PDA

View Full Version : Sony: so much for next gen formats.


opus13
12-01-2005, 08:50 AM
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/80953/last-century-codecs-for-nextgen-bluray.html

Sony is now saying that Blu-Ray is only spec'd for mpeg-2. no h.264, no mpeg-4.

What's with Sony anymore? It seems like they havent been able to get anything right in quite some time.

tozz
12-01-2005, 09:31 AM
You might want to read it one more time. They're releasing movies in MPEG-2, it's not saying Blu-ray can't use H.264
I'm not saying that it's good, but considering what 1920*1080 decoding of H.264 requires, perhaps this is the best way to get players out to at a resonable price. Of course H.264 is better than MPEG-2, but I don't hear people complaining about real HDTV so I guess it's good enough for the consumers.

I'm not defending Sony here, I think it's wacko that they won't use H.264 right from the start, I'm just saying it might be a more wisely economical desicion not to, until technology gets cheaper.

Edit:
H.264 is MPEG-4 Part10, just for information :)

MCronin
12-01-2005, 12:52 PM
I'm not defending Sony here, I think it's wacko that they won't use H.264 right from the start

Why is it "wacko" to not use H264? Why not use MPEG2? The only reason H264 exists is to maintain picture quality while providing very small files. They can get a better quality picture using MPEG2 with less aggressive compression and still fit an entire HD movie on the disc. It doesn't make sense to use H264. H264 is nice but it's designed for distributing content on the net, it's really not the best choice when you are distrbuting movies on a medium with a huge storage capacity. They should compress the movie as little as possible and use as much of the available space as possible. MPEG2 is the better choice.

Lomax
12-01-2005, 02:09 PM
I don't know...

H.264 combined with Blu-Ray could finally make those 12+ hour editions of the Lord of the Rings films possible :D

Amyd
12-01-2005, 02:51 PM
Indeed, unlike HD-DVD, Blu-Ray has plenty of space, even on single-layer disks. For a 1080p24 movie at 25 Mbps total bitrate (including Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD soundtracks, subtitles and director's commentary track), a single-layer disc can fit easily a two-hours+ movie. A dual-layer BD-Video disc will of course double that, making it perfectly doable to include extras as well. So there is absolutely no reason to use MPEG-4/AVC or VC-1 for titles that aren't lengthy and don't have a ginormous amount of extras.

When used at high bitrates (>17 Mbps), 1080p24 HD MPEG-2 is at least as good as the same content encoded at 10 Mbps in MPEG-4/AVC or VC-1. But, it can be played without dropped frames even on mid-range PCs and Macs, whereas MPEG-4/AVC requires a high-end (prefferably dual-core/dual-CPU) rig and still doesn't have truly working GPU-accelerated hardware on the one hand, and VC-1, on the other, while being less CPU-intensive than MPEG-4/AVC and having at least partly GPU-assisted decoding, is still more demanding than MPEG-2.

Given all this, Sony's decision is in fact the smartest thing to do right now. Of course, once the hardware advances and when they will release TV series or special editions of long movies with lots of extras, I hope they will use MPEG-4/AVC or VC-1 to keep the number of discs down to the bare minimum.

tozz
12-01-2005, 03:12 PM
Why is it "wacko" to not use H264? Why not use MPEG2? The only reason H264 exists is to maintain picture quality while providing very small files. They can get a better quality picture using MPEG2 with less aggressive compression and still fit an entire HD movie on the disc. It doesn't make sense to use H264. H264 is nice but it's designed for distributing content on the net, it's really not the best choice when you are distrbuting movies on a medium with a huge storage capacity. They should compress the movie as little as possible and use as much of the available space as possible. MPEG2 is the better choice.

You should really check your facts before posting, have you even watched H.264 content? From what you post I can only conclude you haven't. H.264 scales from streaming content to high res HD content far superior to MPEG2. Detail and colors in a H.264 encoding exceeds anything MPEG2 can do.
MPEG4 was created to fill every possible use, from celluar applications to high resolution. I suggest you watch some 1920*1080 H.264 HD content and compare with MPEG2 before saying anything more. Genereally speaking you get the same quality with H.264 at half the size compared with MPEG2, now double the size of the H.264 encode and I think you can figure out the result.

As Amyd said, I believe the major reason for not going H.264 right away lies in the hardware requirements.

Amyd
12-01-2005, 03:25 PM
Well, actually, strictly speaking, given enough bitrate, MPEG-2 can most certainly equal and/or surpass anything that MPEG-4/AVC does, in color, resolution or motion artefacts. However, for the same given subjective quality, MPEG-4/AVC does achieve a significantly lower bitrate than MPEG-2, up to two times lower, provided you use a high performance encoder.

MPEG-4 in general can be better than MPEG-2 in general, especially very high bit-rate content encoded @ Studio Profile (like HDCAM SR), but that's another matter, because that's not something that will be supported by the consumer hardware players or indeed part of the next generation BR/HD-DVD specs.

MCronin
12-01-2005, 03:32 PM
You should really check your facts before posting, have you even watched H.264 content? From what you post I can only conclude you haven't. H.264 scales from streaming content to high res HD content far superior to MPEG2. Detail and colors in a H.264 encoding exceeds anything MPEG2 can do.
MPEG4 was created to fill every possible use, from celluar applications to high resolution. I suggest you watch some 1920*1080 H.264 HD content and compare with MPEG2 before saying anything more. Genereally speaking you get the same quality with H.264 at half the size compared with MPEG2, now double the size of the H.264 encode and I think you can figure out the result.

I've used H264 a ton and I love it. However, that doesn't change the fact that you can get a better picture out of MPEG2 if file size is not a consideration. I'm thinking that your opinion of MPEG2 vs H264 comes from what you've seen of people ripping DVDs or compressing DV video and trying to make the files as small as possible. You can make a more accrurate test for yourself. Render anything out to a hidef umcompressed series of images. Compress it once using a professional MPEG2 compressor with a really high bitrate, and compress it again using H264 and see which is better when file size is not a consideration. It's important that you do this test with a source that is uncompressed to start with. I've done it, and it looks to me like MPEG2 is the better choice when file size is of no concern. If you want something small, H264 is unbeatable. If you are recompressing a source that has already been compressed, like a DVD, h264 is unbeatable, but ultimately the less you compress a file the closer it will look to the master, and if you have the space you should use it.

tozz
12-01-2005, 03:34 PM
Well, actually, strictly speaking, given enough bitrate, MPEG-2 can most certainly equal and/or surpass anything that MPEG-4/AVC does, in color, resolution or motion artefacts. However, for the same given subjective quality, MPEG-4/AVC does achieve a significantly lower bitrate than MPEG-2, up to two times lower, provided you use a high performance encoder.

MPEG-4 in general can be better than MPEG-2 in general, especially very high bit-rate content encoded @ Studio Profile (like HDCAM SR), but that's another matter, because that's not something that will be supported by the consumer hardware players or indeed part of the next generation BR/HD-DVD specs.
I find that statement weird since H.264 features almost everything MPEG2 does, and then adds more features. Please explain how worse/same encoding methods produces better results :)

tozz
12-01-2005, 03:47 PM
I've used H264 a ton and I love it. However, that doesn't change the fact that you can get a better picture out of MPEG2 if file size is not a consideration. I'm thinking that your opinion of MPEG2 vs H264 comes from what you've seen of people ripping DVDs or compressing DV video and trying to make the files as small as possible. You can make a more accrurate test for yourself. Render anything out to a hidef umcompressed series of images. Compress it once using a professional MPEG2 compressor with a really high bitrate, and compress it again using H264 and see which is better when file size is not a consideration. It's important that you do this test with a source that is uncompressed to start with. I've done it, and it looks to me like MPEG2 is the better choice when file size is of no concern. If you want something small, H264 is unbeatable. If you are recompressing a source that has already been compressed, like a DVD, h264 is unbeatable, but ultimately the less you compress a file the closer it will look to the master, and if you have the space you should use it.
As I said in my previous post, H.264 includes almost everything from MPEG2, in essence you could create a MPEG2 encoding with the H.264 codecs. If I remember correctly, H.264 also includes a lossless option, so if size doesn't matter... ;)

MCronin
12-01-2005, 04:25 PM
As I said in my previous post, H.264 includes almost everything from MPEG2, in essence you could create a MPEG2 encoding with the H.264 codecs. If I remember correctly, H.264 also includes a lossless option, so if size doesn't matter... ;)

AVC lossless AFAIK is not part of the h264 main mode spec, which according to what I've read is the only mode forth-coming HD video content players are expected to support. The MPEG-2 codec supports more color modes and uses a much less aggressive compression method than h264 main. Most of the technology in h264 that improves picture quality is there to compensate for how aggressive it's compression method is and the limited number of color modes it supports. Again I think h264 is great, but there is deffinitely a ceiling to the quality you can get out of any compressed format, and that ceiling may be a bit lower on h264 main mode than MPEG2 when file size is not an issue.

Amyd
12-01-2005, 04:26 PM
I find that statement weird since H.264 features almost everything MPEG2 does, and then adds more features. Please explain how worse/same encoding methods produces better results

Those "extra features" are targetted mainly at keeping good quality at low bitrates, but they do have their downsides. For instance, in-loop filtering is great for getting smooth content when heavily compressing motion material, but it can also lead to excessive blurring. Of course, this filtering is optional both at encoder and at decoder level, so it doesn't need to be activated, but the potential for problems is there. FRExt did add specific features for high-quality materials to the MPEG-4 AVC standard in the new High profiles, but I believe those are not mandatory for decoders in the BR/HD-DVD spec (altough they are technically supported).

However, that wasn't my point. My point was that given a certain MPEG-4/AVC bitrate, you can get equivalent quality in MPEG-2, provided you are willing to use a higher bitrate to achieve that purpose.

tozz
12-01-2005, 04:31 PM
Well, both parties have said what they have to say I guess, no need to argue about something we can't really change :). I'll let time tell on this one.

I would however like to see some solid examples on this marvelous mpeg2 encoding you're speaking of. I've watched Gladiator in 1080 (interlaced though) and that quality was crap compared to the Serenity trailer for example, I know it's not a fair comparison since Serenity was progressive and probably filmed and mastered with high def in mind, but still. If you have any samples please give me a PM and I can arrange for a ftp to upload on, I really want to see with my own eyes :) (just to be clear, this is not a request for pirated material, I want to see tech samples of what MPEG2 supposedly can do that haven't been shown to the public audience).

Lorecanth
12-01-2005, 08:14 PM
Aside from the temporal compression advantages, they both ascribe to 4:2:0 color sampling so there really can be no I frame comparison, they both suck.

Neil
12-01-2005, 11:20 PM
haha, who comes up with these compression names?
"H.264". How am I going to use that in conversation?
Something simple like "DIVX" is nice.

tozz
12-01-2005, 11:46 PM
haha, who comes up with these compression names?
"H.264". How am I going to use that in conversation?
Something simple like "DIVX" is nice.

You call MPEG1 Layer 3 MP3, you can call H.264 MP(EG)4 ;)

heavyness
12-02-2005, 01:05 AM
so, does this mean, even when Blu-Ray comes out, it might evolve into another format later? Blu-Ray mpeg2 and then Blu-Ray H.264? so once technology catches up, we would again have to buy another new player and newer, better quality versions of the movie we already have on DVD and Blu-Ray DVD. i'm sick of this format war.

i really think the general public is not ready to throw their DVDs out...

Sonk
12-02-2005, 05:43 AM
?http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/80953/last-century-codecs-for-nextgen-bluray.html

Sony is now saying that Blu-Ray is only spec'd for mpeg-2. no h.264, no mpeg-4.

What's with Sony anymore? It seems like they havent been able to get anything right in quite some time.

i did read the article, it only talks about Sony tv and film division using MPEG2 for its introduction of Blu-Ray content into the market. Sony isnt stoping any other company from using other codecs Blu-Ray support(H.264 being one). Not really a big deal IMO. I mean if they forcing everyone to use MPEG2, now thats something to scream about :)


so, does this mean, even when Blu-Ray comes out, it might evolve into another format later? Blu-Ray mpeg2 and then Blu-Ray H.264? so once technology catches up, we would again have to buy another new player and newer, better quality versions of the movie we already have on DVD and Blu-Ray DVD. i'm sick of this format war.

i really think the general public is not ready to throw their DVDs out...

I doubt that, if you really need more space, theress the 8 layer 200 GB Blu-Ray disc. After Blu-Ray its probably going to be HVD.

I thought you could watch normal DVD content on any Blu-Ray player, its supposed to be backwards compatable AFAIK, so no one need to throw their DVD collection away. Also no one is forcing anyone to buy better quality version of their favorite movie on Blu-Ray(seriously).

P_T
12-02-2005, 06:01 PM
Would these blu-ray DVDs come in some sorta cartridge/casing like the MDs? coz i heard the pits on the disc are smaller than normal DVD makin it even more prone to being unreadable after a scratch. Sorry I haven't been followin this so I got no idea at all...

slaughters
12-02-2005, 07:24 PM
Indeed, unlike HD-DVD, Blu-Ray has plenty of space...Had to laugh :) - This just reminded me a little of the "You'll never need more than 64K of memory", Bill Gates quote.

The sad/happy fact is that no matter what the container - consumers will find a way to fill it to overflowing.

Apoclypse
12-02-2005, 07:53 PM
I thought HD-DVD was backwards compatible with current dvds not blu-ray due to the type of laser used. Anyways Blu-ray doeasn't a compressed format when they can pretty much use an ucompressed mpeg 2 file. H.264 is more suited for things like the psp and other low capacity type medium such as video files on the net. Otherwise keep the compression off the dvd.

Amyd
12-02-2005, 08:07 PM
This just reminded me a little of the "You'll never need more than 64K of memory", Bill Gates quote.

Actually,

1) It was 640 kB

2) Bill Gates never said it.

;)

The sad/happy fact is that no matter what the container - consumers will find a way to fill it to overflowing.

Actually, funnily enough, that didn't happen with DVDs, at least with DVD-Video releases, since that's the products we were talking about here. In theory a DVD-18 can hold 16 GB - how many releases use that format? That's right, very few, because even though in theory bigger capacity sounds great, there are other factors that come into play, like for instance costs (it's cheaper to make two DVD-9s) or branding (companies love to be able to silkscreen one side of the disc).

Anyway, my point was simply that compared to HD-DVD, Blu-Ray has enough space to use the MPEG-2 format. HD-DVD releases are pretty much forced by capacity constraints to use either MPEG-4/AVC or VC-1.

so, does this mean, even when Blu-Ray comes out, it might evolve into another format later? Blu-Ray mpeg2 and then Blu-Ray H.264?

Not at all. The Blu-Ray standard mandates that all Blu-Ray players have to be able to decode MPEG-2, MPEG-4/AVC and VC-1, right from the start. It's entirely up to the producing company which of these three formats they choose to use.

I would however like to see some solid examples on this marvelous mpeg2 encoding you're speaking of. I've watched Gladiator in 1080 (interlaced though) and that quality was crap compared to the Serenity trailer for example,

Try to track down the experiments that Ben Waggoner has encoded from the uncompressed 1080p24 HD version of the "The Island" trailer. He has released a very interesting package of four files, all compressed at 8.5 Mbps VBR, in MPEG-2, MPEG-4/AVC, WMV9 and RealMedia, which are a good benchmark to see how the codecs behave. He also released separately the same trailer compressed in an ATSC-compatible MPEG-2 stream (at 18 Mbps CBR) which you can use to see how a very good high bitrate MPEG-2 compression can look.

I have all these files, but I will not upload them, because the source file is only licensed for Ben from Dreamworks.

Knotter8
12-02-2005, 08:33 PM
I don't know the specifics and features of those next gen media formats, but I do think that Sony is in panic mode atm ; struggling with their inner company hierarchy, the recent DRM farce and PS3 development.

I would consider it a friggin' miracle if they can show playable (and impressive) PS3 games within 3 months

DaJuice
12-02-2005, 08:39 PM
I would consider it a friggin' miracle if they can show playable (and impressive) PS3 games within 3 months

What does the Sony BMG blunder have to do with the quality of games PS3 developers are working on?

heavyness
12-02-2005, 08:41 PM
Not at all. The Blu-Ray standard mandates that all Blu-Ray players have to be able to decode MPEG-2, MPEG-4/AVC and VC-1, right from the start. It's entirely up to the producing company which of these three formats they choose to use.

ok, cool. then i'm 5% happier, but still not won over on any future format. when i read that the future disc would do h.264, i just had the feeling i had when i bought a new dvd player and the next day i saw one that also did windows media and divx for the same price...

Knotter8
12-02-2005, 08:48 PM
What does the Sony BMG blunder have to do with the quality of games PS3 developers are working on?

How about that rumoured plan about PS3 games only being playable on the PS3 unit on which they booted firstly ? Yeah, the Sony CEO's had such plans. I doubt it'll be come reality with recent DRM scandals but if it were to be I'd bet that would spawn many more EA's into this world. (bye bye originality).

Really, the only next gen console I'll be getting is PS3. Decision is based on the types of games i like most and that's historically been the PSone and PS2 library.

But now.... Sony needs to get it's act together asap.

E_Moelzer
12-02-2005, 09:00 PM
HD- DVD is backwards compatible Blue Ray is not and from what I heard Sony has some weird copy right scheme in Blue Ray too.
I dont trust Sony anymore and I would rather have HD- DVD be the winner in all this. To me Sony is the devil that makes entertainment more and more unentertaining...
;)

CU
Elmar

tozz
12-02-2005, 09:06 PM
Try to track down the experiments that Ben Waggoner has encoded from the uncompressed 1080p24 HD version of the "The Island" trailer. He has released a very interesting package of four files, all compressed at 8.5 Mbps VBR, in MPEG-2, MPEG-4/AVC, WMV9 and RealMedia, which are a good benchmark to see how the codecs behave. He also released separately the same trailer compressed in an ATSC-compatible MPEG-2 stream (at 18 Mbps CBR) which you can use to see how a very good high bitrate MPEG-2 compression can look.

I have all these files, but I will not upload them, because the source file is only licensed for Ben from Dreamworks.
I will look into it.
Edit:
Apparently he uses crap for encoding H.264 (Quicktime) according to different unrealiable sources on the net, still trying to get the files to check for myself.

Those of you who think HD-DVD is backward compatible, it's not. You need a new HD-DVD player to read HD-DVD media (different laser for example).

heavyness
12-02-2005, 09:26 PM
Those of you who think HD-DVD is backward compatible, it's not. You need a new HD-DVD player to read HD-DVD media (different laser for example).

i think they meant backwards compatible with DVD discs playing on HD-DVD players.

How about that rumored plan about PS3 games only being playable on the PS3 unit on which they booted firstly ?

just a rumor. if Sony were to make each game attach itself to 1 player, they would a lot of consumers because you wouldn't be able to rent or buy used PS3 games. but its a rumor for right now [which came out shortly after the root kit thing, so i'm guessing its bogus].

slaughters
12-02-2005, 09:37 PM
...Actually, funnily enough, that didn't happen with DVDs....Well, yes it did.

(a) My version of Lord of the Rings did not come with just 1 DVD. Did yours?

(b) Early on most DVDs came with both Wide Screen and Full screen versions of the film on the same DVD. They started putting in all the extra features and suddenly they did not have enough space for both formats and started selling them as seperate DVD's.


P.S. Bill Gates is attributed to the quote, but denies that he ever said such a thing - and it was 640, not 64.

Amyd
12-02-2005, 09:43 PM
(a) My version of Lord of the Rings did not come with just 1 DVD. Did yours?

No, it came on four. But it could have come on only two, since those four discs are all DVD-9s. Why didn't it? Because, you guessed it, sheer capacity isn't the only thing that matters

b) Early on most DVDs came with both Wide Screen and Full screen versions of the film on the same DVD. They started putting in all the extra features and suddenly they did not have enough space for both formats and started selling them as seperate DVD's.

No, actually, they still sell quite often those cheap crappy dual-editions as a single disc, this being one of the few uses in the wild of dual-side DVDs (DVD-10). One side has the full-screen transfer, the other has the proper anamorphic transfer.

They are still dual-side, single-layer though, because like I said above, DVD-18 is simply too expensive.

P.S. Bill Gates is attributed to the quote, but denies that he ever said such a thing - and it was 640, not 64.

Err, that's what I told you.

slaughters
12-02-2005, 10:39 PM
*SIGH*

I'll just give up now - You'r right - I'm wrong.

Consumers will never require more than what one BlueRay disk can hold
They must be delusional if they beleive that the need for more than one DVD's worth of storage currently exists.

Sonk
12-02-2005, 10:42 PM
Would these blu-ray DVDs come in some sorta cartridge/casing like the MDs? coz i heard the pits on the disc are smaller than normal DVD makin it even more prone to being unreadable after a scratch. Sorry I haven't been followin this so I got no idea at all...

Q: Will Blu-Ray still require a cartridge?

No, the development of new low cost hard-coating technologies has made the cartridge obsolete. Blu-ray will instead rely on hard-coating for protection, which when applied will make the discs even more resistant to scratches and fingerprints than todays DVDs, while still preserving the same look and feel. The adoption of hard-coating will also allow manufacturers to downsize players/drives and lower their overall media production costs.

http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#1.10


How about that rumoured plan about PS3 games only being playable on the PS3 unit on which they booted firstly ? Yeah, the Sony CEO's had such plans. I doubt it'll be come reality with recent DRM scandals but if it were to be I'd bet that would spawn many more EA's into this world. (bye bye originality).

Really, the only next gen console I'll be getting is PS3. Decision is based on the types of games i like most and that's historically been the PSone and PS2 library.

But now.... Sony needs to get it's act together asap.

that rumour has been debunk awhile ago, a Sony spokenwomen, basically said you'll be able to play PS3 games on any PS3 unit. Who the heck actually believe in that silly rumour(it didnt make sense at all for a number of reasons)? Sony is not that stupid..there on top for a reason.

HD- DVD is backwards compatible Blue Ray is not and from what I heard Sony has some weird copy right scheme in Blue Ray too.
I dont trust Sony anymore and I would rather have HD- DVD be the winner in all this. To me Sony is the devil that makes entertainment more and more unentertaining...
;)

CU
Elmar


Q: Will Blu-Ray be backwards compatible with DVD?


Yes, several leading consumer electronics companies (including Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sharp, Sony and LG) have already demonstrated products that can read/write CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray discs using a BD/DVD/CD compatible optical head, so you don't have to worry about your existing DVD collection becoming obsolete. Although it's up to each manufacturer to decide if they want to make their products backwards compatible with DVD, the format is far too popular to not be supported. The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) expects every Blu-ray Disc device to be backward compatible with CDs and DVDs.

source: http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#2.4


I dont know, i find the ability to run full blown Linux OS on the PS3, very entertaining, you wont be able to do that on other next gen console AFAIK. ;) im looking forward to that, and gaming.

both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have copy right scheme AFIAK, which one is weirder..thats up to you. Oh did i mention, 8 layer-200 GB Blu-Ray disc? :)

Amyd
12-03-2005, 09:09 AM
Consumers will never require more than what one BlueRay disk can hold
They must be delusional if they beleive that the need for more than one DVD's worth of storage currently exists.

Ah well. What I say and what you understand seem to be universes apart. But, such is life on the Internet.

Cheers!

tozz
12-03-2005, 03:55 PM
Try to track down the experiments that Ben Waggoner has encoded from the uncompressed 1080p24 HD version of the "The Island" trailer. He has released a very interesting package of four files, all compressed at 8.5 Mbps VBR, in MPEG-2, MPEG-4/AVC, WMV9 and RealMedia, which are a good benchmark to see how the codecs behave. He also released separately the same trailer compressed in an ATSC-compatible MPEG-2 stream (at 18 Mbps CBR) which you can use to see how a very good high bitrate MPEG-2 compression can look.
The MPEG2 trailer (ATSC) was sweet, very nice colors and motion, but it lacked in details, it all felt somewhat blured. I'm watching on a 24" wide tft so it's in native resolution. Still, if that's what Sony is putting on Blu-Ray it'll be more than enough for anyone for a very long time.

Amyd
12-03-2005, 04:43 PM
The MPEG2 trailer (ATSC) was sweet, very nice colors and motion, but it lacked in details, it all felt somewhat blured. I'm watching on a 24" wide tft so it's in native resolution.

Hmm, I didn't think that the file was particularly blurry, especially given its film origin. Here's a 1:1 crop from a region with sufficient detail between the MPEG-4/AVC, MPEG-2/VBR and MPEG-2/CBR files:

http://www.amyd.ro/Diverse/theisland.png

IMO, it's pretty clear that the MPEG-2/CBR (18 Mbps) keeps the best details while at the same time having the least artefacts, the MPEG-4/AVC (8.5 VBR, max. 15 Mbps) does decently, especially thanks to the smoothing and of course the MPEG-2/VBR comes in last, with pretty serious problems.

Still, if that's what Sony is putting on Blu-Ray it'll be more than enough for anyone for a very long time.

I expect it's pretty close to what we will see on the discs, altough I am sure they will go with a VBR encode instead of a CBR one, so maybe they'll push the max bitrate a bit higher (around 20 Mbps).

tozz
12-03-2005, 07:18 PM
Hmm, I didn't think that the file was particularly blurry, especially given its film origin. Here's a 1:1 crop from a region with sufficient detail between the MPEG-4/AVC, MPEG-2/VBR and MPEG-2/CBR files:
IMO, it's pretty clear that the MPEG-2/CBR (18 Mbps) keeps the best details while at the same time having the least artefacts, the MPEG-4/AVC (8.5 VBR, max. 15 Mbps) does decently, especially thanks to the smoothing and of course the MPEG-2/VBR comes in last, with pretty serious problems.

I expect it's pretty close to what we will see on the discs, altough I am sure they will go with a VBR encode instead of a CBR one, so maybe they'll push the max bitrate a bit higher (around 20 Mbps).
The most noticable scenes are the ones with close ups on their faces, the skin looks over softened, and the hair seem to merge together somewhat. Of course, it's hard to say if this is an effect of make-up and lightning on set and apparant on the original source, or an effect of the encoding. I just hope they make some use of the new medium and deliver quality like this (or better) and don't come out with half filled discs and medium quality encodes (as they did with DVD).

Edit:
Changed to latest NVIDIA filters with HW Acelleration and the image is much crisper now.

CHRiTTeR
12-04-2005, 07:33 PM
IMO, it's pretty clear that the MPEG-2/CBR (18 Mbps) keeps the best details while at the same time having the least artefacts, the MPEG-4/AVC (8.5 VBR, max. 15 Mbps) does decently, especially thanks to the smoothing and of course the MPEG-2/VBR comes in last, with pretty serious problems.

Actually I find that the first one Mpeg-4/AVC has less artifacts. Sharpness looks the same to my eye though... Either way the quqlity is great on all 3 of them, so I dont really care which one gets used in the end. :beer:

CGTalk Moderation
12-04-2005, 07:33 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.