Wow! Troy's bitrate only 3.3Mbps in some sections (pics)

[krinkle]

PROOF THAT LOW-BITRATE VC-1 SUCKS

I just had a chance to watch this, and it seemed like some sections were really soft and blurry.

So I checked the bitrate meter and it was only 3.3Mbps.

This seems almost negligent.


Anyway I took pics:




Ok and just for comparison here are some pics a few minutes later:




Also I'm banned from AVSforum since months ago, so if anyone wants to post these pics over there that would be great. Here is proof that lowbitrate VC-1 from HD DVD encodes sucks. This is the same film and you can see a huge difference in picture quality due to the bitrate.

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by krinkle

I just had a chance to watch this, and it seemed like some sections were really soft and blurry.

So I checked the bitrate meter and it was only 3.3Mbps.

This seems almost negligent.


Anyway I took pics:

I am suprised that you actually worry about bitrates when you watch a movie. If I like the movie and enjoy the picture quality, I just watch the movie. I never thought of caring for technical specs that much, I probably will never care about technical specs that much if I like what I see.

[Xerious]

yeah, if a few seconds have disparity in bitrates, i'm in the "and so what" catagory... the overall film (99.9%) makes up for a few soft moments.

[buckshot]

I was slightly annoyed by the picture at some times and checked the bitrats to see if that might be the cause. I never saw it get that low but there were planty of scenes that if they were avc encodes would be in the 30s. but since they were vc1 they were in the teens. its more than just a technical spec, the more you watch hd movies with different compression encoding, the more you see how bitrates make a difference.

does hd dvd only use vc1? that would explain why they badmouth mpeg2 and avc. because they've never been able to watch casino royale or black hawk down then troy to see how much more detail there is with the higher bitrates.

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by Xerious

yeah, if a few seconds have disparity in bitrates, i'm in the "and so what" catagory... the overall film (99.9%) makes up for a few soft moments.

Please look at my added comparison shot. No can look at these and say that bitrate doesn't matter!

Obviously it does even with VC-1.

The first shot is blurry and smeared and lacking detail.

The second is sharp and crisp. The differnece is quite obvious.

[ScoBro828]

I don't know how to check the bitrates just know the dark scenes were not very good; I am really surprised at how good everyone says the picture is/was as I thought overall it was average at best. Not one I would be quick to showcase.

[krinkle]

All of the pictures were taken with a Sony 4.1 MegaPixel Camera with a Carl Zeiss lens. All the settings were exactly the same. All the pictures were taken within moments of each other.

You are looking at pictures of 1080p material right off my 160" screen.

[slpbird]

All the low bitrate seens in the movie just happen to be dark seens. The rate probably drops because there is less data to transfer.

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by krinkle

All of the pictures were taken with a Sony 4.1 MegaPixel Camera with a Carl Zeiss lens. All the settings were exactly the same. All the pictures were taken within moments of each other.

You are looking at pictures of 1080p material right off my 160" screen.

I am not doubting you (I can't see the pictures because I am at work), I am sure that this bugs you a great bit. I however didn't notice, I still don't care. By all means be this passionate about it. I just am not.

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by SS316SRV

I am not doubting you (I can't see the pictures because I am at work), I am sure that this bugs you a great bit. I however didn't notice, I still don't care. By all means be this passionate about it. I just am not.

No offense but you have only a 50" 720p screen, so it is not surprising that this would not be very obvious or bothersome for you.

Maybe upgrade to 1080p front projection in a dedicated theater with 100"+ screen size and watch it again.

[iamxu]

Originally Posted by krinkle

No offense but you have only a 50" 720p screen, so it is not surprising that this would not be very obvious or bothersome for you.

Maybe upgrade to 1080p front projection in a dedicated theater with 100"+ screen size and watch it again.

That must be the most ediots POST i even seen,

a 3.3Mbit bitrate, even on dark scenes is way too low for HD content, even if you using a 720p screen, upgrading to a 1080p will just make it worst.

Also, movies are encoded with variable bitrate, and a minimum as to be set,
standart sd-dvd has a minimum bitrate of 2mbit. So its clearly due to the bad HD-DUD format with not enough space. guys, JUST HOPE, when they will do LORD OF THE RING, they wont be doing the same thing as they did with TROY and make a specific blu-ray version.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by iamxu

That must be the most ediots POST i even seen,

a 3.3Mbit bitrate, even on dark scenes is way too low for HD content, even if you using a 720p screen, upgrading to a 1080p will just make it worst.

Actually, I think you just made the most idiotic post ever. You are saying exactly what the guy you are criticizing was saying. His point was that the other poster WOULD notice the problem IF he had a larger viewing surface that was 1080p. The guy you are criticizing is the one saying that 3.3 is way too low, but here you are calling him the idiot.

I'm not saying I agree of disagree with either side, I'm just saying you need to learn to follow the bouncing ball.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

Actually, I think you just made the most idiotic post ever.

I believe he was agreeing with Krinkle, and refering the post Krinkle was responding to, rather than calling Krinkle an idiot.

But, everyone, please debate the information and don't attack the poster.

Gary

[oscar_in_fw]

Troy had very good PQ with some scenes but than the PQ dropped like a rock in other scenes, particularly the darker ones (e.g. the scenes pictured above) I thought this might have been a clear sign of compression artifacts due to low video bitrates, but what do I know ? I'd like to see the original again to see if the uneven PQ was in the original (as some allege) or whether "something else" was causing the uneven PQ.

Maybe it was simply the contrast, a lot of movie had excellent PQ; but it did suffer significantly in other scenes. I agree it may not be a big deal with smaller screens, but with a 110" screen ("lowly" 720 DLP HD2 FP), it was easy to notice. I have to wonder how this movie would have turned out with a higher bitrate AVC encode on a 50G disc ? I would not consider this movie to be reference; I didn't think "King Kong" was reference either because of too many "soft" scenes but maybe I'm asking for too much.

[WriteSimply]

The way to be scientific about all of this is to encode the same scene with different bitrates. And that means having access to the master. Since nobody but Warner has 'em, it's a moot point.

I don't like the video encode dumbed down but these captures are not quite proof.


fuad

[Rup_Muk]

Originally Posted by buckshot

I was slightly annoyed by the picture at some times and checked the bitrats to see if that might be the cause. I never saw it get that low but there were planty of scenes that if they were avc encodes would be in the 30s. but since they were vc1 they were in the teens. its more than just a technical spec, the more you watch hd movies with different compression encoding, the more you see how bitrates make a difference.

does hd dvd only use vc1? that would explain why they badmouth mpeg2 and avc. because they've never been able to watch casino royale or black hawk down then troy to see how much more detail there is with the higher bitrates.

Buckshot,
I agree completely. Only when I "see" a detriment in the PQ do I turn on the bitrate meter. Unfortunately, with Troy I had to do so much too often. I did not see the 3.3 Mbps, but sequences with 10 - 12 Mbps were quite disappointing. On the flip side, the entire fight sequence outside the walls of Troy was outstanding - and the bitrate meter read in the mid-20's!!

I posted these comments in my review of the movie as well.

Rup.

[oscar_in_fw]

Originally Posted by Rup_Muk

Buckshot,
I agree completely. Only when I "see" a detriment in the PQ do I turn on the bitrate meter. Unfortunately, with Troy I had to do so much too often. I did not see the 3.3 Mbps, but sequences with 10 - 12 Mbps were quite disappointing. On the flip side, the entire fight sequence outside the walls of Troy was outstanding - and the bitrate meter read in the mid-20's!!

I posted these comments in my review of the movie as well.

Rup.

Whaddaya know ? There may actually be a few people who saw
"Troy" the way I saw it; uneven, even disappointing PQ. How come a seemingly vast majority folks thought this was a great transfer of an long movie (and with lossless audio) indicative and "proof" (?) of why 30G/30Mbps is "good enough" ? And the reviewers rate this 4/4.5 out of 5 or 9/10 (or I'm reading the wrong reviews) ? Is this movie really that good compared to most other movies ?

[krinkle]

Originally Posted by oscar_in_fw

Whaddaya know ? There may actually be a few people who saw
"Troy" the way I saw it; uneven, even disappointing PQ. How come a seemingly vast majority folks thought this was a great transfer of an long movie (and with lossless audio) indicative and "proof" (?) of why 30G/30Mbps is "good enough" ? And the reviewers rate this 4/4.5 out of 5 or 9/10 (or I'm reading the wrong reviews) ? Is this movie really that good compared to most other movies ?

No definitely not. This one was very mixed as my screenshots show.

IMO its Tier 2 in PQ overall, but a few scenes are close to tier 0.

[David M]

Originally Posted by krinkle

Please look at my added comparison shot. No can look at these and say that bitrate doesn't matter!

Obviously it does even with VC-1.

The first shot is blurry and smeared and lacking detail.

The second is sharp and crisp. The differnece is quite obvious.

Krinkle, you're misunderstanding how video compression and bit-rates work.

A lower bit-rate does NOT automatically blur the picture - it instead increases the opportunity for compression artefacts to appear.

Often you'll see blurry low bit-rate movies because the compressionists have filtered (blurred) the video. They do this do decrease the compression complexity so they can get away with lower bit-rates. Lowering the space allocated for a specific scene does not blur it in itself.

Also: the bit rate counter isn't even accurate.

[ra1024]

I was very disappointed with this title after reading numerous posts about how it had PQ comparable to CR and POTC. I couldn't believe everyone was getting excited about an encode that was soft in most scenes.

I can only figure they got caught up in the colorful cinematography and overlooked the lack of detail.