VC-1 ever?

[BStecke]

At the end of the day, what does it really matter? As long as VC-1 movies are of the Shoot 'Em Up caliber, and AVC keeps pumping out films like National Treasure and the Pirates movies, who cares?

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

At the moment, I believe it to be AVC being the better of the two, but will remain open minded until one is proven to be the better of the two.

I've heard that both have their strengths and weaknesses, but I've seen some great VC-1 HIGH-bitrate encodes to be fine with either one AS LONG AS they are high-bitrate.

~Alan

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

What about them?

If both files were the same resolution, and you could see a difference, they might be better examples... but other wise, I'm not sure what it proves.

Another thing is that you're comparing SMALL low-bitrate encodes, whereas Blu-ray would be HIGH-bitrate encodes.

A better example would be:

"Flags Of Our Fathers" - HD DVD (VC-1)
"Flags Of Our Fathers" - Blu-ray (AVC)

But again, I'm not quite as technical about this as most people...

~Alan

Not many places have 1080p/24 files available for download except apple's movie site. & they don't have them in WMV form for comparisons, for obvious reasons..

Those movies illustrate my point. Both 5 star image quality, but HD DVD has 2/5 less space & a lower bitrate to boot, to accomplish it with.

[gvortex7]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

You still haven't answered me. Answering a question with a question, not effective in proving something.

& I gave my reasons already in this thread, in the post right before your proclamation AVC is equal if not better.

Take this example

26.6MB h.264 AVC :resolution 960 x 540

24.6MB WMV (essentially VC-1) :resolution 1280 x 720

download and watch both videos. If you're using a 24 bit display you should notice better color in the WMV one as well.

This proved absolutely nothing. What happened to "all things being equal" when comparing these two trailers? The only difference I noticed was that the WMV one was a higher resolution version, compressed to hell with all kinds of visible macroblocking. So, where is your evidence that VC-1 is superior to AVC?

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

Those movies illustrate my point. Both 5 star image quality, but HD DVD has 2/5 less space & a lower bitrate to boot, to accomplish it with.

I see, so this is not a VC-1 vs. AVC comparison, but a HD DVD vs. Blu-ray comparison?

~Alan

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by AlexCruz

I have a 32 bit display and I would have to say the first one looks better. The second one looks like it was compressed to hell.

make sure you're watching them at native resolution. On a computer LCD if you fullscreen it and it's not the same resolution it introduces very bad PQ.

If you watch the section w/ the cheerleaders, notice the macroblock banding on the wall above them is worse w/ h.264. Pause it at the part where the girl in the club bites her lip on both versions and look at the colors also. & keep in mind the WMV is a smaller file displaying 921,600 pixels vs 518,400.

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I see, so this is not a VC-1 vs. AVC comparison, but a HD DVD vs. Blu-ray comparison?

~Alan

No, it's an illustration. You were proving my point that VC-1 is a higher profile codec. Thus my original question, why aren't more studios using it? & why are some even using MPEG-2?

The only reason I have been able to come up with is licensing costs.

[BStecke]

Shooter on Blu-ray is MPEG 2 vs. VC1 on HD DVD. All of the reviews say they're identical. What difference does it make?

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

Thus my original question, why aren't more studios using it? & why are some even using MPEG-2?

Hasn't Microsoft somewhat abandoned VC-1?

As far as MPEG2, the only studios I can think of that are still using MPEG-2 are FOX/MGM (who has QUITE a few releases they started working on some time ago), and independents who probably already had MPEG-2 encodes laying around...

~Alan

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Hasn't Microsoft somewhat abandoned VC-1?

As far as MPEG2, the only studios I can think of that are still using MPEG-2 are FOX/MGM (who has QUITE a few releases they started working on some time ago), and independents who probably already had MPEG-2 encodes laying around...

~Alan

The codecs are set in stone. It cant be abandoned. It's not as though one is evolving or getting better over time. What they were when the spec was finalized is what they'll be for the life of Blu-ray.

[BStecke]

I wouldn't say that . . . the quality of DVD has increased significantly over the years due to improvements in compression, yet they still use MPEG 2. Recent example: The Indiana Jones films.

[WickyWoo]

VC-1 is "the best" only because it has a dedicated propoganda force

They're essentially the same on the end-user end, because they're both just MPEG-4 when you get right down to it. That's why MS was denied most of their patent apps

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

The codecs are set in stone. It cant be abandoned. It's not as though one is evolving or getting better over time. What they were when the spec was finalized is what they'll be for the life of Blu-ray.

Actually, you are incorrect! MPEG-2 encoding continued to evolve for DVD, and the same thing is true for VC-1 and AVC.

Amir has even commented on VC-1's evolution from HD DVD's earliest titles to titles even a few months later (he particularly crowed about the low bit-rates achieved by "Batman Begins" due to advancement in encoding technology). If my memory is correct, MS has stopped trying to improve VC-1 encoding technology...

~Alan

[Alan Gordon]

SHIELD,

Given your "join" date of June 2008, I'm inclined to think you are either Amir trying to be funny, or someone else just trying to "stir" up trouble, but if you are not, might I recommend asking these questions to either 2themax or drmpeg who are PROFESSIONALS in this field if you don't believe us.

~Alan

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by BStecke

I wouldn't say that . . . the quality of DVD has increased significantly over the years due to improvements in compression, yet they still use MPEG 2. Recent example: The Indiana Jones films.

I think that has more to do w/ better cameras than it does compression. The compression scheme didnt change. Just the film source clarity.

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Actually, you are incorrect! MPEG-2 encoding continued to evolve for DVD, and the same thing is true for VC-1 and AVC.

Amir has even commented on VC-1's evolution from HD DVD's earliest titles to titles even a few months later (he particularly crowed about the low bit-rates achieved by "Batman Begins" due to advancement in encoding technology). If my memory is correct, MS has stopped trying to improve VC-1 encoding technology...

~Alan

how could the codec change if the decoder's don't?


also: found this. C'T (german tech magazine) did a comaprison in 2007

http://translate.google.com/translat..._traktor.shtml

the JND scale they're using stands for Just Noticeable Difference. its a test run to see how different the compressed image is from a original uncompressed lossless source image.

http://www.sarnoff.com/research-and-...ble-difference

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Hasn't Microsoft somewhat abandoned VC-1?

They abandoned support to VC-1. As in they are no longer providing tweaks for VC-1 when the studio (aka Warner, Paramount and Universal) can't fit the muxed stream to fit the HD DVD bandwith.

Originally Posted by SHIELD

Thus my original question, why aren't more studios using it? & why are some even using MPEG-2?

The only reason I have been able to come up with is licensing costs.

MPEG-2 is easier to implement because the facilities are there and the learning curve has already been tweaked. So for a quick and easy job on materials that do not require BD50, MPEG-2 is fine.

Licensing costs for VC-1 is minimal. Way back then, an MS executive (a-hem) was trying to get home theater netizens to demand that studios use VC-1 because it's better than AVC and it was cheap. He's probably still trying to do that but I don't know if he's still an MS exec.

Fact is, VC-1, AVC and MPEG-2 have their own strengths and will be used depending on the material. For now though, AVC is the one more widely used for this year's batch of BDs.


fuad

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

I think that has more to do w/ better cameras than it does compression. The compression scheme didnt change. Just the film source clarity.

What? Are you saying they refilmed the original Indiana Jones trilogy between its 2003 release and its release on the 20th? The source is about as good as it's gonna get, as they all went through the works at Lowry in 2003 for the initial DVD release. As a matter of fact . . .

Right off the bat, the decision to make these DVDs single-disc releases means that the video is going to be more compressed. Advances in compression, however, mean the picture and sound is actually very comparable to the original DVD release in 2003 (you can read my review of those discs, and the actual films, here). In fact, you could argue that the new anamorphic widescreen video on these discs is actually very slightly better than the original releases.

From The Digital Bits.

[richard lichtenfelt]

Everything shot on film has grain, period. When material is transfered from film to HD the grain can be removed but doing so causes a loss in detail.

Don't have an opinion on vc-1/avc in that I think it is more dependent on the technicians doing the transfer than the code used.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

I think that has more to do w/ better cameras than it does compression. The compression scheme didnt change. Just the film source clarity.

The scheme didn't change but it can be improved upon. Which is what happened with DVD. If you track down the history of DVDs you see it continuously improving because of the tweaks made on MPEG-2. Look at reviews of movies that were released at least twice on DVDs.


fuad

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by richard lichtenfelt

Everything shot on film has grain, period. When material is transfered from film to HD the grain can be removed but doing so causes a loss in detail.

Don't have an opinion on vc-1/avc in that I think it is more dependent on the technicians doing the transfer than the code used.

I go to the theater every saturday & I see grain in maybe one out of 10 movies I see. It becomes more pronounced the more the movie is run (projector heat degrading film). Film today is much better. They're also filming digitally now for many movies. Soon movies will be sent to theaters via satellite in digital form.