Shades of Blu - November 2006
10-31-06 | 08:27 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
10-31-06 | 05:57 PM
#2
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Kingston, TN
Still not ready to support BD, but that was a nice summary of whats going on. That firmware upgrade is tempting for the Samsung, but I better get my wife a new laptop first.
10-31-06 | 06:48 PM
#3
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Mastic, NY
Originally Posted by joshd2012
One noticeable visual difference between the codecs, is that MPEG-2 will not conceal grain as well as VC-1. Film purists will argue that grain is an inherent part of film, and if removed or concealed, negatively affect the movie watching experience. Others prefer the clean look of video, which VC-1 has an easier time presenting. AVC aims to provide both solutions, though this stance will improve as the technology matures.
10-31-06 | 08:12 PM
#4
DVD Talk Godfather
Back in the days of DVD, there was only a single choice for video codec – MPEG-2. During the process of creating the Blu-ray specifications, two new video codecs were introduced: Microsoft’s VC-1 and MPEG-4 AVC.
MPEG-2 is an international standard audio/video codec which was developed through the collaboration of over 20 corporations.
MPEG-2 is an international standard audio/video codec which was developed through the collaboration of over 20 corporations.
VC-1 is SMPTE's codec. And as per Microsoft's site, "Formal standardization of VC-1 represents the culmination of years of technical scrutiny by over 75 companies, leading to a codec that is well-documented, extremely stable, easily licensable, and accepted by the industry."
That section in your post should probably be updated.
11-01-06 | 02:10 PM
#6
DVD Talk Legend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows...ew_and_History
"The codecs were originally developed as proprietary codecs for low-bitrate streaming applications. However, in 2003 Microsoft drafted a video codec specification based on its Windows Media Video version 9 codec and submitted it to the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) for standardization. The standard was officially approved in March 2006 as SMPTE 421M [also known as VC-1], thus making the Windows Media Video 9 codec no longer a proprietary technology. Earlier versions of the codec (7 and 8) are still considered proprietary as they fall outside the SMPTE 421M standard."
"The codecs were originally developed as proprietary codecs for low-bitrate streaming applications. However, in 2003 Microsoft drafted a video codec specification based on its Windows Media Video version 9 codec and submitted it to the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) for standardization. The standard was officially approved in March 2006 as SMPTE 421M [also known as VC-1], thus making the Windows Media Video 9 codec no longer a proprietary technology. Earlier versions of the codec (7 and 8) are still considered proprietary as they fall outside the SMPTE 421M standard."
11-01-06 | 04:02 PM
#7
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Mastic, NY
Are you going to ignore the facts about VC-1 vs. MPEG-2? I can understand your factual error, but now that it's been pointed out to you, pushing this information as fact amounts to deliberate misinformation.
11-01-06 | 04:10 PM
#8
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Originally Posted by wewantflair
Are you going to ignore the facts about VC-1 vs. MPEG-2? I can understand your factual error, but now that it's been pointed out to you, pushing this information as fact amounts to deliberate misinformation.
11-01-06 | 04:26 PM
#9
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Mastic, NY
That doesn't actually make it true, you realize. The information is wrong. Many, many posts on AVS have explained why it's wrong. It is my belief at this time that you know it's wrong and continue to propagate it.
11-01-06 | 04:39 PM
#10
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Originally Posted by wewantflair
That doesn't actually make it true, you realize. The information is wrong. Many, many posts on AVS have explained why it's wrong. It is my belief at this time that you know it's wrong and continue to propagate it.
11-01-06 | 06:12 PM
#11
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Mastic, NY
Originally Posted by joshd2012
And by you saying otherwise, that doesn't make it true either. If you want to post some detailed white papers showing your point, go for it. Otherwise, I don't appreciate the accusation.
11-01-06 | 06:30 PM
#12
Member
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOD NOTE: Think it, fine. Don't post it. We all know how much he loves BD and to what length he will go to defend it. Still, please refrain from personal attacks. Most people already take his posts with a grain of salt, so don't take it personally even if he posts things that are false. -namja
Last edited by namja; 11-01-06 at 08:12 PM.
11-01-06 | 09:13 PM
#13
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
My 'Shades of Blu' posts are purely informational. They are not, as some would say, "bait". Chad Varnadore has commented that VC-1 encodes look "processed". Really, I don't care if you agree with me or not, but commenting on something you haven't read, and attacking the messenger shows only your desperation to attack me. While flattering, I don't see how it adds to the conversation.
So if you please, either comment on what I wrote in a constructive manner, or don't say anything at all.
So if you please, either comment on what I wrote in a constructive manner, or don't say anything at all.
11-01-06 | 09:22 PM
#14
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 31,605
Received 2,771 Likes
on
1,841 Posts
From: Greenville, South Cackalack
Originally Posted by joshd2012
Chad Varnadore has commented that VC-1 encodes look "processed". Really, I don't care if you agree with me or not, but commenting on something you haven't read, and attacking the messenger shows only your desperation to attack me.
I'm curious what kind of detailed white papers would say "VC-1 and the not-smoothening-out of film grain".
11-01-06 | 09:28 PM
#15
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
You're presenting one person's opinion -- which doesn't reflect any first-hand experience of your own? -- as fact. You also don't cite the source of this opinion in the article itself.
I'm curious what kind of detailed white papers would say "VC-1 and the not-smoothening-out of film grain".
I'm curious what kind of detailed white papers would say "VC-1 and the not-smoothening-out of film grain".
11-01-06 | 09:30 PM
#16
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 31,605
Received 2,771 Likes
on
1,841 Posts
From: Greenville, South Cackalack
Originally Posted by joshd2012
It reflects my own personal experience
11-02-06 | 06:03 PM
#18
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: A far green country
Originally Posted by Dead
Folks, let's stick to the topic. Anything else is subject to removal.
This is not a thread started by someone posting a link to some other author's article, or to news information regarding hardware or software, or even a technical discussion of either format. Rather, this thread was started by a forum member to promote a "column" that he himself wrote. In a sense, it is nothing more than a "hey everyone, look at me" thread. So, in that sense, joshd is topic of the thread.
Further, if this had been a thread linking an article or column written by a non-forum-member, would it not be appropriate for us to question the credibility of that author, and his motives for posting apparently obvious misinformation? If so, then why should it be any different if the author of the externally-linked column happens to be a forum member?
11-02-06 | 06:11 PM
#19
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Is this misinformation?
You can disagree with me, but unless someone can come up with something better than "you are wrong", I don't see how challenging me, personally, does anything.
Originally Posted by David Vaughn of Home Theater Spot
As for grain, I didn’t see any in the presentation, which is having me thinking that something in the VC-1 encoding process is getting rid of the grain.
11-02-06 | 06:13 PM
#20
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 31,605
Received 2,771 Likes
on
1,841 Posts
From: Greenville, South Cackalack
I clearly see film grain in the overwhelming majority of the 60+ HD DVDs I own, and all but two of the titles I own were encoded using VC-1. Since you don't cite the title in question, I can't respond about that case specifically.
11-02-06 | 06:25 PM
#21
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: A far green country
Originally Posted by joshd2012
Is this misinformation?
Originally Posted by joshd2012
You can disagree with me, but unless someone can come up with something better than "you are wrong", I don't see how challenging me, personally, does anything.
11-02-06 | 06:27 PM
#22
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 31,605
Received 2,771 Likes
on
1,841 Posts
From: Greenville, South Cackalack
Ah. I did a Google search on part of the quote Joshd listed and see it's from a review of Mission: Impossible III.
From Upcoming Discs' review:
From Josh Zyber's review:
From Peter Bracke's review:
They're seeing something grain-ish in there.
High-Def Digest, DVD Town, and DVD Talk both reviewed the Blu-ray and HD DVD versions using the same writers and (with the obvious exception of the player) the same gear, and none of them mentioned much of a difference between them. Josh pointed out a couple of extremely minor concerns but concedes that it could be a factor of the hardware. From the sound of things, if the VC-1 version is concealing film grain, the MPEG-2 version apparently is too.
Since you're quoting someone you respect, I'll do the same:
Robert George on AVS:
From Upcoming Discs' review:
My only complaint was that in some scenes there was a bit of grain, but I believe that this was the directors intention to add grittiness to certain scenes. This being such a minor problem, it doesn’t take away from the video in the slightest.
The movie's style incorporates some deliberate graininess, which looks fine and well-compressed for the most part but in some sequences (most likely those shot on HD video) comes across as video noise with a distinctly un-filmlike texture.
Sure, there are many low-light, rather "hot" sequences with slightly blown-out whites and noticeable film/video "grain," but it replicates the theatrical showing I saw and gives the movie the appropriate slick but gritty texture.
High-Def Digest, DVD Town, and DVD Talk both reviewed the Blu-ray and HD DVD versions using the same writers and (with the obvious exception of the player) the same gear, and none of them mentioned much of a difference between them. Josh pointed out a couple of extremely minor concerns but concedes that it could be a factor of the hardware. From the sound of things, if the VC-1 version is concealing film grain, the MPEG-2 version apparently is too.
Since you're quoting someone you respect, I'll do the same:
Robert George on AVS:
"It seems the VC-1 titles have less film grain, and a cleaner more "HD Video" look to them, which suggest one of the processes of VC-1 which allows it to go to low bit-rates is to remove grain first."
It might seem that way to you, but it does not seem that way to me, and a great many other people that have considerable experience in comparing video presentation across many formats going back to analog days. MPEG-2 does not compress real film grain well. Even a slight amount of over-compression with MPEG-2 will result in visible and distracting artifacting where grain is present that actually makes the grain more noticeable than it should be. It is the MPEG noise one is seeing at that point, not film grain. This is one of the reasons high frequency filtering is so often used in DVD mastering, and Sony is one of the worst for filtering so heavily as to reduce some of the real detail that DVD could be reproducing.
I have found the exact opposite to be true of VC-1 encodes. Film grain actually looks like film grain far more than any other video tranfer/mastering process that I have seen. A good film transfer encoded with VC-1 look more like what I see in a commercial cinema than anything else I have seen before. I'm not saying VC-1 is perfect, mind you. Just better than the competition.
And BTW, Don Eklund is a corporate hack with zero credibility.
It might seem that way to you, but it does not seem that way to me, and a great many other people that have considerable experience in comparing video presentation across many formats going back to analog days. MPEG-2 does not compress real film grain well. Even a slight amount of over-compression with MPEG-2 will result in visible and distracting artifacting where grain is present that actually makes the grain more noticeable than it should be. It is the MPEG noise one is seeing at that point, not film grain. This is one of the reasons high frequency filtering is so often used in DVD mastering, and Sony is one of the worst for filtering so heavily as to reduce some of the real detail that DVD could be reproducing.
I have found the exact opposite to be true of VC-1 encodes. Film grain actually looks like film grain far more than any other video tranfer/mastering process that I have seen. A good film transfer encoded with VC-1 look more like what I see in a commercial cinema than anything else I have seen before. I'm not saying VC-1 is perfect, mind you. Just better than the competition.
And BTW, Don Eklund is a corporate hack with zero credibility.
11-02-06 | 06:52 PM
#24
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Originally Posted by Adam Tyner
What AVS link have you provided? The only link you've posted anywhere in this thread is to your article, and there's not an AVS link in there either.
11-02-06 | 07:01 PM
#25
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 31,605
Received 2,771 Likes
on
1,841 Posts
From: Greenville, South Cackalack
Originally Posted by joshd2012
The AVS link you provided. :P
Skimming through Isaac's posts on AVS, I don't get the impression that he owns a player, so I'm not sure how much time he's spent in front of these players or if the set he's watching is configured properly. A couple months earlier, he posted:
The PQ of the MPEG2 Warners BDs seems to be almost identical to their VC-1 HD DVDs, and with very similar file sizes. Frankly I think much of this MPEG2/VC-1 debate is a load of clap-trap. Let's see what Paramount come up with for the Mission Impossible films, if they do in fact use MPEG2 for their BD versions. And I'm still hoping one of the fellas with a BD capable PC will buy/rent one of the Warner flicks and cap it for the forum, the way they capped earlier Sony releases.