Blu-ray & H.264?

[tanzilhabib]

I haven't heard anything about blu-ray technology whatever if it will uses H.264 (A.K.A. MPEG 4 Part 10) video codec as standard?

Image if blu-ray uses full HD H.264 over MPEG 2, it would be doubled time!

It would be huge advantages if they uses H.264 over MPEG 2.

Check it out at http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/h264.html for H.264 technology page and http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/h264faq.html for H.264 FAQ

What do you lots reckon?

P.S. Vote for MPEG 4-10, MPEG 2 or other video code...

[Rob]

Which gives the best picture quality?

[tanzilhabib]

Originally Posted by Rob

Which gives the best picture quality?

Apparently it's MPEG 4 - 10 as it can achieved same or better level as MPEG 2 at smaller size of file, compared to MPEG 2.

[phloyd]

I voted for MPEG2 since there is a lot of maturity in it.

When DVD came out, people were very worried about how crappy MPEG2 would be. It turned out that their fears were for the most part unfounded.

So, for a pressed disc I personally don't care at all what the CODEC is - as long as it plays seemlessly with no issues.

For recording my own sources, I have so much MPEG2 that I have no desire to re-compress.

So the real question for me is, which would look better as a real time encode. For a pressed disc space is irrelevant (one movie will fit with either scheme) and for already compressed sources we will not want to compress again - we will want it to play native (note that this could be MPEG4 for Europe!).

If real time encoding of DVI or component input is going to be a reality, I would prefer the one that adds the least artifacts for a real time encode. MPEG2 is more likely to achieve this.

Cheers!
DAve.

[tanzilhabib]

Originally Posted by phloyd

I voted for MPEG2 since there is a lot of maturity in it.

When DVD came out, people were very worried about how crappy MPEG2 would be. It turned out that their fears were for the most part unfounded.

So, for a pressed disc I personally don't care at all what the CODEC is - as long as it plays seemlessly with no issues.

For recording my own sources, I have so much MPEG2 that I have no desire to re-compress.

So the real question for me is, which would look better as a real time encode. For a pressed disc space is irrelevant (one movie will fit with either scheme) and for already compressed sources we will not want to compress again - we will want it to play native (note that this could be MPEG4 for Europe!).

If real time encoding of DVI or component input is going to be a reality, I would prefer the one that adds the least artifacts for a real time encode. MPEG2 is more likely to achieve this.

Cheers!
DAve.

If you read H.264 FAQ where it says how does H.264 compare with MPEG 2. The answer is "HD MPEG-2 content at 1920x1080 traditionally runs at 12-20 Mbps, while H.264 can deliver 1920x1080 content at 7-8 Mbps at the same or better quality. H.264 provides DVD quality at about half the data rate of MPEG-2. Because of this efficiency, H.264, an ISO standard, stands to be the likely successor to MPEG-2 in the professional media industry."

MPEG 4 10 has lots of advantages over MPEG 2.

For example, you can download H.264 in half time than MPEG 2 at same resolution, which it is a save time.

[phloyd]

Perhaps you should read my post.

I don't doubt that MPEG4 has advantages over MPEG2.

However low cost high quality real time encoding is not one of them.

I don't care if it is more compressed - I want the best quality.

They can use MPEG4, WMV, MPEG2 or anything they want on the prerecorded discs since they can do the encoding offline and ensure that quality is high. In the end you will buy a disc - the size of the data on the disc is not relevant since you are buying... a disc!

I think MPEG4 will come into its own for Sat broadcast. However I think that it will take some time before the codecs will be of suitable quality to challenge MPEG2 at a reasonable cost.

And I only hope for the sake of Sat customers that the high end boxes perform well from the start.

Cheers!
DAve.

[Gorkab]

Originally Posted by phloyd

Perhaps you should read my post.

I don't doubt that MPEG4 has advantages over MPEG2.

However low cost high quality real time encoding is not one of them.

I don't care if it is more compressed - I want the best quality.

They can use MPEG4, WMV, MPEG2 or anything they want on the prerecorded discs since they can do the encoding offline and ensure that quality is high. In the end you will buy a disc - the size of the data on the disc is not relevant since you are buying... a disc!

I think MPEG4 will come into its own for Sat broadcast. However I think that it will take some time before the codecs will be of suitable quality to challenge MPEG2 at a reasonable cost.

And I only hope for the sake of Sat customers that the high end boxes perform well from the start.

Cheers!
DAve.

Why use a codec that has been passed away with all instead of using a codec that offers a very better quality ? That's simply stupid ! I don't want to buy a disc with the same quality but for an other resolution ! I don't have any HDTV but my computer screen can do the 2048x1836 one, so if the new format take an older codec for the same quality at better resolution, that's odd and also stupid...