DVD Talk Forum - Consumer Reports Gets It Right

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)

- HD Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk-55/)

- - Consumer Reports Gets It Right - Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are Equal (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/517955-consumer-reports-gets-right-blu-ray-hd-dvd-equal.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVD Polizei

MPEG-2 would be inferior if you compared the same capacities. In other words, give MPEG-2 more space, and it should look just as good. But you need a lot more space for it. So, space-for-space, VC-1 wins, but MPEG-2 just needs more space to equal VC-1 quality.

I agree with this assessment.

It would certainly explain why Fox's Kingdom Of Heaven DC Blu-Ray was near bare-bones. With a film running time over 3 hours, I'm sure they needed almost every byte to make it look as good as it does.

Personally I think Fox missed their opportunity to make it a 2 disc set, but it was one of their early releases, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

i'm not sure about the encoding tools used in vc-1, and whether certain settings are mandatory, but there seems to be a degree of "smoothing out" which occurs with fine detail with this codec. presumably this is a crucial part of the algorythm's ability to compress data down into such small packets, however it does not reproduce the source material as accurately as a larger mpeg-2 encode at the same resolution. perhaps at higher bit-rates this tool can be switched off and details will again achieve their natural appearance. whether avc uses a similar method of "smoothing" im not sure.

Quote:

This seems to be a common misconception of VC-1. Due to smaller block size and the way the loop filter is implemented, VC-1 is actually better at preserving fine detail (like film grain) than MPEG-2 and AVC. Lower bit rates are achieved through mostly efficency of the codec, but other factors may contribute to low bit rates, such as very "clean" source material or possibly some filtering of the master pre-encoding (at content producer's discretion).

this is not the experience of comparing the vc-1 nd mpeg2 paramount encodes as has been conducted on avs. the detail was smoothed out in the vc-1 caps compared with the mpeg2 versions. i realise amir talked about the ability of the codec to accurately reproduce fine details while simultaneously achieving low bitrates, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating... as to block size avc and vc-1 are identical in this respect so i'm not clear where that would be a difference between the two codecs. a loop filter appears to be optional on avc, though i'm not clear if this is the case with vc-1.

There are too many variables to consider for me to think that'd necessarily be an ideal comparison either. Is it a problem with VC-1 or the way the codec was used for a certain disc or discs? Is the difference noticeable when you're not zooming in 500% on a still image? Is it possible to create a perfect image in either case, but the effort involved could still be unrealistic to expect a compressionist to pull off day in, day out?

There's something potentially flawed with just about any conceivable scenario.

Well, eventually we'll have higher capacity HD media discs which will probably reach 100GB or more in the near future, so we may have a different "level" of VC-1. Right now, according to Microsoft's website, we're between Level 2 and Level 3 of their bitrate encode quality. Level 4 is 135 Mbps, which I would imagine is a hell of a lot of information flowing, leading to an exceptional picture, and more than likely, very much free from compression artifacts.