Video Codec Question

[TenaciousDHo]

I didn't see any recent threads on this, but if there is, feel free to point me to it and close this one...

I've noticed a lot of discussion lately about the different audio tracks that are available (i.e. True HD, DTSHD-MA, PCM, etc.) but haven't seen much on the lines for the VIDEO codecs being used.

I think most of us would agree that the use of MPEG2 is/was mostly unsuccessful, but it did produce some good blu's. Now that AVC and VC-1 appear to be the front-runners in HD video codecs, do you guys think one is better than the other? Or does the transfer really just depend on the source material and the studio's attention to detail?

For arguments sake, I'll throw a couple of highly rated transfers out there... WALL-E (AVC) vs. Baraka (VC-1) . Just talking video-wise, not fave movie.

[Sponge-worthy]

I haven't encoded a ton of video myself, but when I have done so, I've found the H.264 consistently yields good results, so if I was encoding something, I would go with AVC.

As for Blus, I have seen great products that use either/or, so I think it's more the source and effort the studios invest in producing the disc.

Same as ryan - H.264 consistently had good results.
It always depend on the way the disc was made and it's quality.

[TenaciousDHo]

I'll keep H.264 in mind, but I don't really do any video encoding right now... I was thinking more for blu-ray movies that come out.
Every time I see a review, it will show what format it is, but I don't see any difference in quality between AVC and VC-1, so I wonder if one has a higher max bitrate? Or one doesn't use quite as much space on the disc?

[syncguy]

Both AVC and VC-1 use mpeg4 and VC-1 is the MS flavour of mpeg4. Although they are close, I believe AVC has the edge.

[Anthony P]

Now that AVC and VC-1 appear to be the front-runners in HD video codecs, do you guys think one is better than the other?

no, they both (all codecs) have their pros and cons. BW will make a bigger difference then any choice in codec.