, I bought brand A because it was cheaper than brand B and is 90% as good." or "I couldn't tell the difference (because I didn't really want to, the better one was out of my price range)." Salesman even do it. They'll read that you can't afford something and try to sell you on a cheaper unit, saying it's just as good, just doesn't have name recognition. Sometimes it might be true, but often they just want to make sure you don't walk out the door empty handed.

It's hard to say just where the laws of dimishing returns apply without direct comparison to the masters. Even high bitrate averages are variable, not constant, meaning that even AVC and VC-1 encodes with an average bitrate of 35mbs can still show clear and obvious signs of compression if you look at the right place. It's just not so obvious that it burdens the illusion.

What Microsoft is trying to do with VC-1 clearly doesn't meet any measure of diminishing returns though. I saw far less indication of burden from compression with Sony's recent modest MPEG-2 encoding (probably around 20mbs) for Flatliners than Universal's VC-1 encoding for Dead Silence. Microsoft is taking advantage of the fact that most consumers currently have 720p displays and the majority are viewing at 50" or smaller screen sizes. With that type of setup, even if the viewer is experience enough to identify things like Gibbs effect, posterization, pulsing, etc, they probably won't unless it's being exaggerated by poor or duplicate video processing. Of course having pre-filtered masters to work with, helps to elleviate some burden on the compressionist as well. And I've yet to see any disc from Warner or Universal match the best I've seen from Sony or Disney.

[bone crusher]

I could maybe see them redoing them in a better codec to maximize BD more once HD DVD is dead and gone. This way if the PQ is actually a little better they may be able to get the people that bought the HD DVD versions of the films to double dip when they have BD players. Otherwise no. They will probably just be the same codecs.

[WickyWoo]

There is nothing inherently wrong with VC-1

What's wrong with it is pushing the low bitrate encodes, and always pushing them to take them lower

MS wants VC-1 to become the new MPEG for HD delivery for digital sales and VOD, so they need to get the downloads down to a few GB without it looking like complete shit.

Unfortunately they've convinced studios to be their guinea pigs

[hmurchison]

We've seen a marked improvement in VC-1 and maybe even more improvement in AVC encodes in the last year alone.

I think it may be a bit presumptuous to expect VC-1 and AVC tools to be as mature as MPEG2

There are certainly anomalies popping into discs that could be due to the Master or to compression effects or whatever. I don't think that bitrate alone is the panacea that others make it out to be. The encoding tools will continue to improve drastically and the with new releases filmed on better digital cameras I expect that the lust for bitrate will always be there but the actual need will continue to diminish.

The funny thing is I see more people freaking out here about compression than the actual people editing and color grading this stuff.

I saw PotC playing at Circuit City on the new Sony and it did look good but I couldn't say it was better than the top shelf stuff on HD DVD. I expect movies produced in the last 5 years to look good.

The cool thing about movies that set the bar high is that eventually something comes along and pushes the bar higher.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

There is nothing inherently wrong with VC-1

What's wrong with it is pushing the low bitrate encodes, and always pushing them to take them lower

MS wants VC-1 to become the new MPEG for HD delivery for digital sales and VOD, so they need to get the downloads down to a few GB without it looking like complete shit.

Unfortunately they've convinced studios to be their guinea pigs

The studios never needed convincing. The Broadcast industry is moving to MPEG4 encoding in many areas. Movies on plastic discs are only one way of delivering content. The omnipresent move today is to deliver as much quality as possible yet still maximize available bandwidth.

I don't see anywhere where there's an appreciable or sustained increase in bandwidth for video. In production ..it's coming down. In delivery ..it's coming down. In Broadcast ..it's coming down.

[theknub]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

We've seen a marked improvement in VC-1 and maybe even more improvement in AVC encodes in the last year alone.

of course, the formats are only a year old

I think it may be a bit presumptuous to expect VC-1 and AVC tools to be as mature as MPEG2

There are certainly anomalies popping into discs that could be due to the Master or to compression effects or whatever. I don't think that bitrate alone is the panacea that others make it out to be. The encoding tools will continue to improve drastically and the with new releases filmed on better digital cameras I expect that the lust for bitrate will always be there but the actual need will continue to diminish.

bitrate certainly is not the end all, be all. no one here said it was. however, the more bits available, the better the picture could be. personally, maximize it to the end of the world. i don't care which codec is used. it is very apparent that all three codecs can do great things. so disregard the codec x, y, and z arguments. i don't see however how you think that the need for higer bitrates diminish. as you said, tools continue to improve. this means that future encodes will look better and better with high bitrate transfers. no one here is willing to settle for "the look and sound of good enough" or "the look and sound of almost did it"

The funny thing is I see more people freaking out here about compression than the actual people editing and color grading this stuff.

really? do we have anyone here that is editing and color grading? i know a few people do on here, but i haven't heard them not freaking and striving for perfection.

I saw PotC playing at Circuit City on the new Sony and it did look good but I couldn't say it was better than the top shelf stuff on HD DVD. I expect movies produced in the last 5 years to look good.

The cool thing about movies that set the bar high is that eventually something comes along and pushes the bar higher.

what looks just as good as (or better than) pirates? it has been widely viewed on many sites as the best looking transfer to date.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by theknub

of course, the formats are only a year old


bitrate certainly is not the end all, be all. no one here said it was. however, the more bits available, the better the picture could be. personally, maximize it to the end of the world. i don't care which codec is used. it is very apparent that all three codecs can do great things. so disregard the codec x, y, and z arguments. i don't see however how you think that the need for higer bitrates diminish. as you said, tools continue to improve. this means that future encodes will look better and better with high bitrate transfers. no one here is willing to settle for "the look and sound of good enough" or "the look and sound of almost did it"


really? do we have anyone here that is editing and color grading? i know a few people do on here, but i haven't heard them not freaking and striving for perfection.

what looks just as good as (or better than) pirates? it has been widely viewed on many sites as the best looking transfer to date.

I disagree. I find that many laud bitrate as the metric of whether a disc is good or not. Par for the course, how many consumers have equated higher megapixel cameras with higher quality or more horsepower= faster car.

Many simply do not want to account for variables. I want the best quality as well but I also realize that movies are the sum of their parts and with packaged media the full presentation is key. Do I want to stretch for that extra %5 and short other areas? Depends on the person I supposed.

I find that those in the production arena aren't adverse to enjoying the benefits of technology. Some still likely want to edit uncompressed data but others have realized that the increase in workflow speed offsets the minor hit in quality when transcoding to a DI format.

I wouldn't say that PotC isn't the best transfer to date. I haven't watched the whole movie nor would I assume my eyes are the same as anyone elses. Sometimes we just need to take things in with our analog apparatus (eyes) and leave the specsmanship to the marketers. The numbers will deceive you far faster than your eyes.

[theknub]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

I disagree. I find that many laud bitrate as the metric of whether a disc is good or not. Par for the course, how many consumers have equated higher megapixel cameras with higher quality or more horsepower= faster car.

Many simply do not want to account for variables. I want the best quality as well but I also realize that movies are the sum of their parts and with packaged media the full presentation is key. Do I want to stretch for that extra %5 and short other areas? Depends on the person I supposed.

with the extra data storage available, we should not have to expect a 5% hit. it is only the audio and video that will take the hit. the packaging and presentation will remain the same. it is asinine to think that we will settle for less. why should we? because they can turn a movie out a day earlier? why do we care? as consumers, we should want and expect the best especially given that we are in a small market. expecting less only leads to mediocrity (720p picture and digital downloads anyone?)

I find that those in the production arena aren't adverse to enjoying the benefits of technology. Some still likely want to edit uncompressed data but others have realized that the increase in workflow speed offsets the minor hit in quality when transcoding to a DI format.

I wouldn't say that PotC isn't the best transfer to date. I haven't watched the whole movie nor would I assume my eyes are the same as anyone elses. Sometimes we just need to take things in with our analog apparatus (eyes) and leave the specsmanship to the marketers. The numbers will deceive you far faster than your eyes.

i have worked in the digital image arena for a long time prior to my current employment. it is tough to say where workflow and quality balance. as computer speeds have increased over time, we upped our image resolutions while also increasing the number of images we processed. the same happens in the video industry. if we take 5% hits now, why not take a 10% hit later simply because "it's good enough." as a consumer, i don't want that. i want companies to always press the envelope. if you don't, see what's happening to the other format. they didn't go far enough and are now floundering.

also, thank you for not pointing out a single "top shelf" movie that is as good as pirates. standard spin, deflect the conversation to analog apparatus and trusting yourself when you can't backup a statement. btw, not one set of numbers have deceived me. i had some movies going the other day and when my new roommate walked in, he did a holy crap. that is more trust than any number i know of.

[WickyWoo]

Japanese had analog HD back in the 80s, it looked great.

So tell me what was wrong with that?

And yes, the best people in the business, even ones with no studio alliances(real or percieved) have annointed Pirates as the high water mark, as have the consumers for the most part

Put it up. Which discs are better than pirates, and what specific flaws do you see as lacking in the title that do not appear in your high water films?

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by theknub

also, thank you for not pointing out a single "top shelf" movie that is as good as pirates. standard spin, deflect the conversation to analog apparatus and trusting yourself when you can't backup a statement. btw, not one set of numbers have deceived me. i had some movies going the other day and when my new roommate walked in, he did a holy crap. that is more trust than any number i know of.

It would have been pointless. My personal anecdotes do not invalidate yours and vice versa. If PotC is in your opinion the best encode available, then it is what it is. I look forward to enjoying it soon enough.

I think you're right and I think I'm right. The circumstances demand flexibility. Today both formats seem to cut muster but things could indeed change. We'll see.

[theknub]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Japanese had analog HD back in the 80s, it looked great.

So tell me what was wrong with that?

And yes, the best people in the business, even ones with no studio alliances(real or percieved) have annointed Pirates as the high water mark, as have the consumers for the most part

Put it up. Which discs are better than pirates, and what specific flaws do you see as lacking in the title that do not appear in your high water films?

i've been waiting for that response, apparently it is pointless... see below

Originally Posted by hmurchison

It would have been pointless. My personal anecdotes do not invalidate yours and vice versa. If PotC is in your opinion the best encode available, then it is what it is. I look forward to enjoying it soon enough.

I think you're right and I think I'm right. The circumstances demand flexibility. Today both formats seem to cut muster but things could indeed change. We'll see.