Boy, you are SO CORRECT nismax, even after I pasted 2 or 3 links for people to better inform themselves! It seems nobody bothers to look at links anymore. I clicked on yours and it holds lots of good information! But, to repeat, yes, the amount of mis-information which has been posted in this thread is absolutely awesome!

Bad as the movie may be, AvP has the right idea in regards to this as far as their catch phrasing goes. Whoever wins....we lose. I won't upgrade until they set a standard and have the prices plummeting on the hardware as well as software, and backwards compatible will have to be included in the deal. People waited for somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 years to switch from videotape to DVD......and they aren't going to be in any hurry to switch again so soon. Pushing a format down the public's throat has never been easy...even breaking a new format in has been difficult here in the states. DAT didn't go over well, and the laserdisc found no more than a core buyers base. LOTS of the stuff I own doesn't need another facelift beacuse it was shot decades ago and looks splendid in present DVD format. Why would I want to switch again? Thats been a big reason that Hi-Def hasn't hit the mainstream as fast as the companies would like. Joe Six Pack can't switch every 3 years. He's paying more for gas/energy, watching his blue collar jobs go to other countries, and wondering how much college tuition will be for his kids in 5 years. Hell, his TV is 10 years old and he thinks DVD looks great on it. Backwards compatibility at and low pricing will be what decides the popularity of blue ray for some time to come.

As I say in every one of these discusssions, the switch to HDDVD from DVD is nothing at all like the switch from VHS to DVD. Like the switch from PSX to PS2, DVD will slowly be "phased out" in favor of the winning HD format. The players will certainly play our existing libraries, and at first most releases will come in STD and HD flavors, slowly giving way to HD only. It will be a slow but sure transition. The big thing is the players will not make our past libraries obsolete. And to those that say the public won't dump one format so easily, I give you: NES, SNES, N64, NGC. GB, GBC, GBA. PSX, PS2. As someone said in the begining, which format the first next-gen console to market chooses has a HUGE head start.

Don't forget though that the consumer of computer games has long been used to technological advances making their present system obselete . The same is emphatically not true of TV and movie audiences , who are sometimes less technically minded and therefore less interested in owning the latest , most advanced equipment . My guess is that this could be a far longer haul than most people involved might wish . And the only possible bright spot would be Sony or Microsoft including High Definition technology in their next gen console . ( who knows if that'll really happen though )

I have a few other things to worry about other than what dvd format may be in vogue 3 years from now.

The clearest comparison I've found so far .

But don't forget, HDDVD does not make current DVD obsolete. The better pic quality will help push the TVs that many already own and WalMart is starting to push hard to J6P.

I just long for the day when J6P has their Widescreen HD TV and then complain about the black bars down the side of all their Foolscreen dvds

The minimum pit length is a lot smaller than DVD. I wonder if Blu-Ray would be more suspectible to scratches and dust.

It may be clear, but it's somewhat misleading. While HD-DVD discs have less raw data capacity than Blu-ray discs (30GB vs. 54GB), they can actually store more HD content, because they support newer, high-efficient video codecs (i.e. WM9, MPEG4). Blu-ray drives will only support MPEG2 - the same codec utilized on current red-laster DVDs. More efficient codecs means less space is required to compress the digital video.

This has nothing to do with picture quality, EXCEPT --- if HD-DVD discs have more available disc capacity, they will be able to store higher bitrate digital video. This could definitely affect picture quality. Also, there would be more space available for other material, like special features, commentaries, etc. Imagine storing all the features on a current 2-disc (or even 3-disc) set on ONE disc -- with a high quality HD transfer.

Another advantage to HD-DVD is that the discs will be cheaper to produce, since it won't require new manufacturing equipment (like Blu-ray). Hopefully this savings would be passed onto the consumer through lower cost HD-DVD discs when the technology debuts.

Personally, I feel the HD-DVD format is the better format. I believe Sony is, once again, trying to strong-arm a new format into the entertainment industry. See previous posts I've made regarding a formal investigation into Sony's role in the DVD Forum -- and how they may have taken steps to purposefully hold up the development of HD-DVD technology (so that they could get the upper hand with Blu-ray).

In the end, though, I would be happy with Blu-ray if it meant avoiding a messy format war. While there are very distinct advantages to HD-DVD, I'd rather not have to buy 2 DVD players to get all the movies I want.

That is a very good, and important point. Current red-laser DVDs can have no more than 480 lines of resolution. HD-DVDs are capable of producing 1,080 lines of resolution. That is more than twice the picture you are seeing now. BUT, keep in mind that film is capable of producing around 5,000 lines of resolution, so there is a LOT of room for improvement in the future.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by vivarey
[B]It may be clear, but it's somewhat misleading. While HD-DVD discs have less raw data capacity than Blu-ray discs (30GB vs. 54GB), they can actually store more HD content, because they support newer, high-efficient video codecs (i.e. WM9, MPEG4). Blu-ray drives will only support MPEG2 - the same codec utilized on current red-laster DVDs. More efficient codecs means less space is required to compress the digital video.[B]

Fact:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...017.06.2004.pdf

"Video Codec Selection for BD-ROM

¢Selection is based on subjective picture quality evaluations with movie industry (Universal, Paramount, Sony Pictures, Disney, Warner, …)Current Status:

¢MPEG-2: already adopted

¢H.264/AVC Main Profile: worse than MPEG-2

¢H.264/AVC FRExt: better than MPEG-2 and is the strong candidate for adoption

¢WMV9: Although Microsoft was invited, they did not participate in the latest test (It is likely that there will be an additional evaluation)"

[B]Another advantage to HD-DVD is that the discs will be cheaper to produce, since it won't require new manufacturing equipment (like Blu-ray). Hopefully this savings would be passed onto the consumer through lower cost HD-DVD discs when the technology debuts.[B]

Fact:
http://freeserve.advfn.com/cmn/news...article=8459774

JVC's Blu-ray disc production method cuts investment costs by 90 pct - report

TOKYO (AFX-ASIA) - Victor Company of Japan (JVC) has developed technology
that enables Blu-ray Discs, one of the next-generation DVD formats, to be
produced at a fraction of the conventional investment costs, the Nihon Keizai
Shimbun reported, without citing sources.
The new technology allows current DVD production equipment to be used almost
as is, thereby reducing the capital investment costs needed to shift to the new
format to about 20 mln yen, or less than 10 pct of the normal costs, the report
said.
JVC's technology is for the creation of master discs, which are used to
produce read-only discs such as movies. A single-layer Blu-ray Disc can store
25GB of data, while a dual-layer disc can record 50GB.
According to the report, production of a Blu-ray master disc until now
required firms to introduce specialized beam devices and vacuum equipment
ranging in cost from just over 200 mln yen to more than 400 mln.
To create the master discs, JVC uses a far-ultraviolet laser, which has an
extremely short wavelength. In addition to low initial costs, Blu-ray master
discs can be produced at similar cost and efficiency as conventional DVD master
discs when Blu-ray discs are eventually mass-produced, the report said

Unfortunately, that won't happen. They will just turn on "stretch mode" and watching all the short fat people will make them feel better about themselves, kind of like people who watch Jerry Springer and say, "my life may be screwed-up, but at least it ain't as bad as dem people on springer!"

Your link references don't really point to anything. Comparing video codecs is a tricky thing, since you have to take things like bitrate and encoding method into account. A lot of the comparisons being done now are by people who are just re-encoding mpeg-2 files (i.e. people ripping DVDs) instead of taking the original source file and encoding to the next-gen codecs from the start. Make no mistakes, both WM9 and MPEG-4 can achieve equal or superior picture quality than MPEG-2 at much lower bitrates. That's the whole purpose of developing newer codecs. Not to step backwards, but to step forwards.

Here is a quote from Videohelp.com:

Of course, this is just one person's account. But, it reflects the sentiments of a lot of people who understand the technology (as opposed to inexperienced movie pirates).

MPEG-2 is extremely inefficient in compressing video, and although it was "good enough" almost 10 years ago when the current DVD format was introduced -- it seems incredibly out of date nowadays. Especially considering how much disc space a high quality HD transfer will take up. According to Hisashi Yamada, the chair of the DVD Forum, "A 29GB Blu-ray Disc can hold around 132 minutes of video, which is not long enough for around 5 percent of movies." Of course, that's not taking into account special features, commentary tracks, or anything else other than the movie itself. A 15GB HD-DVD disc will hold one 180 minutes of high-definition video.

Although it's far too early to make this claim now, I'm betting you won't be able to distinguish codec from codec (picture quality-wise) when the technology is actually released and on the market. Not even on the most expensive of HD monitors. But you WILL be upset when have to switch to DISC 2 of LOTR in the middle of the movie. The fact that Sony decided to use MPEG-2 as their codec of choice is probably related to the fact that they've already released Blu-ray drives in Japan. Essentially, they stuck themselves in a corner, since changing the Blu-ray specs at this point may render the current Blu-ray drives incompatible with future media.

I don't know what "report" you are referring to), but Blu-ray WILL require more up-front production costs than HD-DVD. This is a well-known fact. As cited in this 2004 CES Report, "The HD DVD format, as opposed to the Blu-Ray standard, involves minimal changes to the manufacturing plants that currently produce DVDs."

You do realize that even if there are "minimal" changes to the manufacturing plants, you will be charged a very high price for the HD-DVD. This is the entertainment industry, and while it may be cheap on their end, your end--actually OUR end--is going to pay as much as possible.

Since your 2 links don't lead anywhere for me I have no way of reading the complete article . I'd certainly be interested to , so please repost those links . In the mean time here's another question : Is MPEG-2 set in stone as the only codec BlueRay players will use ? From the snippets you posted it looks as though other possibilities are still being considered . If so that could alter the balance of these two competing systems .

Good question. At this point, MPEG-2 is the only codec it supports. BUT, the Blu-ray Founders have stated that they are currently looking into the H.264/AVC (MPEG-4) codec for inclusion in the Blu-ray specifications. This is a relatively new update, and if it does happen, it will definitely bring these two formats neck-to-neck. The group rejected MPEG-4, WM9, etc last year. though, so the current 1.0 version of the BD-ROM physical specs (just announced) support MPEG-2 only. Here is a reference from the Blu-ray FAQ:

http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/

Well, vivarey has long been a vocal proponant of HD-DVD over Blu-Ray on these forums, so no matter what evidence he's presented with he's unlikely to change his mind.

However, since he contradicts himself several times throughout his postings, I just want to clear things up.

The difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 is a difference in the amount of compression used. The only way that MPEG4 can be smaller in file size than MPEG2 is because it's more highly compressed.

So it's like the difference between a CD and MP3 - sure, the mpeg4 looks *almost* as good and it's *hard* to tell the difference, but the quality *is* less than current mpeg2 encodings (although I forsee a time in the future where this is not the case) and even if you have to zoom to 4x to notice it, the reduction of quality is still there.

WMV is even worse, since its compression is *lossy* and noticeable even to the naked eye. Sure, it looks VERY GOOD, but just not AS good as high-bitrate MPEG2.

However, since at the moment there exists neither HD-DVD nor Blu-Ray hardware, it's a little early to judge the image quality of either format. Either codec can be used to make a really great or really crappy looking image. In the end, it's the telecine process and attention to transfer detail that will make the most difference.

A crappy transfer will still look crappy in HD. In fact, the higher resolution may make the flaws in the transfer even MORE apparent.

And Blu-Ray will likely support MPEG4 as well as MPEG2, and is in talks now with Microsoft to also license WMV.

So once the codec wars are no longer an issue, HD-DVD will be left with ZERO advantages over Blu-Ray. The BRD is higher capacity, has backing from more studios, and will be included in PCs as a writeable data format as well as will almost certainly be incorporated into the next generation of Sony's Playstation, which will put millions of Blu-Ray consoles into homes.

Whether or not Sony continues to be a part of the DVD Forum is immaterial. It would be better for the buying public if there were no format war.

Oh, and Blu-Ray.com is not affiliated in any way with the Blu-Ray Group, so citing it as an official source for Blu-Ray info is specious.

Yes, jough, I do support HD-DVD. The news about future Blu-ray specs possibly including MPEG-4 compression is surprising. If that does turn out to be true, some of what I've stated here will be false. As of right now, though, nothing is set in stone. Keep in mind that HD-DVD is slated to come out several months before Blu-ray, but this may not give them any advantage other than giving us the chance to evaluate this technology in-person.

From what I've read (and correct me if I'm wrong), Blu-ray has the backing of ONE and only ONE distributor so far... Columbia Tristar, which surprisingly, is owned by Sony. Yes, the PS3 will have Blu-ray support. But, the rumor is that the next XBOX will support HD-DVD. Some industry insiders are predicting that the "XBOX2" will come out up to a full year before the PS3. This would put a lot of HD-DVD players in homes much, much earlier than Blu-ray players. Not to mention, a lot of insiders are predicting the XBOX2 will dominate the next-gen console wars.

I don't know what it is about the new, high-effecient codecs that you dislike so much. They can achieve equal to better picture quality than MPEG-2 at lower bitrates than MPEG-2. Compression is becoming an art, and these codecs can do wonders at low bitrates. If you go so far as to cancel out that factor and compare the digital video at equal bitrates, the MPEG-4/WM9 will look better, especially if you choose a modest bitrate. Do you really think Blu-ray would be frantically trying to include these codecs in their format if they were so inferior? Perhaps they realized that they made a mistake with the original design of their format, and that they should have worked WITH the DVD Forum in the creation of the HD-DVD instead of independently of them. Had Blu-ray included these codecs from the start, they may have won the DVD Forum's approval in the beginning. If there is a format war, it will be because Sony and the rest of the Blu-ray group wanted to control the future of the market without having the best interests of the industry in mind.

Why you are so quick to dismiss a group like the DVD Forum. The whole purpose of a group like that is to prevent something like a format war. It's meant to bring the industry leaders together and, in a fair and honest way, determine the best course of action for the industry. Sony, clearly, had their own plans.

One last point- and I will concede this- if Blu-ray did decide to include high-efficiency codec support, they would have the better format (because of the disc capacity factor). But, it would come out nearly a year later than HD-DVD, and it will cost the studios more money up front (to upgrade their manufacturing equipment/process).

It will come down to studio support, and how quickly the public embraces this technology. If I were a member of the DVD Forum, I would be planning a massive PR campaign right about now.

The DVD Forum wanted to determine the best course of the industry so much, they changed their voting rules to come to an HD-DVD standard... If a company abstained from voting, or was not present,, essentially their vote became a "yes" vote.

fitprod

Those statements are outright false in more ways than one. Easy one first:

1) You state that WMV (actually VC9 - video codec 9 from Microsoft, WMV is way more than just VC9, but VC9 is the only piece that the HD-DVD forum adopted) is lossy and thus imply that MPEG2 is not lossy. All algorithrms under discussion, including MPEG2 are lossy. No IFs, ANDs or BUTs about it. Such a fundamental misunderstanding of the details should be more than enough to disqualify your other comments as anything even approaching authoritative.

2) All other things being equal, a good MPEG2 encoding can not compare to a good VC9 or MPEG4 encoding at the same bitrate. Your reasoning that MPEG4 yields worse image quality because it is more efficient is 180 degrees out of sync with reality. Don't confuse efficiency with ineffectiveness. Here are two comparisons that are accurate analogies:

Analogy A) For car people (or light-freaks) - old-tech halogen headlights typically draw 55 watts and produce 1000-1500 lumens. Modern-tech high-intensity-discharge (HID) headlights typically draw only 35 watts yet produce 2000-3000 lumens. Less energy in, yet more light out because the new technology is more efficient. In this comparison, MPEG2:halogens and VC9/MPEG4:HIDs.

Analogy B) For computer music people, the proper analogy is not CDs to MP3s but rather MP3 to a new generation codec like AAC or Ogg Vorbis or even MP3Pro. Baring pathalogical cases (which can work both for and against a codec) all of the new formats are able to reproduce the same audio quality with less bits. Not because they "throw out more data" but because they are more efficient at reconstructing the original sounds that humans hear.

How do I know this? A couple of ways - hang out on avsforum.com and doom9.org for some indepth disucssion of implementation details for the codecs involved - doom9 in particular is host to discussions by some of the implementers of these and other cutting-edge codecs. Second, do some encoding yourself - VC9 and a bunch of MPEG2 and MPEG4 encoders are available for free, in particular XViD is probably the highest quality MPEG4 encoder available and not only is it free it is also Free as in open-source. You can take a raw video capture of an off-the-air program and compress it with all the codecs and compare your results, at the same bitrates, MPEG4 and VC9 walk all over MPEG2.

First of all, I NEVER said that MPEG2 was not lossy. But it is *less* lossy than MPEG4 and WMV at the same bitrate.

Ultimately you would like to just store every bit without any loss or compression - just a piece of data for every pixel - but that's not very efficient, and it eats up precious disc space which is still primative even at 50Gb, which isn't very much for an HD signal.

So you have to decide just how lossy you are willing to let your signal be before it starts to look bad. MPEG2 decoders are in their nth generation and most studio transfers, even to standard-def DVD, look terrific.

Yes, MPEG4 is slightly more efficient than MPEG2, but at the same bitrate the size of the file is only ever so slightly less than that of MPEG2 - so many bits per second = so many bits per second.

5kbps in any format will be a certain file size.

It's just that MPEG4 tends to look about as good as MPEG2 at lower bitrates. So you get smaller files that look *almost* as good at a lower bitrate. Sometimes you can't tell the difference, other than the inherent differences in minor artifacting.

VC9 has yet to offer a demo that looks as good as an HDTV broadcast. Even their demo files show compression artifacts and moire effects. It seems to be not quite ready for prime-time. But it's first generation. Maybe it'll improve, or look better when a hardware decoder is available. But for now, even a VERY high-end PC used for demoing the Microsoft codec is quite lacklustre, and while it will be included in the HD-DVD spec as a possible codec, it remains to be seen whether any studios will actually *use* it.

Again, straw man, I NEVER said that MPEG4 yields worse image quality due to its efficiency. Where do you get this stuff? I said that throwing away bits to get file size down isn't the answer to a better image, and that to get EQUAL image quality to a good high-def MPEG2 encoded image the MPEG4 file size would only be ever so slightly smaller, but require more hardware power to encode/decode. Is it worth the overhead? Not at this time. But again, I'm sure MPEG4 encoders will improve too.

Remember, HD-DVD will use MPEG2 as well. It'll be up to the software authors to decide on which codec they want to use. Since many companies have already invested millions into MPEG2 encoders, guess which codec will be most prevalent?

XViD is a hack of MPEG4 - it's not exactly free. It does look great, though.

I *have* taken off-the-air HD programming and encoded it with MPEG2, 4, and WMV9 (that's what MS is branding VC9 as) and the newer codecs really don't "walk all over" MPEG2. But at the same bitrate the only way to tel the difference between the MPEG2 and MPEG4 stream was to blow it up about 8x, in which case the MPEG4 showed some major artifacting. However, the file size was 20% smaller.

It'll be interesting to see what format becomes most prevalent.

5kbps in any format will be a certain file size.

Yes, that is correct.

But at the same bitrate the only way to tel the difference between the MPEG2 and MPEG4 stream was to blow it up about 8x, in which case the MPEG4 showed some major artifacting. However, the file size was 20% smaller.

You keep using that word bitrate, I do not think it means, what you think it means. Apparently, even you do not think it means, what you think it means.

Bitrate is bits per unit of time, same bitrate for same amount of time equals same filesize, not 20% smaller filesize, not 5% smaller filesize, not even 0.00001% smaller filesize, the SAME filesize, exactly the same filesize. You sure seemed to understand that at the begining of your post, but I dunno what happened as you kept writing.

Just about everything else you wrote is just as messed up as your math, about half of it because of your lack of math ability, particularly an understanding of transitive qualities. Maybe you just really don't understand the terms you are using, I dunno.

I have one very basic statement that sums up the way this stuff works -- MPEG4 and VC9 have a higher information density per bit than MPEG2 does. So, it is generally the case that LESS bits can still equal MORE information. Just like less watts into a HID headlight equals MORE illumination than more watts into a halogen headlight.

PS, your statement about XViD is so far off the mark. Not a hack, and totally Free with a big-freaking-F Free.

Okay, I see the problem now. You don't understand how binary data works. I think you completely misunderstood what I wrote above, but I didn't explain it in enough detail for someone who didn't already understand data compression to get my point. Mea culpa.

A "bit" is the smallest unit of data - in binary it is either a 0 or a 1, no matter what codec you're using. So no bit can contain more or less information than any other bit. It doesn't matter if it's MPEG2, MPEG4, WMV9, etc. A bit is either one or zero, period.

You seem to be confusing a decompressed bitrate, i.e. the amount of bits per unit of time, as being somehow equivalent to file size no matter what sort of compression is used. This is simply not the case, and there's no use arguing about something that is easy to prove.

Take a 100kb text file and compress it using WinZip or StuffIt, etc. The resulting zipped file will be smaller in file size (so more data will fit on a disc) but when uncompessed will result in a file identical to the original. No data loss. It is *lossless* compression.

Now, text files are no easier to compress than movies are - it's just that there's a lot more data for a DVD movie file and it tends to not compress to the point where it would be useful to put on a disc with limited capacity.

So clever codec programmers devised ways to compress AV files in such a way that they could make the file size small enough to fit on a small shiny disc.

There's nothing magical about a DVD - it's just a format for storing data. Simplistically, a codec is used to turn digital data into a more highly compressed sequence of bits (remember, those 1s and 0s) that a hardware or software decoder can interpret and re-assemble back into a logical sequence of images and sound.

Some of those codecs are more efficient than others, and compress their data more thoroughly, resulting in at least similar image/audio quality at smaller file sizes.

You can see this very evidently on your own computer without having to do much work - just take a photograph from any web site, open it in your favourite JPEG photo editor, and re-save the image as a more highly compressed version (sometimes there will be a "quality" slider) - then compare the image quality and file size of each file. Same photo - but one uses MORE data to display the image and it looks sharper and is more detailed - the other shows the same photo but with LESS data so the photo won't look as good. Once you throw away data you can never get it back, although some good programs will be able to interpolate a little bit, i.e. try to figure out what is missing and add it back in.

You can also save the photo using another codec, like BMP or GIF, and you'll notice that the file size is even LARGER than the original because they use either no or less compression to store the same image.

It's free, but so is a stolen car.

XviD is a hack of the OpenDivX project, which was itself a reverse engineering of DivX, which was a hack of another MPEG4 codec. You can read more about it on the official XviD site, XVID.org.

No, as I have suspected all along you do not understand how binary data works. Your explanation is demonstrably false as I will now demonstrate:

You have 100 bits. They are all set to zero. The INFORMATION CONTENT in those bits can be just as completely represented with just 8 bits. The first seven bits define a run-length, since 2^7 bits can represent integer values form 0 to 127 they are able to represent a run length of 0 to 127 more bits. So, set the first 7 bits to represent the integer 100, then set bit 8 to zero to indicate that those 100 bits are all set to zero.

Thus, the original 100-bit representation only contains 0.08 as much information per bit as the 8-bit representation. Furthermore, even the 8-bit representation is not 100% efficient storage of the original information. There is some slack in there on the order of (127 - 100) / (2^8) = 0.105 bits.

So when you said, "no bit can contain more or less information than any other bit," you were simply wrong.

Do you know anything about information theory? How about a man named Shannon? Based on all your nonsense explanations, I don't think so.

I will say it again -- MPEG4 and VC9 are able to store more information per bit than MPEG2. In fact, when you claim that MPEG4 and VC9 are more lossy than MPEG2 you are in fact, pointed 180 degrees from the truth.

Again with demonstrably false statements. How about you take a little bit of your own advice and go read more about it at the xvid website? Here, let me make it easy for you with this link: http://www.xvid.org/modules.php?op=m...ic&t=1085#4984

In fact, I'm just going to put my money where my mouth is and prove you wrong right here, no link following required:
So, lets keep score:
1) XviD is a hack of the OpenDivX project
- false xvid is completely new source code
2) [OpenDivX] was a reverse engineering of DivX
- false, OpenDivX was derived from a published MPEG4 reference implementatation
3) [DivX] was a hack of another MPEG4 codec
- false, it was a hack of one of Microsoft's non-MPEG4 codecs
4) XViD is a hack of MPEG4 - it's not exactly free.
- false, the GNU Public License aka GPL is so freaking Free that it has microsoft scared witless, it's both free as in no money required and Free as in Libre aka take it, and reuse it however you want to, freedom-of-speech-free.

The truth, as I said originally, is that XviD is a top-notch, if not THE highest quality MPEG4 standard encoder available in any form today, Free or proprietary.

So far, all your points have been so far off base that I don't think anyone with an iota of critical thinking can take what you say on this topic seriously. You don't understand information theory, you don't understand perceptual encoding, you have only the vaguest notion of the history of the technology, you are terribly sloppy with your terminology. And, when given plenty of opportunity to double-check what you think are facts, you don't even bother, blithely continuing onward to the point of even libeling some of the best and brightest people working in the field of discussion.

The obvious truth is that for all other things being equal, VC9 and MPEG4 are able to produce better quality video reproduction with less bits of storage than MPEG2 can.

This isn't some abstract theoretical statement, it is proven every single day by hundreds of people capturing and compressing tv shows, re-encoding DVDs, and even streaming live video on the internet. They all see the significant improvement in image quality that they get with MPEG4, and at the same time they also see significant reductions in their bandwidth and storage requirements.

Edit: "re-encoding DVDs" refers to SVCD (MPEG2) vs MPEG4 on a CD -- please don't assume that I am saying that one can get better video quality than the source material just by changing codecs because I'm not.