Thread: The curse of HD-DVD still haunting BD

Well, I got a new HD Pioneer plasma a couple months ago, so I am rewatching BDs, and now it is easy to tell the Warner BDs are clearly inferior.

My Panasonic Plasma, being a few years old (2004) just did not have the processing capability of a Pioneer Kuro. I now see all sorts of things that I did not see before.

My eyes were really opened watching High School Musical 2. It has a bit rate varying from 30-40 Mbit/sec AVC encoded (most the time around 33). Then I watched a Warner disc and it was VC-1 10-19mbit/sec (average around 12). Wow what a difference. So, I started to go through more, the high bit rate AVC discs really show a lot more detail. Michael Bay's comments seem more accurate now.

If BD really wants to blow away downloads all the discs need to be high bit rate AVC (perhaps VC-1 but the MS VC-1 guys kept claiming more bits would not help VC-1). Quite frankly upconverted DVDs are close in quality to the VC-1 low bit rate recordings.

BD is now cursed with a bunch of titles from WB that are low bit rate compromises to support both formats. I doubt that WB will remaster released titles. I hope that the delay in Transformers is Michael Bay insisting that it be reencoded in high bit rate AVC.

Isn't Transformers a Paramount dreamworks movie. I thought Transformers was one of the better HD DVD tranfers including winning best audio award of the year. But overall I agree that since its disk based BD has an advantage of being able to offer more bits.

Originally Posted by mike123abc

Well, I got a new HD Pioneer plasma a couple months ago, so I am rewatching BDs, and now it is easy to tell the Warner BDs are clearly inferior.

My Panasonic Plasma, being a few years old (2004) just did not have the processing capability of a Pioneer Kuro. I now see all sorts of things that I did not see before.

And I watch on a calibrated FPTV, 106" diagonal at ~1.25 screen widths.

My eyes were really opened watching High School Musical 2. It has a bit rate varying from 30-40 Mbit/sec AVC encoded (most the time around 33). Then I watched a Warner disc and it was VC-1 10-19mbit/sec (average around 12). Wow what a difference. So, I started to go through more, the high bit rate AVC discs really show a lot more detail. Michael Bay's comments seem more accurate now.

You can't compare two different films and have a valid comparison. The only valid comparison is the same content with two encodings. Otherwise, it's too many variables.

Based on what I've seen this (HSM2) was either Video cam or very heavily processed 35mm which is a completely different look from lightly processed film.

If BD really wants to blow away downloads all the discs need to be high bit rate AVC (perhaps VC-1 but the MS VC-1 guys kept claiming more bits would not help VC-1). Quite frankly upconverted DVDs are close in quality to the VC-1 low bit rate recordings.

Some very bright video people are (or were) working on the VC-1 encoder. I don't think there's anything inherently better or worse between either encoder. I think there are some encodes that are better than others.

You reach a point with a codec where more bits don't help the encoding; regardless of the encoder. This is determined as much by the content as it is by the encoder.

BD is now cursed with a bunch of titles from WB that are low bit rate compromises to support both formats. I doubt that WB will remaster released titles. I hope that the delay in Transformers is Michael Bay insisting that it be reencoded in high bit rate AVC.

Given how good Transformers looks at present, and given that you've offered an uncompelling argument I don't see that as the reason. BD Authoring is significantly more complex and BD Live (aka Profile 2.0) isn't here yet with the exception of HTPCs and the PS3. You don't suppose they're delaying to equalize the experiences on the two discs do you?

Originally Posted by nonrev

Isn't Transformers a Paramount dreamworks movie. I thought Transformers was one of the better HD DVD tranfers including winning best audio award of the year. But overall I agree that since its disk based BD has an advantage of being able to offer more bits.

In theory yes, in practice the answer is "it depends".

Using up bits because they're available doesn't necessarily equate to a better picture. It can but it isn't a given.

Originally Posted by John Kotches

Some very bright video people are (or were) working on the VC-1 encoder. I don't think there's anything inherently better or worse between either encoder. I think there are some encodes that are better than others.

You reach a point with a codec where more bits don't help the encoding; regardless of the encoder. This is determined as much by the content as it is by the encoder.

These very bright people were also working for Microsoft which of course was pushing HD-DVD. I think the VC-1 encoder is an excellent encoder. But, I do not expect those at Microsoft to admit that using AVC with more bits produces a better picture. I do think that at a similar low bit rate (12-18 mbits/sec) VC-1 and AVC are hard to tell apart. VC-1 may very well have not benefited from a higher bit rate.

Originally Posted by John Kotches

You can't compare two different films and have a valid comparison. The only valid comparison is the same content with two encodings. Otherwise, it's too many variables.

Based on what I've seen this (HSM2) was either Video cam or very heavily processed 35mm which is a completely different look from lightly processed film.

HSM2 was a poor choice for an example. It just had some very complex scenes like the end scene where you have 50+ people dancing around a pool and waterfall. Water tends to compress poorly

But, how about Pirates of the Caribean. I popped in #3 and observed AVC yet again running between 15 and 50 (yes some 50 peaks) Mbit/sec. The average looked around 20-22 Mbit/sec. Again this is significantly more bits allocated to video than what Warner was doing with VC-1.

People keep complaining that HD media and upconverted DVDs are not too different. Perhaps Warner was keeping it that way.

The same master video stream processed by each of the codecs and compared in double-blind test would have a chance to answer the question of codec superiority.
Chances of this ever to happen are practically zero.

Titles that do exist in two different encodes are a mixed bag.

Claiming that 25Mbps ABR on POTC looks better than 15Mbps of VC-1 on another title is absolutely meaningless for such comparison.

Diogen.

Originally Posted by diogen

The same master video stream processed by each of the codecs and compared in double-blind test would have a chance to answer the question of codec superiority.
Chances of this ever to happen are practically zero.

Titles that do exist in two different encodes are a mixed bag.

Claiming that 25Mbps ABR on POTC looks better than 15Mbps of VC-1 on another title is absolutely meaningless for such comparison.

Diogen.

We need Michael Bay to come through with a remastering of Transformers. But, I wonder if Universal or any other studio would bother to remaster a previously HD-DVD only title when releasing it on BD.

Originally Posted by mike123abc

We need Michael Bay to come through with a remastering of Transformers. But, I wonder if Universal or any other studio would bother to remaster a previously HD-DVD only title when releasing it on BD.

Michael Bay can bless a piece of sh!t and br.com will hail it as a second coming...

BTW, one of the biggest recent improvements in movie encoding was done not in the codecs per-se,
but in proper conversion (dither) to 4:2:0/8bit. The best example of it is seen in Oscar winning Ratatouille.
Yes, it's Disney, Blu-Ray title. But the tool was created by Stacey Spears, the VC-1 creator...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1011359

Diogen.