Anyone actually like MPEG-2 Encodes? - Blu-ray Forum

Blu4ever · 04-04-2007, 11:25 PM

The last few movies I have watched (Silent Hill, MI3, Underworld) on Blu-Ray have all been MPEG-2 encodes. I found that I actually enjoyed the PQ on these discs quite a bit. I will admit that it can get a little noisy during certain shots, but overall I found the detail was very good. Anyone else like/don't hate MPEG-2 releases?

jorg · 04-04-2007, 11:51 PM

i do to like mpeg coded movie becuse of its sharpness

theknub · 04-05-2007, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blu4ever

The last few movies I have watched (Silent Hill, MI3, Underworld) on Blu-Ray have all been MPEG-2 encodes. I found that I actually enjoyed the PQ on these discs quite a bit. I will admit that it can get a little noisy during certain shots, but overall I found the detail was very good. Anyone else like/don't hate MPEG-2 releases?

the vast majority of releases have been mpeg-2 to date. the best titles so far are ones like crank, black hawk down, and kingdom of heaven. we are beginning to see more avc titels (mpeg-4 part 10) like casino royale which is spectacular. mpeg-2 is fantastic with the room to breathe. anything you might have heard is pretty much false.

Ascended_Saiyan · 04-05-2007, 12:00 AM

I think MPEG-2 may be too sharp for some people. MPEG-2 really gets the film grain (where the image lives). Some people really object to that film grain. It may not be the most efficient codec, but I think it's definitely sharp.

nhaase · 04-05-2007, 12:01 AM

I'm fine with them, but I do prefer some newer movies to be in AVC. Compare Daniel Craig in Bond (AVC) and Layer Cake (MPEG-2) for a good comparison.

phloyd · 04-05-2007, 12:05 AM

I have few to no issues with high bitrate MPEG2. I have defended its use in the past.

The MI III comparisons on the AVS forum are fascinating - a direct and undeniable case of MPEG2 showing a sharper image than VC-1 with the same source material.

Deciazulado · 04-05-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

I think MPEG-2 may be too sharp for some people.

You can never be too sharp

Chad Varnadore · 04-05-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhaase

I'm fine with them, but I do prefer some newer movies to be in AVC. Compare Daniel Craig in Bond (AVC) and Layer Cake (MPEG-2) for a good comparison.

The differences you see between those two films on BD has a lot more to do with the photographic design than the compression method.

I got a kick last year reading some BD review, where the reviewer was putting down one of Warner's BDs I believe, saying how he could tell it was inferior quality MPEG 2 as soon as it started. The title was actually VC1.

There are a lot of misperceptions still floating around out there. Many perpetuated by reviewers making assumptions that they can't qualify. The one that has become something of a pet peeve of mine is reviewers that see artifacts they can't explain and automatically labeling it "compression noise". There are a lot of ways compression can influence the video. And every one of them has a name more specific than "compression noise"; like posterization, Gibbs effect (aka mosquitoes), blocking. Using such a vague term as "cn", just means it's something they can't explain. Or maybe they're going on some assumption that if one film isn't very noisy then none should be, so any noise level higher than the one, must be compression. Which couldn't be more wrong. Some have complained of bit starvation on discs that have very high bitrates. If studios decide that filtering video is the answer to uneducated criticism, we could be watching DVD again in blu and red cases.

I'll take high bitrate MPEG2 over low bitrate VC1 any day. It's not the codec as much as what you do with it.

nhaase · 04-05-2007, 12:41 AM

Yea. I thought some of the indoor close-ups seemed to be a good comparison myself, taking the filming into account.

Chad Varnadore · 04-05-2007, 01:02 AM

If you optimized the bit budget for three separate encodes of the same film, one using MPEG2, one VC1, one AVC, and had the same compressionist, well versed in all three, work on each, and all viewed on the same format using the same playback equipment, I doubt you'd find a quantitative difference. Distinctions start to become more clear when you start to push the codecs closer to their limits. That's where their shortcomings become pronounced. For MPEG2 it's about 18mbs I believe. Though I'm guessing that would be a constant bitrate, not a variable one.

I can't remember if I've actually heard what it's supposed to be for VC1, but for some reason 16mbs jumps in my head. But, last time I spoke with someone that would know, they were still working out some of the bugs with VC1. Bugs that aren't just present at low bitrates I believe. That's one advantage to MPEG2 right now. It's been around longer and has been a little more refined.

I'm not sure about AVC. I know they were still working some things out with AVC late last year according to a compressionist I spoke with. And Disney had a few problems with some of their early AVC encodes. But, Sony's have been flawless as far as I can tell and Sony has always said they were waiting on AVC to mature more. Either it has or they've figured out a workaround, which might explain why Sony's AVC encodes have been budgeted higher than most of their MPEG2s, unlike Fox who's AVCs have been closer to 15mbs than 30 and for whatever reason haven't been quite as jaw dropping.

Blu4ever · 04-05-2007, 02:43 AM

I agree with the fact the MPEG-2 is very sharp. It does tend to recreate the source so faithfully you capture all the flaws. But personally, I do not mind video noise as long as it is not excessive. The whole point of high def home theater is to re-crate the movie theater experience, flaws and all.

MrBogey · 04-05-2007, 04:37 AM

One of my peeves was when they knocked points off of Casino Royale because the director intentionally threw in distortion into the film. Even though the AVC encoding was true to the directors intent the reviewers still saw it as a flaw.

donricouga · 04-05-2007, 01:24 PM

I agree. MPEG-2 is quite good. I just watched Volver and it had a high bitrate and look sharp and crisp with vibrant colors

GoldenRedux · 04-05-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

You can never be too sharp

How did I know you'd pop up and say that?

GoldenRedux · 04-05-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

I'll take high bitrate MPEG2 over low bitrate VC1 any day. It's not the codec as much as what you do with it.

I couldn't agree more.

phranctoast · 04-05-2007, 01:36 PM

Some of the best transfers for blu ray are on mpeg2!

KenThompson · 04-05-2007, 01:39 PM

In the early stages there was alot of people screaming about the quality of the movies and mpeg 2. It was just a lack of bd 50 and the higher bit rates that was to blame. Of course some of the movies could have been cleaned up some but oh how times have changed. Some of our best titles are encoded with that same codec that cause alot of grief in the early goings. Mpeg 2 is alive and well. Will take quality every time. Maybe Warner could learn a thing or two as its had share of trouble on some of its VC1 dics.

Blackraven · 04-08-2007, 02:47 PM

Don't forget Tears of the Sun either.

Now that WAS a film that proved that even if 25 GB SL disc is only used (combined with bandwith-hungry MPEG2 codec), you still get neat results.

Scorxpion · 04-08-2007, 03:21 PM

Yes i agree with you all ,Just a real example Compare how MPEG2 and VC-1 are real identical for titles done by PARAMOUNT.Yes i like MPEG2 and it really outstand lower compression VC1 done released so far on HD-DVD.

My favorites for now is optimizing higher bit rate whatever it is MPEG2 or AVC.I like both of them over VC1 cdec.

dialog_gvf · 04-08-2007, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

I got a kick last year reading some BD review, where the reviewer was putting down one of Warner's BDs I believe, saying how he could tell it was inferior quality MPEG 2 as soon as it started. The title was actually VC1.

There are a lot of misperceptions still floating around out there. Many perpetuated by reviewers making assumptions that they can't qualify.

Marketing counts on beliefs clouding the perception of reality. Everyone knows Mercedes Benz makes great automobiles, right? But, if you take a look at the Consumer Reports reliability rankings for them in various categories, they are absolutely terrible!

Right now, VC-1 is being marketed. And the number of people that see quality when told it's VC-1 (or even just think it is) shows you, that for one camp, the marketing is working quite well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

I'll take high bitrate MPEG2 over low bitrate VC1 any day. It's not the codec as much as what you do with it.

Agreed.

VC-1 seems to exist to push the bit-rate as low as possible, rather than maintaining the quality of the underlying master as high as possible.

Gary

04-04-2007, 11:25 PM	#1
Blu4ever Active Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Winnipeg 4K collection:8 Blu-ray collection:32	Anyone actually like MPEG-2 Encodes? The last few movies I have watched (Silent Hill, MI3, Underworld) on Blu-Ray have all been MPEG-2 encodes. I found that I actually enjoyed the PQ on these discs quite a bit. I will admit that it can get a little noisy during certain shots, but overall I found the detail was very good. Anyone else like/don't hate MPEG-2 releases?

04-05-2007, 01:02 AM	#10
Chad Varnadore Senior Member Member since:Aug 2006 Location:Salisbury, NC Home Theater Gallery:5 Blu-ray collection:349 Blu-ray reviews:19	If you optimized the bit budget for three separate encodes of the same film, one using MPEG2, one VC1, one AVC, and had the same compressionist, well versed in all three, work on each, and all viewed on the same format using the same playback equipment, I doubt you'd find a quantitative difference. Distinctions start to become more clear when you start to push the codecs closer to their limits. That's where their shortcomings become pronounced. For MPEG2 it's about 18mbs I believe. Though I'm guessing that would be a constant bitrate, not a variable one. I can't remember if I've actually heard what it's supposed to be for VC1, but for some reason 16mbs jumps in my head. But, last time I spoke with someone that would know, they were still working out some of the bugs with VC1. Bugs that aren't just present at low bitrates I believe. That's one advantage to MPEG2 right now. It's been around longer and has been a little more refined. I'm not sure about AVC. I know they were still working some things out with AVC late last year according to a compressionist I spoke with. And Disney had a few problems with some of their early AVC encodes. But, Sony's have been flawless as far as I can tell and Sony has always said they were waiting on AVC to mature more. Either it has or they've figured out a workaround, which might explain why Sony's AVC encodes have been budgeted higher than most of their MPEG2s, unlike Fox who's AVCs have been closer to 15mbs than 30 and for whatever reason haven't been quite as jaw dropping. Last edited by Chad Varnadore; 04-05-2007 at 01:16 AM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
The Descent - MPEG-2 NOT MPEG-4	Feedback Forum	lgans316	7	07-07-2008 02:27 AM
What types of encodes does Blu-ray use?	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	rodgerse	4	02-06-2008 03:07 PM
Warner using different encodes?	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Iron Man	8	10-01-2007 07:47 PM
Blu-Ray to use MPEG-2 over MPEG-4	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Alex Pallas	20	12-23-2005 11:25 PM

04-04-2007, 11:51 PM	#2
jorg Power Member Member since:Dec 2006 Location:Ontario, Canada Home Theater Gallery:2	i do to like mpeg coded movie becuse of its sharpness

04-05-2007, 12:00 AM	#4
Ascended_Saiyan Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Sep 2006 Location:Atlanta, Georgia Blu-ray collection:608 Trading Score:1	I think MPEG-2 may be too sharp for some people. MPEG-2 really gets the film grain (where the image lives). Some people really object to that film grain. It may not be the most efficient codec, but I think it's definitely sharp.

04-05-2007, 12:01 AM	#5
nhaase Special Member Member since:Mar 2007 Trading Score:2	I'm fine with them, but I do prefer some newer movies to be in AVC. Compare Daniel Craig in Bond (AVC) and Layer Cake (MPEG-2) for a good comparison.

04-05-2007, 12:05 AM	#6
phloyd Blu-ray Guru Member since:Dec 2003 Location:California Trading Score:5	I have few to no issues with high bitrate MPEG2. I have defended its use in the past. The MI III comparisons on the AVS forum are fascinating - a direct and undeniable case of MPEG2 showing a sharper image than VC-1 with the same source material.

04-05-2007, 12:41 AM	#9
nhaase Special Member Member since:Mar 2007 Trading Score:2	Yea. I thought some of the indoor close-ups seemed to be a good comparison myself, taking the filming into account.

04-05-2007, 02:43 AM	#11
Blu4ever Active Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Winnipeg 4K collection:8 Blu-ray collection:32	I agree with the fact the MPEG-2 is very sharp. It does tend to recreate the source so faithfully you capture all the flaws. But personally, I do not mind video noise as long as it is not excessive. The whole point of high def home theater is to re-crate the movie theater experience, flaws and all.

04-05-2007, 04:37 AM	#12
MrBogey Expert Member Member since:Jan 2007	One of my peeves was when they knocked points off of Casino Royale because the director intentionally threw in distortion into the film. Even though the AVC encoding was true to the directors intent the reviewers still saw it as a flaw.

04-05-2007, 01:24 PM	#13
donricouga Senior Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Atlanta, GA Blu-ray collection:138 Blu-ray reviews: 9 Trading Score:1	I agree. MPEG-2 is quite good. I just watched Volver and it had a high bitrate and look sharp and crisp with vibrant colors

04-05-2007, 01:36 PM	#16
phranctoast Power Member Member since:Aug 2006 Location:Long Island, NY;psn:phranctoast Blu-ray collection:78	Some of the best transfers for blu ray are on mpeg2!

04-05-2007, 01:39 PM	#17
KenThompson Power Member Member since:Sep 2006 Location:B.C. Canada	In the early stages there was alot of people screaming about the quality of the movies and mpeg 2. It was just a lack of bd 50 and the higher bit rates that was to blame. Of course some of the movies could have been cleaned up some but oh how times have changed. Some of our best titles are encoded with that same codec that cause alot of grief in the early goings. Mpeg 2 is alive and well. Will take quality every time. Maybe Warner could learn a thing or two as its had share of trouble on some of its VC1 dics.

04-08-2007, 02:47 PM	#18
Blackraven Expert Member Member since:Jan 2005 Location:Makati, Philippines	Don't forget Tears of the Sun either. Now that WAS a film that proved that even if 25 GB SL disc is only used (combined with bandwith-hungry MPEG2 codec), you still get neat results.

04-08-2007, 03:21 PM	#19
Scorxpion Blu-ray Guru Member since:Dec 2006 Location:Middle East,Lebanon Blu-ray collection:57	Yes i agree with you all ,Just a real example Compare how MPEG2 and VC-1 are real identical for titles done by PARAMOUNT.Yes i like MPEG2 and it really outstand lower compression VC1 done released so far on HD-DVD. My favorites for now is optimizing higher bit rate whatever it is MPEG2 or AVC.I like both of them over VC1 cdec.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals