I don't understand why you think that this is a non-issue. The MPEG-2 encodes consume more space and bandwidth than the VC-1 encodes do. I haven't heard anyone but Sony say that MPEG-2 provides better PQ than VC-1. I think the space savings is very valuable no matter what size disc you use.

According to Microsoft, VC-1 is 2-3 times more efficient in terms of disc space.

In the specific case of MI:3, we know that the average bitrate on the MPEG-2 version is about 4 Mbps higher than the peak bitrate on the VC-1 version. MPEG-2 is a significant resource hog just in order to break even on PQ!

I'm not really interested in arguing the exact numbers, but there is a reason that studios chose VC-1 over other codecs like MPEG-2 and AVC.

From what I've read Amir said that studios evaluated these codecs head to head with their own material (not a canned one put on by Microsoft) and concluded that VC-1 was superior to MPEG-2 and AVC.

Even Sony is rumored to be looking into using VC-1.

What's wrong with Blu-ray using VC-1? I guess it must seem threatening because if studios switch to VC-1 for both platforms we're more likely to get the same titles released on both formats. At least we'd be a step closer.

Yea, really. I just spent $150 yesterday on HD DVDs.

No reason to upgrade for me.

Exactly....until Sony provides a better MPEG2 quality disc than VC-1, no one can say that MPEG2 is better.

Right now, equal picture quality between the two is a negative for MPEG2. UNLESS, the size/br is the same (which im almost positive it isnt).

Sony is able to provide MPEG-2 releases with PCM audio that deliver reference quality PQ and AQ on a BD-25 (Tears of the Sun). Its a non-issue.

That is yet to be seen. As I pointed out in the AVS Insider's Thread, Paramount titles are running low 20's ABR, which means that VC-1 would have to get down between 7 and 8 ABR to be 3 times more efficient - which currently it can't. And even the Training Day release was smaller using MPEG-2 than VC-1 by a few GBs (and yes, I know Training Day using TrueHD, but not half the disc size worth).

And we will have to see if that is true. They used a BD-25, so that means that they had about 20GB of space to work with (leaving room for audio and subtitles).

20 GB x 1024 = 20480 MB x 8 = 163,840 Mb
126 min x 60 = 7560s
163840/7560 = 21.67 Mbps AVBR MPEG-2

Are you telling me that MI:3 peaked at ~17Mbps when all other titles (including BB) peak in the 20's? I think I need some real numbers.

There is nothing wrong with VC-1. There is also nothing wrong with MPEG-2 or AVC. To think one is superior to the other in terms of PQ is a fallacy. Yes, VC-1 compresses better, but to what degree is yet to be seen in full. For the titles we know that are out there to compare, the difference is as great as people think.

Expanded, sure. But there aren't $900 worth of discs total that I'm even interested in. At the moment, there are only 7 discs that I'm interested in until the end of the year. I guess I just don't think that's a big deal.

Because Sony holds a stake in MPEG2, does it not?

Not really. They had to drop some of the extras from the Blu-rry version of Tears of the Sun, so sticking MPEG-2 video and PCM audio on a 25 GB disc is still a problem.

MPEG2 in and of itself isn't a problem, even on a BD25. Both Warner and Paramount have put out some very nice discs using MPEG2. The problem is when you pair MPEG2 with PCM audio and cram them both on a BD25, there just isn't enough room to breathe. Something's got to give, and on most discs that's been picture quality, extras, or both.

I haven't seen Tears of the Sun, but for all the fawning praise on AVS I've seen mixed reactions to it as well, such as John's review on this site. Also, that disc has clearly been stripped of the extras found on the DVD edition, which is enough tacit admission that Sony knew they had space issues.

That's why MPEG2 is such an issue. Either Sony needs to drop the PCM audio, ramp up BD50 production to the point where it's the default standard for all upcoming Blu-rays, or explore more efficient compression codecs.

First off, who cares about extras? PQ and AQ are ranked way above extras. And didn't they have to drop some extras from the Superman HD DVD? What happened there?

And for those who just gotta have extras - why not in HD? Use a BD50 and get it all. MPEG-2 HD features and extras with PCM.

Extras have been important since Criterion introduced them on laserdisc. Being a fan of a film means wanting to know more about it and its production. Glad you were able to find a single disc out of all the HD DVD releases that is missing something. The fact is we are getting it all with HD DVD. Sorry, but Blu-ray is very late to the party. Glad they have BD50 working, but we already have discs like Batman that show we can have great PQ, SQ and extras on a single HD-DVD. Blu-ray has no advantage. So enjoy your format that is final as good as HD DVD has been since day one.

Blu-ray has lost every single advantage it was supposed to have over HD DVD except for exclusives. It had better hold tight to that advantage so at least most of us will support both in the future.

I'm really happy with the A1. A little quicker load times is not going to sway me at all. I agree with some of the others that I would much rather invest my money right now in discs and save hardware upgrades for as long as possible.

Ranked by whom? I think you'll find the overwhelming majority of consumers would rather have very good audio and a healthy assortment of extras vs. great audio and no extras.

It makes me wonder if all the BD supporters who so vehemently defend BD for having little to no extras would feel that way if they actually GOT them from the beginning.

But I do think we've gotten off track here a bit.

Many, many people.

Dear lord, Josh, we've danced this dance so many times. People care about extras. YOU may not care about extras, but people do. HD DVD offers it, BD has had a history of stripping them. This is a problem for BD. As for Superman, I'm mad as hell it's missing features. I may not buy it. It's unacceptable on either side.

If BD is having a problem getting a full length feature on BD 25 in MPEG-2 with PCM, why do you think they could get a full length feature in MPEG-2, PLUS extras that could in fact be longer than the movie itself with in MPEG-2 with PCM? No matter which way you cut it, you're looking at two discs. So where's the BD advantage?

And why are you such a proponent of MPEG-2 anyway? It's less efficient, period. Why do you want to create a more expensive hardware solution to a problem that has a currently existing software solution? Can the space hogs. We can get equal or better PQ with less space and equal audio with less space. To argue that it's better to waste space needlessly makes no sense.

And some extras aren't available in HD, to be honest. I'd rather get those Superman documentaries from the 70's/80's with all that rare footage than something brand-spanking new.

I also recently asked about extras and although all have been MPEG2 before, they won't always be in the future. They may take those masters and encode them in VC1 which will mean even LESS space is being used. To be honest, I could care less about watching extras in HD. As long as the movie is on there in HD with great quality, that's all I care about as far as HD is concerned.

Also, extras are mentioned as a key characteristic of Blu-ray on blu-raydisc.com here (under capacity).

I like to have the extras so I'm not losing anything from me SD versions.

HD DVD fan at AVS:
PQ and AQ: 263
Extras: 6

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=728833

PQ and AQ way more important than extras. Just read the posts.

That's a technical board. Some people there spend more money on HT equipment than I make in a year. If you polled people, asking which they would prefer: a format with great PQ/AQ, and extras, or a format with the same PQ/AQ but without extras, how many of them would opt for the second? Also, the poll on AVS supposed that extras simply being present degrade the PQ/AQ, which we know they don't. It's really only an issue for BD, because HD DVD so far has been able to port the extras.

I promise you that neither format will be able to survive for long without prominent and abundant extras.

Yes, I'd expect that a forum with "Audio" and "Video" in its acronymal name would lean more towards audio and video. There's probably a DVDExtrasForum.com out there somewhere that'd have contradictory results.

Pointing to a poll about "Video + Audio > Extras" isn't what I was arguing anyway. I'd put money on the fact that most people buying HD formats are most interested in video quality (read the posts!), and after that:

Of course, I think a format should excel on all accounts, but in the minds of most, I believe most people would rather have a very good DD+ track (and these tracks have been very well-received) and a slew of extras than PCM audio with few or no extras. An extras-loaded HD DVD like Constantine (with IME, TrueHD, and an ungodly number of other bells and whistles) certainly indicates that it's possible to have both.

For what it's worth, from Kris Deering re: Miami Vice:

The guy who came to fix my TV said that he sees more HDMI/DVI connection problems than virtually anything else, and the way 'they' [the industry] is running things is sad, that they need to get together and decide on a technical standard. He said Sony [I think] won't even guarantee their HDMI devices will work with any other device--unless it's a Sony. If it's not, and it doesn't, you're SOL.

From what I know of the A2, it's not a quantum leap over the A1.

Something about that seems fishy to me.

Yup. PQ is probably waaaay above everything else. Sad but true. The majority of HDTVs are currently used without an audio system (TV speakers only).

True. EVEN IF they had audio systems to go along with their HDTVs, most people probably can't distinguish between DD+ and PCM anyway.

This is an old debate, but I totally agree. Most people can't tell the difference when it comes to sound. AQ is going to be the lowest on the list of priorities for most people.

I'm sticking with my A1 until I can get a decent (future) HD-DVD player for under $300. I will be picking up the 360 addon since it will really only be $170 since I intended on buying King Kong anyway.