VC-1 ever?

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

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.

I see a lock in the near future. A segue from "VC-1 vs everything else" to "films transmitted OTA" . . . can't turn out well

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

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

can you give me an example? The only ones i can think of are the Superbit DVDs, which use the same codec just higher bitrate. How can the codec be improved if the decoder doesn't change? If the codec changes & the decoder doesn't; how will the decoder know how to decode the codec?

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

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.

Thank you WS for explaining better. I should have remembered the above, but it came out kind of "jumbled".

~Alan

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

can you give me an example? The only ones i can think of are the Superbit DVDs, which use the same codec just higher bitrate. How can the codec be improved if the decoder doesn't change? If the codec changes & the decoder doesn't; how will the decoder know how to decode the codec?

Because the ENCODER does the changing!

~Alan

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

can you give me an example? The only ones i can think of are the Superbit DVDs, which use the same codec just higher bitrate. How can the codec be improved if the decoder doesn't change? If the codec changes & the decoder doesn't; how will the decoder know how to decode the codec?

The Indiana Jones Trilogy.

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by BStecke

I see a lock in the near future. A segue from "VC-1 vs everything else" to "films transmitted OTA" . . . can't turn out well

Why?

Frankly I'm perplexed at how I'm being treated. I pose a simple quandary into peoples imagination as to a "why" and I get lambasted from every which angle.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by BStecke

I see a lock in the near future. A segue from "VC-1 vs everything else" to "films transmitted OTA" . . . can't turn out well

Yes, this whole thread seems to be more of a LOVE LETTER to HD DVD than a serious discussion of codecs...

~Alan

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

Why?

Frankly I'm perplexed at how I'm being treated. I pose a simple quandary into peoples imagination as to a "why" and I get lambasted from every which angle.

Because when you're told stuff, you ignore it...

~Alan

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

Why?

Frankly I'm perplexed at how I'm being treated. I pose a simple quandary into peoples imagination as to a "why" and I get lambasted from every which angle.

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Yes, this whole thread seems to be more of a LOVE LETTER to HD DVD than a serious discussion of codecs...

~Alan

And there you have it Examples are provided to you, yet you ignore them. There are literally hundreds of examples of DVD's that are reissued using the same codec, yet look better due to the advancement in the use of said codec.

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by BStecke

The Indiana Jones Trilogy.

The question arises, was it the codec or the transfer? If you look at other DVDs from the same time when the original Indiana Jones was released & compare PQ is it equal? You're assuming as fact.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

The question arises, was it the codec or the transfer? If you look at other DVDs from the same time when the original Indiana Jones was released & compare PQ is it equal? You're assuming as fact.

Well . . . the 2003 release uses Mpeg 2, and so does the version just released on May 20th. The 2003 releases had only a trailer for extras, where the newer versions have many extras in addition to the movies. So, more content, possibly more compression for the movie, yet the film itself is said to look better on the new release than the 2003 release. Nothing has changed with the master itself between '03 and two weeks ago. I posted a quote from the Digital Bits regarding this, but as usual you seemed to have skipped over it.

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Yes, this whole thread seems to be more of a LOVE LETTER to HD DVD than a serious discussion of codecs...

~Alan

HD DVD has nothing to do with anything. There are VC-1 movies for BD; there always have been. & I dont appreciate the implications that youre making (calling me a troll). I've been nothing but courteous & polite.

This thread has to do with why VC-1 isn't being implemented more & why there are still MPEG-2 movies.

All I'm getting is nontechnical assaults on my character & anecdotal FUD.

I'm not the one who should be apologizing for anything.

I even provided evidence that VC-1 is a codec more capable of representing source imagery from an independant source C'T magazine

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

Yet no analysis or commentary on that. And you accuse me of ignoring what you've been saying.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

The question arises, was it the codec or the transfer? If you look at other DVDs from the same time when the original Indiana Jones was released & compare PQ is it equal? You're assuming as fact.

It doesn't matter!

It has been stated MANY times that MPEG2 encoders have had MANY improvements in the years since DVD first came out... allowing studios to offer BETTER encoding for DVDs.

A (former) executive from MS has commented MANY times about the improvements made to the VC-1 codec since HD DVD came out.

~Alan

[ccplant]

Originally Posted by BStecke

According to Amir (yeah, I know), they did two transfers of Transformers, one with AVC and one with VC1, and the VC1 version was "closer to the master." Take what you will from that . . . I definitely wouldn't say that AVC is incapable of the same results.

Are you saying that the HD DVD version is going to be better than the Blu-ray version. I'm not too sure but I think you got that backwards. Michael Bay oversaw the Blu-ray production of Transformers and was pissed when it was cancelled. But now that it's finally coming out it has a MPEG-4 codec.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=741

If VC-1 was the codec of choice why would they re-encode the entire movie for this release? I'm pretty sure that MPEG-4 was the original codec when the Blu-ray vesion was in production. But who knows. Lets e-mail Michael Bay!

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by SHIELD

HD DVD has nothing to do with anything. There are VC-1 movies for BD; there always have been & I dont appreciate the implications that youre making (calling me a troll). I've been nothing but courteous & polite.

I agree that you have been polite, but you have relied on some HD DVD propoganda on several occasions.

Originally Posted by SHIELD

This thread has to do with why VC-1 isn't being implemented more & why there are still MPEG-2 movies.

Studios have a choice which codecs they want to use. Disney has used both, Lionsgate has used both, Paramount appears to be switching to VC-1 (at least it seems), Universal appears to be sticking with VC-1 (I think), and there were rumors sometime back that WB may be switching to AVC. Personally, I don't care as long as they are higher bitrates than the HD DVD encodes.

As for MPEG-2, I already answered that question... as did WickyWoo.

Originally Posted by SHIELD

anecdotal FUD.

You've spread some yourself...

Originally Posted by SHIELD

I even provided evidence that VC-1 is a codec more capable of representing source imagery from an independant source C'T magazine

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

Yet no analysis or commentary on that. And you accuse me of ignoring what you've been saying.

I don't know how to comment on the above link, so I didn't say anything.

~Alan

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by ccplant

I'm not too sure but I think you got that backwards. Michael Bay oversaw the Blu-ray production of Transformers and was pissed when it was cancelled. But now that it's finally coming out it has a MPEG-4 codec.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=741

If AVC was the codec of choice why would they re-encode the entire movie for this release? I'm pretty sure that MPEG-4 was the original codec when the Blu-ray vesion was in production. But who knows. Lets e-mail Michael Bay!

This is his post from AVS, FWIW.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by ccplant

I'm not too sure but I think you got that backwards. Michael Bay oversaw the Blu-ray production of Transformers and was pissed when it was cancelled. But now that it's finally coming out it has a MPEG-4 codec.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=741

If AVC was the codec of choice why would they re-encode the entire movie for this release? I'm pretty sure that MPEG-4 was the original codec when the Blu-ray vesion was in production. But who knows. Lets e-mail Michael Bay!

The BD encode done last year was MPEG-4. Supposedly, the upcoming release will have a new transfer. Rumors have it that will be a VC-1 encode. It could mean nothing considering that Paramount appears to be switching to VC-1...

~Alan

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Well . . . the 2003 release uses Mpeg 2, and so does the version just released on May 20th. The 2003 releases had only a trailer for extras, where the newer versions have many extras in addition to the movies. So, more content, possibly more compression for the movie, yet the film itself is said to look better on the new release than the 2003 release. Nothing has changed with the master itself between '03 and two weeks ago. I posted a quote from the Digital Bits regarding this, but as usual you seemed to have skipped over it.

I did not see that post. I have now though. I'm also inferring by it that the original was full screen and the reissue was anamorphic? would i be correct? (there's no link provided so it's hard to tell). If that's the case its no doubt the remastered version looks better as less macro-blocking would be evident since the amount of pixels needing to be refreshed is dramatically reduced.

The source image i was referring to was movies in general, not the Indiana Jones movie. It's very confusing trying to balance a discussion with multiple people at once; especially when they all think youre replying specifically to them . Though technologies to capture film digitally clearer have advanced significantly, look at consumer level film scanner. Higher clarity digital capture of film, even using the same encoding method would produce a higher quality image. A lot is being assumed.


& back to the point, the consensus at AVS seems to be that VC-1 is the better codec for HD (more accurate to the source). I have provided a test by C'T which shows this. Honestly, I wasn't expecting this much opposition to the idea.

It has a larger pixel block library. Which means it can produce with less bytes the same amount of pixels colored per frame. If it is, as most agree & tests have shown better, now (put aside the argument that it may not be a few years down the road), why would studio's not use it? I mean, why wouldn't you want the best possible image?

[Canada]

From my experience I like AVC Mpeg 4 better.

I mean
Casino Royal
POTC,
Ratatouille
The Rock
Fox uses AVC

I personally like the look of AVC, better than VC-1 maybe if Warner stopped the DNR I could make an accurate comparison.

[SHIELD]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

It doesn't matter!

It has been stated MANY times that MPEG2 encoders have had MANY improvements in the years since DVD first came out... allowing studios to offer BETTER encoding for DVDs.

A (former) executive from MS has commented MANY times about the improvements made to the VC-1 codec since HD DVD came out.

~Alan

I think youre confusing the encoder with the codec. The codec doesn't change. The encoders improve with *computer power & *quality of transfer. When a movie is encoded it has to do a lot of "if than else" with nearest neighbor pixels.

The encoder can only do what the codec allows. Think of the block configurations as Tetris blocks. You will always have the same shapes.