Blu-Ray to use MPEG-2 over MPEG-4

[Alex Pallas]

http://news.com.com/New+high-definit...?tag=nefd.lede
1994 seems so 'retro', but not in a cool way, or even cool-to-be-uncool way

[Gorkab]

...and VC-1 & AVC for 9 GB Blu-Ray Disc...

[Blackraven]

What the hell?

So it means that all Blu-ray discs would use older MPEG-2 and ditch support of the new codecs such as MPEG-4 and H.264???

I thought they were going to support both the old and new video codecs.

I really hope this isn't true.

[Gorkab]

Oh yeah, they will ! But by now for some f*****g "marketing reasons" they put MPEG-2 so that we could read it on an actual computer... Bullshit !

After the MPEG-2 editions, they will do MPEG-4 "Supra Quality" only in order to make us buy !!!

[thunderhawk]

Last week, studio giant Sony Pictures quietly voted for "none of the above," and took a swipe at the new codec formats. The new advanced codecs aren't immediately necessary for discs released in Sony's high-capacity Blu-ray format, Sony Pictures executives said in an interview with CNET News.com, and the studio would instead use the 11-year-old MPEG-2 video codec used on today's DVDs.

Sony, you really set us apart.

Argh... We should protest somehow... We are the consumers, without us, they're nothing. We should refuse and only buy the advanced codec encoded discs. I don't think I'll have a lot of people behind me when I want to do this... Most people don't have the technical background for this kind of stuff...

[Shadowself]

I don't see this as a real issue.

It may be great posturing by Sony, et. al. to tell the studios (especially the smaller and independent houses) that they don't really have to buy new gear to do Blu-ray. But it is a marketing gift to HD DVD because they can say, "See, if you use more modern codecs than the ancient MPEG-2 you don't need more than 15/30 GB?"

In reality I don't see this as a problem. As I understand it, to be fully compliant with the Blu-ray standards a player needs to support MPEG-2, MPEG-4 Part 10 (aka AVC or H.264) as well as Microsoft's VC1. If a player does support all these modes then any disk created with any of these three will be 100% tranparent to the end user. Just place the disk in and it plays.

The difference will come when compilation disks or very long theatrical pieces plus add-ons fitting onto a single disk. (Think of a full year of your favorite TV series in 1080p HD or the Lord of the Rings, Return of the King, Platinum Edition in 1080p HD, respectively.) These will definitely take more than will fit with MPEG-2 even at 50 GB.

Even then, if your player supports all three formats (as I believe they must to be fully standard compliant) the end user just inserts the disk and moves on.

[thunderhawk]

True I don't care about the codecs, as long as the picture quality is nice

[zombie]

Originally Posted by thunderhawk

I don't care about the codecs, as long as the picture quality is nice

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Gorkab]

Originally Posted by thunderhawk

True I don't care about the codecs, as long as the picture quality is nice

And if hey use MPEG-2, XviD still have years for him !

[brian_p_sully]

The MPEG2 codec is being used so a HiDef movie actually uses up most the space on the BD. By doing this it makes it more difficult for consumers to copy that data to some other cheap media like DVD-R. If the movies used MPEG4 they would fit on dual layer DVD, maybe even single layer DVD and piracy of their precious high def content would run rampant.

It may also have to do with licensing, imagine ever content maker and hardware manufacturer paying a license fee to whoever holds the patent on the new codec.... That would add up I'm sure. I think thats why in Taiwan or China they made a new disc call FVD or something, no royalties paid for DVD it they make their own "standard"

[thunderhawk]

Originally Posted by brian_p_sully

I think thats why in Taiwan or China they made a new disc call FVD or something, no royalties paid for DVD it they make their own "standard"

It's China, and they have their so called EVD, Enhanced Versatile Disc.
I say: Let them have it!... It's nice on compression... But for PC storage...? It's less versatile then BD will be, thats for sure.

[Blackraven]

HOLD ON!!!

I just heard from some of the people at AVS forums that Sony using MPEG-2 for Blu-ray DOESN'T mean that Blu-ray doesn't support more advanced video codecs (MPEG-4, H.264 AVC, etc.)

This only means that Sony would only go for MPEG-2 (although they may shift to something higher in the future).

Companies/manufacturers/studios select the codecs supported by Blu-ray.

I misunderstood the article earlier.

[thunderhawk]

Well... You forgot..? Check the BD FAQ sometimes mate

[m00]

"The MPEG2 codec is being used so a HiDef movie actually uses up most the space on the BD. By doing this it makes it more difficult for consumers to copy that data to some other cheap media like DVD-R. If the movies used MPEG4 they would fit on dual layer DVD, maybe even single layer DVD and piracy of their precious high def content would run rampant."

This makes NO sense at all. firstly they could easily use lossless sound (dolby-HD, DTS-HD)
which
eats up space like there is no tomorrow, you'll won't fit a 1080 movie on a DLDVD with lossless sound and good picture quality.

even the sound alone won't fit on a long (3h+) movie onto a DL-DVD.

[AV_Integrated]

Strangely, a lot of people don't understand how CODECs work and the benefits and drawbacks that tend to exist within them.

A good audio example:

MP3 is considered a very good standard for compressed audio, but at higher bit rates, like 384, you actually get better audio fidelity by using the MP2 format for audio. Around 192kbs MP3 produces a much cleaner audio track than MP2.

But, at 192, mp3 also produces a cleaner audio track than mp4 does at 192kbs! Move up the chain to around 96kbs and mp4 blows away mp3 at 96kbs.

Bottom line is that newer CODECs are designed to make smaller files look better, they use incredible algorythms to get rid of as much as they can while preserving the image quality. The problem is that at higher bit rates, the old CODECs keep more of the essential data that produces better sound and video at those rates. So, with HDTV, and MPEG2, you actually may get BETTER video by using the older CODEC and filling the disc up, then you would with any version of MPEG4 because even under the best of circumstances, the algorythms are going to throw out to much of the wrong video information to make the best possible image you could get.

Hopefully, that makes sense because it took me a little while to get that concept.

At 9GB, MP4 blows away MP2 for a 2 hour movie. At 25 or 50GB? Well, then you would really have to see them side-by-side, but odds are good that MP2 would be marginally superior to MP4.

[Alex Pallas]

interesting post, thanks for your insight

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by AV_Integrated

Strangely, a lot of people don't understand how CODECs work and the benefits and drawbacks that tend to exist within them.

A good audio example:

MP3 is considered a very good standard for compressed audio, but at higher bit rates, like 384, you actually get better audio fidelity by using the MP2 format for audio. Around 192kbs MP3 produces a much cleaner audio track than MP2.

But, at 192, mp3 also produces a cleaner audio track than mp4 does at 192kbs! Move up the chain to around 96kbs and mp4 blows away mp3 at 96kbs.

Bottom line is that newer CODECs are designed to make smaller files look better, they use incredible algorythms to get rid of as much as they can while preserving the image quality. The problem is that at higher bit rates, the old CODECs keep more of the essential data that produces better sound and video at those rates. So, with HDTV, and MPEG2, you actually may get BETTER video by using the older CODEC and filling the disc up, then you would with any version of MPEG4 because even under the best of circumstances, the algorythms are going to throw out to much of the wrong video information to make the best possible image you could get.

Hopefully, that makes sense because it took me a little while to get that concept.

At 9GB, MP4 blows away MP2 for a 2 hour movie. At 25 or 50GB? Well, then you would really have to see them side-by-side, but odds are good that MP2 would be marginally superior to MP4.

As you say, all codecs have their own Idiosyncrasies. At similar bit rates (after compression) they are susceptible to different things. Some focus on maintaining color (and thus are great for slowly changing imagery). Some focus on frame to frame changes (and thus are great for rapidly changing imagery). There really is no "best" codec.

However...
I've never heard of an MP2 audio codec. My understanding is the full designation of MP3 is really MPEG-2 Layer 3 (for the audio layer). Thus MP3 is really part of the MPEG-2 codec specification -- as I understand it.

My personal experience is that at the same bit rate (after compression) something encoded (compressed) utilizing MPEG-4 Part 10 (aka H.264 or MPEG-4 AVC) is always as good as or better than something encoded (compressed) with MPEG-2. It is not always visibly better, but I have never seen a case where MPEG-2 encoded imagery was better than MPEG-4 Part 10.

I've seen them both, side-by-side, at various bit rates. Again, as you say, at the lowest bit rates (think 1080i at <9 Mbps) MPEG-4 Part 10 is obviously better than MPEG-2. However, even at four or more times that bit rate MPEG-2 does not produce a better image than MPEG-4 Part 10. This was true for both rapidly changing and nearly static imagery. (I have yet to see a comparison of 1080p/60 using these to different codecs so I can't address that specific comparison.)

Of course this was all done visually with my aging eyes. As they say... "Your mileage may vary."

Maybe you are referring to the earliest MPEG-4 codec? That was clearly inferior to the MPEG-4 Part 10 codec.

[thunderhawk]

Very true indeed.
So MPEG-2 sure is better for 1080p60 content if you continue the trend.
H.264 AVC has been optimised for small bitrates. It'll lose it supriority when you use it for high bitrates.
I wish you could have a variable codec, one with both qualities... However that has not been created yet.

[AV_Integrated]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

I've never heard of an MP2 audio codec. My understanding is the full designation of MP3 is really MPEG-2 Layer 3 (for the audio layer). Thus MP3 is really part of the MPEG-2 codec specification -- as I understand it.

Sorry - pulling things out of my head...

Specifically - When researching digital music servers at LEAST 4 years ago, I was comparing the Arrakis DC6 to models from Escient, AudioRequest, and iMerge. The Arrakis unit was the only to utilize MP2 audio - specifically MPEG1, Layer 2.

When asked why, it came down to the answer I gave. That at higher bit rates, MP2 doesn't throw out as much high and low end data as MP3 does. It produces better audio.

Of course, at 256 or 320kbs a person may not actually be able to hear the difference between MP2 and MP3... Likewise, at the bitrates that are used to fill a Blu-Ray Disc, the difference between MPEG2 and 4 may not be visible to the human eye. But, I don't know that 100% for sure, and I would not want to make a claim that I know this for a fact. I am sorry if anyone thinks I am stating 'fact' on the difference - I personally believe that visibly, there will be no difference at all.

[Blu-Wave]

.. incidentally, DAB uses MP2 - but (in the UK) at lower bitrates - I guess that's what put the DAB in dabolical ...

The more aggressive compression of Mpeg4 and similar codecs (over MPeg2) comes at a price (MPeg4 was designed for very low bitrates, not high quality) - primarily seen as juddering effects and other positional errors on panning across or moving through natural material such as foliage, scrubland, etc. - where natural features also tend to take on a "plasticky" "synthetic" look. These artifacts are most obvious on large, high definition screens running non-scaled material (i.e. film converted to 1080p or digital video recorded at 1080p and displayed on a true 1080p display.)