AVC Vs. VC-1 thread

[Beta-guy]

I thought I've make this thread, first off I'm opposed to VC-1 as it's proprietary codec, while AVC is an open standard, can anyone here please say why they like one over the other, and why you prefer it.

[SuprSlow]

Honestly, I don't care. As long as it looks good

[jorg]

i hate property evilsoft!!!!!!!!!!aaaaaaaaaaaaaa i just call tux to blow the sh!t our od dicksofts ip lmao but seriously for films with great detail AVC ALL THE WAY but for films WITH LESS DETAIL OR MORE FILM GRAIN by natrue of the film then i think VC-1 will be better

[The Don]

this really depends...

is the movie on HD-DVD...or Blu-ray?

edit:...also is it on Blu-ray as an HD-DVD port?

[Luis_A51]

The technical merits of the two are essentially equal.

I dislike VC-1 because it is Microsoft property. I also hate VC-1 ports, as they always suck. But properly done VC-1 looks great, Disney has shown this.

In conclusion, I dont hate VC-1. What I DO hate is Microsoft and Warner's "good enough" mindset.

[cleric]

VC-1 holds grains better imo but its so close its not really a big deal to me anything but mpeg2.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

With my experience having seen VC-1 on both formats, and having seen both formats in general, I tend to prefer AVC for one simple reason. VC-1 by design seems to have a softer image. The distinctive seperation of an item/person in the foreground from the background of the image looks more blended, thus maintaining a very 2D effect. AVC on the other hand has a much sharper distinction between foreground and background elements of a shot, thus creating a depth unparalleled on a 1080p TV.

People that I've shown both codecs to agree without knowing which codec does what. They often pick out the AVC encodes as "almost 3D" and the VC-1 encodes as "it doesn't have that 3D effect I just saw on the other one you showed me".

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

With my experience having seen VC-1 on both formats, and having seen both formats in general, I tend to prefer AVC for one simple reason. VC-1 by design seems to have a softer image. The distinctive seperation of an item/person in the foreground from the background of the image looks more blended, thus maintaining a very 2D effect. AVC on the other hand has a much sharper distinction between foreground and background elements of a shot, thus creating a depth unparalleled on a 1080p TV.

People that I've shown both codecs to agree without knowing which codec does what. They often pick out the AVC encodes as "almost 3D" and the VC-1 encodes as "it doesn't have that 3D effect I just saw on the other one you showed me".

agree entitely

[ClaytonMG]

From what I've read and understand, neither one should stand out when done right. Sure Warner's ports don't look good, but take a look at why. It's not VC-1, it's bandwidth/disc space issues. Take Deja Vu for instance, that looked amazing in VC-1, but it also had a much higher bit rate than anything WB has shown us. It also all depends on the source. Really the only way to compare the 2 would be to have the EXACT same film/clip and have one encoded with AVC and one with VC-1. But since there hasn't been anything like that (at least that I know of) there's no way to say VC-1 is worse than AVC.

[sj001]

From everything I have seen, AVC seems to be the better encoder. Though this might be more because of the STUDIOS that are doing the encoding that use AVC. (Sony, Disney, I think Fox).

[Papi4baby]

Like is even a question AVC.

[jd213]

According to some people on AVS the extras for Shrek 3 which are encoded in AVC look better than the actual film which was encoded in VC-1. This had me cracking up, especially when one of the M$ employees paid to spread FUD in the Insider's Thread there tried to place the blame on the video masters.

[docjan_uk]

Too many variables to say.
I think I've seen more AVC encodes that I've liked, but that's neither here nor there really.
Like the above poster said, if someone were to get two BD's and max them out with AVC and VC-1 encodes, some sort of comparison could be done.

[UTVOL06]

Originally Posted by cleric

VC-1 holds grains better imo but its so close its not really a big deal to me anything but mpeg2.

Nothing wrong with Mpeg-2 other than it takes up more bandwidth. PQ is identical to Mpeg-4/AVC if not actually a little better as long as the bitrates are good.

Kingdom of Heaven was mpeg2 on a BD50 disc and is one of the best PQ/looking Blu-rays.

Fox just released "Pathfinder" encoded in Mpeg-2 @ 38MBPS!

As for the VC-1 vs. AVC..they both are virtually the same its just most Movies out with VC-1 are from WB and uses a lower bitrate.

Disney/Buena Vista just proved VC-1 can look great when they released Santa Clause 3 with an ultra high bitrate in VC-1. PQ is very good nearly a 5/5. I watched about 15 minutes of it the other night when I picked it up.

[cajmoyper]

I definitely agree that Kingdom of Heaven encoded in mpeg2 is one of the best looking BD's. That's also why I think that Fox does the best transfers on average. Die Hard 4 looked sweet.