VC-1 vs MPEG-2

[iceman]

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=813105
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=813022

Ouch!

[Deciazulado]

You should see the blocks I get on a 1080p direct view with Lethal Weapon 2


benes rules






About R&B Films, amazing, transfer from the 65mm IP
First Blu-ray from 70mm. Only the best for Blu.

[dialog_gvf]

As people have said: The Big Lie Theory. If you lie big and often enough people assume you couldn't possibly be lying, and believe it.

VC-1 is a credible codec. And I'm sure given some effort on the encoder when dealing with BD bitrates it could be exceptional. But, that isn't the desire or the politics. Microsoft want you to believe they get miracles from ultra-low bit-rates, and so you'll take the "slight" compromise when they have to further degrade things for downloads.

Gary

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

As people have said: The Big Lie Theory. If you lie big and often enough people assume you couldn't possibly be lying, and believe it.

VC-1 is a credible codec. And I'm sure given some effort on the encoder when dealing with BD bitrates it could be exceptional. But, that isn't the desire or the politics. Microsoft want you to believe they get miracles from ultra-low bit-rates, and so you'll take the "slight" compromise when they have to further degrade things for downloads.

Gary

Gary:

Question... The two transfers I've been disappointed in so far have been Superman Returns (the first blu-ray I watched) and The Departed.

Apart from the general softness (I'm so glad that others had reported this as I thought I needed glasses), in the SR transfer - were the colors completely off as well? It looked nothing like what I saw in the theater. Does VC1 have an issue with this too?

what are your thoughts? Did you notice this?

(By the way - it's not my set -- I have a sony lcd rear projection, properly calibrated... )

[Deciazulado]

On the softness issue, on a direct view 1080p the image kind of might get to look acceptable to some (as you're not losing anything from the transfer in respect to detail or sharpness with a direct view) but on other types of displays that won't hold, and it is still a pasty looking transfer for the most part. Is as if the contrast has been lowered (blacks made greyish, whites made greyish, the color pallette simplified) to end up with kind of a watercolor pastel image as opposed to normal color, and I don't mean it in the "intentional look" kind of way, but in the "something is missing" kind of way. You can make it look a little less "pasty" adjusting contrast, but then it starts to look somewhat posterized with few tones and more abrupt changes. A bit like Scanner Darklyish, as if it had 128 levels instead of 256 or something. In comparison Superman The Movie looks vibrant.
One scene that I thought looked weird is when Superman is lowering himself to look at Lois house at night, his facial tone values are strange. Oh well.

See also this old post: 1080p SR vs 1080p SR

[jorg]

wow those guys are special saying becuase the vc-1 on the mission imposiable 3 it more like the original becuase it is transparent??? those guys are crack heads becuase i thought the new hd movie were made from film and if i am not mistaken film uses a chemical proses to form the image resulting in an image that is bluerd and smothed as very close up not with digital capture were at very close up it gets blocky and jaged. so the screen shoots and just proving that vc-1 needs to mature as much as mpeg-2 has to creat film like movies or vc-1 "compression" method is flawed

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Iceman

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=813105
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=813022

Rich Casey (R&B) is one of those independents with guts to say the emporor is naked. I can't imagine this going down well with the VC-1 politic.

The opinion of people such as Rich, who clearly have the best for the consumer in mind, are the ones we should all listen to. When he begins telling people VC-1 is starting to match or beat MPEG-2/AVC, is the day we can actually believe it.

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

Question... The two transfers I've been disappointed in so far have been Superman Returns (the first blu-ray I watched) and The Departed.

I haven't watched The Departed yet. Oh, don't tell me Warner ruined that too?

I agree with the consensus of the overall softness of Superman. I didn't see it in the theater, so I can't say if it meets the "intent" or not. We know it was shot on HD cameras, and Crank shows that this is not the reasons for softness (Crank is spectacular).

Gary

[scott1256ca]

I purchased Superman Returns partly because of the favourable reviews. It was the 3rd BD I watched. First one was 4 Brothers. I was quite surprised at how soft SR was, especially given the reviews. 4 Brothers actually impressed me a lot more. Looked very sharp, but with some obvious grain. I assume the grain is film grain, but I'm not in a position to say for sure. I can't say it is VC-1's fault, though, since I have other Warner titles that look fine.

I would expect that sequence from MI:3 posted by benes to be an anomaly, and the compressionist just never caught it. I expect any of the 3 codecs can look great, provided the compressionist goes through the result slowly and looks for problems, and I expect they can all look like crap, given the right (or maybe wrong) scenes. Of the 3, I'd expect mpeg II to have the fewest glitches because it is the most mature, but you have to have the bit rate available for it. Fast action sequences, quick pans, or constantly changing camera angles probably have to be checked very closely in mpeg II to make sure the sequences aren't bit starved and causing macro-blocking, which may not be such a big deal for AVC or VC-1.

Nonetheless, I have no faith in the microsoft employees telling me that VC-1 is so awesome. Anytime someone points out a flaw with a VC-1 encode, they are very quick to find excuses (compressionist, not the latest codec etc.). On the other hand any time a VC-1 encode seems better than AVC or mpeg II, they trumpet that as codec superiority and expect us not to question it. That is exactly the reason you have to take statements from people with a vested interest with a grain of salt.

[Scorxpion]

Concerning Superman returns on Blu-ray done using the same copy of VC1 used for HD-DVD ,now my question is if Warner done this version using MPEG2
little bit higher than VC1 the picture quality will be more and much better than HD-DVD and warner know that for sure.but why they didnt because they favour more HD-DVD even i know they have did a great job for blu-ray especially lately with Departed including PCM soundtrack which surpasses HD-dvd in sales profit and ahead in a mile of his counterpart in amazon.

But now everything has been changed blu-ray has prove its performance through many codecs and why sometimes Mpeg2 it's better than VC1 or vice versa or sometimes AVC it's more power than both,still a question?Casino Royale released now using AVC are looking great under 1st review IGN website.Lately Buena Vista are using AVC after releases of mpeg2 which proves it's effort in picture quality and a couple release of VC-1 which proves its weakness like fightplan which doesnt look gorgeous.

[Knight-Errant]

Yeah Superman Returns is the worst-looking disc I've seen. Washed out, dull and soft.

Of course its not a problem with the Blu-ray alone so the issue must lie with Warners.

[Jack Torrance]

I haven't watched The Departed yet. Oh, don't tell me Warner ruined that too?

I agree with the consensus of the overall softness of Superman. I didn't see it in the theater, so I can't say if it meets the "intent" or not. We know it was shot on HD cameras, and Crank shows that this is not the reasons for softness (Crank is spectacular).

Gary

SR color scheme is bizarre - orange skin tones - pinkish hues elsewhere - bleech. I saw SR both flat and in Imax 3-d in the theaters, and each time to me looked sharp as a tack and did not look this way.

The Departed also looked soft to me and with some odd looking artifacts (which some others have posted about in this forum).

And yet the Crank transfer is superb! And Kingdom of Heaven is too, and that was MPEG2