ZODIAC BD AVC VS VC-1,AVC is the winner

[Scorxpion]

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ac_blu-ray.htm

"Bottom line is that both editions are strong but the Paramount's MPEG4 encode is the winner in image. As we will reiterate in closing this is more to validate the Paramount purchase as it is much more reasonably priced than the Japanese (or European) Warner."

Go and check it.This is why BD win the war and it is the most advantage format till now

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Go and check it.This is why BD win the war and it is the most advantage format till now

uhh...let's leave out the crap comments. Both discs compared were Blu-rays and both formats supported AVC and VC1.

[Volume11]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ac_blu-ray.htm

"Bottom line is that both editions are strong but the Paramount's MPEG4 encode is the winner in image. As we will reiterate in closing this is more to validate the Paramount purchase as it is much more reasonably priced than the Japanese (or European) Warner."

Go and check it.This is why BD win the war and it is the most advantage format till now

Sigh...

I'm happy that the war is over and the format with bigger space and more potential to grown won, but if all we get from double the bit-rate and extras being on another disc is a barely perceptible difference than Im not sure I would say this is the reason BD won.

Still, glad to see Paramount took advantage of the space on Blu instead of just porting over the HD DVD version or Japan version on Blu.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by Volume11

Sigh...

I'm happy that the war is over and the format with bigger space and more potential to grown won, but if all we get from double the bit-rate and extras being on another disc is a barely perceptible difference than Im not sure I would say this is the reason BD won.

Still, glad to see Paramount took advantage of the space on Blu instead of just porting over the HD DVD version or Japan version on Blu.

This is exactly my thought about BD,Give me always the potential technical achievement a BD can attend.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by DigitalfreakNYC

uhh...let's leave out the crap comments. Both discs compared were Blu-rays and both formats supported AVC and VC1.

I'm declaring lower bitrate should never be used if it is going to destruct the image of BD.

[kpkelley]

I don't believe the guy at DVDBeaver properly explained this, so I will give it my best shot.

These discs are all from the same master it appears. Therefore, when analyzing a 1080p screenshot of the discs from the same master you are going to see a nearly identical picture. The higher bit-rate of the Paramount domestic release allows for a greater change from one image to the next. This results in improved handling of motion and fewer motion artifacts that would present themselves in a more heavily compressed disc. This means that a still-image, like those presented, would not provide an accurate description of the improved picture quality of the higher bit-rate disc.

[PowellPressburger]

I think someone else posted the review under the official ZODIAC thread yesterday.

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

I'm declaring lower bitrate should never be used if it is going to destruct the image of BD.

But you posted a link to two discs that were both blu-rays.

[onyxx]

Isn't Paramount is using the same AVC encode that they used on the HD DVD of Zodiac which was released a year ago? The HD DVD was also AVC: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/841/zodiac.html

[Jeff Kleist]

No, they're all new encodes

[stargazeruk]

When it comes to warner titles I look to see if a different studio is releasing the same movies since others are doing much better job at encoding and retaining detail.

Warner do seem to use lower bit rate then others but bitrate as knowledgeable people know does not equal better quality. The quality of the video comes down to the master and skills of the person doing the encoding.

I've seen some low bit-rate VC1 encodes look alot better then a high bitrate H264 (again skills of the encoder). I seen an MPEG2 encode on a BD25 disk look look better then a H264 encode on a BD50 disk (skills of encoder again).

So please don't bother using this to compairing codecs and bitrates casue that just means jack s**t, just compair the studio releases.

We all have know for a long time now that warner are the worst studio out the lot and don't do there best.

[Jeff Kleist]

Zodiac was shot on the Thompson Viper digital camera, and then had stylistic and theraputic DNR applied to even out the film grain. This was all done under the supervision of the production team, is intentional, and present on the final render out of the movie

Zodiac looks exactly as it is meant to, however it is not a movie to go arguing technical merits on for exactly those reasons. It's not high complexity, and all the gains will be in the subtle realm and many in motion. They're not going to jump out on stills.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

These discs are all from the same master it appears. Therefore, when analyzing a 1080p screenshot of the discs from the same master you are going to see a nearly identical picture. The higher bit-rate of the Paramount domestic release allows for a greater change from one image to the next. This results in improved handling of motion and fewer motion artifacts that would present themselves in a more heavily compressed disc. This means that a still-image, like those presented, would not provide an accurate description of the improved picture quality of the higher bit-rate disc.

+1

[robertc88]

Looking forward to watching this one asap.

[Jim Morrison]

Absolutely cannot wait to get my hands on this. Easily my favourite movie of 2007.

[ryoohki]

Great to see that Paramount continue to re-transfert those movie to take advantage of the full disc..

[Canada]

I didn't notice any difference and I have young eyes albiet not very trained eyes.

[McCrutchy]

I think that when a master is clean and high-res already, still images will always look the same (with the current technology and on average-sized HDTVs). The difference, if any is discernable on a screen smaller than say, 60 or 70 inches, is probably in fluidity of the moving image and not from stills.

[ClaytonMG]

Can we have the thread title changed? This makes it sound like AVC is superior to VC-1 when it's not...

[coolmilo]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Can we have the thread title changed? This makes it sound like AVC is superior to VC-1 when it's not...

Yeah, this it's not because AVC is the winner. It's because Paramount is the winner. Anything compared to a WB release is going to look superior. Everyone should know that by now.