Blu-Ray 5th Element -> Possible Bad Transfer. - Page 3

BrandonJF · 06-19-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

If VC-1 is better, I don't have an understanding why Sony isn't using it. If there are inherrent problems with VC-1 that will become evident soon, then Sony will look brilliant.

??? Are you inferring that since Sony isn't using VC1 that there must be some problem with it that is somehow transparent right now?

I don't think we need to worry about Sony looking brilliant for using MPEG2 for HD content on a 25GB disc. They might come out looking ok in the long run for backing Blu-Ray once 50GB discs are doable and they use a more efficient codec. Heck, maybe with a 50GB disc, they can get away with MPEG2.

Chris Gerhard · 06-19-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonJF

??? Are you inferring that since Sony isn't using VC1 that there must be some problem with it that is somehow transparent right now?

I don't think we need to worry about Sony looking brilliant for using MPEG2 for HD content on a 25GB disc. They might come out looking ok in the long run for backing Blu-Ray once 50GB discs are doable and they use a more efficient codec. Heck, maybe with a 50GB disc, they can get away with MPEG2.

I don't know what Sony is going to use in the long run, but if VC-1 is best, they should be using that. If MPEG4 is best, that should be the choice. I would think Sony knows what will result in the best picture given space and compression requirements. Apparently "House of Flying Daggers" is sub-par and apparently only "Terminator" and "Underworld Evolution" good enough to be considered average for HD DVD. It is hard to understand, but it is not too late for Sony to right the ship.

Chris

RobertR · 06-19-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

would think Sony knows what will result in the best picture given space and compression requirements.

Unfortunately, corporate politics (and Sony's attitude as evidenced by their double/triple dipping practices with DVD) are such that even if Sony "knows" what will result in the best picture, that doesn't necessarily mean applying that knowledge will be their top priority.

Rob_HD · 06-19-2006, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris S

I hadn't heard that before Rob, can you please provide your source?

And aren't all the 6/20 releases from Sony owned companies...? So saying its "Sony's fault and not the studios" is a little ambigous as they're owned by the same parent company. The Lionsgate releases next week (Crash, Lord of War, The Punisher, Saw, Terminator 2: Judgment Day) should be independant of Sony.

No - all studios have had to depend on Sony to do the authoring and production for launch - as stated above.

You're confusing this with Sony Pictures, I think.

Paul_Scott · 06-19-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

See my post in the Samsung thread why this is very wrong. It's 1080 resolution. Period.

You have absolutely nothing to back this up with. "The Fifth Element" issues are with the transfer, not the encoding. No one has talked about artifacts and such.

There are artifacts. And you don't have to look tooo hard or too long to find them.
I had to go return something that I bought yesterday and they had TFE up and running. After the inital wow of seeing the colors, I sat down to critically look at the picture and within a half a minute you can see this is a 'compromised' image. Again I saw macro blocking in areas of more or less solid color (just like on the House/Dagger pic yesterday), i slo mo'd it to make sure it was the disc and not the display and yup- its the image on the disc.

The most consistent criticism I have with both of these discs is that it just does not look like film. Its flat, its got a haze of digital grit, motion isn't always fluid (it looked 'jittery' in spots), and the image just was not rock solid stable like the VC1 encodes on HD DVD are. Both HOFD and TFE shared several attributes that lead me to the conclusion that MPEG2 is why these just don't look filmlike compared to the other formats titles.
Which is a remarkable feat to pull of as several sequences displayed a flurry of dirt and print damage- and even with that, the illusion of film wasn't being sold.

about the only positives were colors were spectacular and I saw hardly any EE.

Disc also seemed to be pretty light in terms of extras- a 'fact track' that i assume is like pop up text blurbs and two trailers. Whoop de F#ckin doo.

Welcome to Blu-ray- The "it's not about today, it's about what will be the better solution for the future" format.

Chris Gerhard · 06-19-2006, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertR

Unfortunately, corporate politics (and Sony's attitude as evidenced by their double/triple dipping practices with DVD) are such that even if Sony "knows" what will result in the best picture, that doesn't necessarily mean applying that knowledge will be their top priority.

The evidence sure points toward Toshiba having made the correct decision to use VC-1 and the Sony decision appears very short sighted or stupid or worse. I can only hope I am wrong and Sony knows what they are doing. If the Microsoft licensing fees are reasonable, Sony may have totally dropped the ball. I have not seen an explanation of the Sony decision so this is all speculation at this point.

Chris

Kelly Grannell · 06-19-2006, 12:14 PM

Now I can only imagine that all my future Disney BD collection will look like that (full of artifacts etc).

Sigh.

Chris S · 06-19-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob_HD

No - all studios have had to depend on Sony to do the authoring and production for launch - as stated above.

Stated only by you, or am I going blind and miss a post? Again, can you please provide the source? I've tried searching through Google but keep coming up empty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob_HD

You're confusing this with Sony Pictures, I think.

I don't think so and maybe we're just splitting hairs here. Sony Pictures Entertainment oversees releases for Columbia TriStar, MGM, and Sony Pictures. So the studios releasing the first batch of titles are all owned by Sony. They're practically the same, which is even more of a reason that these titles should have looked better than they reportedly do.

Rob_HD · 06-19-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris S

Stated only by you, or am I going blind and miss a post? Again, can you please provide the source? I've tried searching through Google but keep coming up empty.

I don't think so and maybe we're just splitting hairs here. Sony Pictures Entertainment oversees releases for Columbia TriStar, MGM, and Sony Pictures. So the studios releasing the first batch of titles are all owned by Sony. They're practically the same, which is even more of a reason that these titles should have looked better than they reportedly do.

Hi Chris - there are endless threads on this both here and on AVS.

Check it out... What I posted above is fact. Sony (not Sony Pictures, as you keep thinking) has had to do the authoring and production for the initial BD releases of all studios. Sony's tools couldn't do VC1, which is why they have used Mpeg2 (it was not because they REALLY thought it was superior to VC1, trust me).

Paul_Scott · 06-19-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris S

Stated only by you, or am I going blind and miss a post? Again, can you please provide the source? I've tried searching through Google but keep coming up empty.

this thread:
http://s8.invisionfree.com/MHVF/inde...showtopic=5203

look for posts by Don May Jr.
the information is parroted over on AVS in one of the threads in the HD DVD forum iirc.

add that to post 2125 from this thread:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...222163&page=71
by our own dashing David Boulet and that should give you a good picture of the situation.

Dave Mack · 06-19-2006, 02:59 PM

"Welcome to Blu-ray- The "it's not about today, it's about what will be the better solution for the future" format. "

Or to some because it costs more that means it MUST be better. And because I can afford it and many others can't that means "I" must be ___________"

(Insert comment)

I for one can't believe all of the apologists. Can it look better? Maybe? Does it now? All accounts say no.
It's like buying a house where the homebuilder says, "One day you will have a 2 story house here and not this ranch that doesn't even look as nice as the one next door! Don't worry, we will build it. You will enjoy it. It'll be better than the ranch house next door! Of course we can't build the top floor now and won't tell you when we will but don't worry, it will happen one day. When WE decide to do it for you! Meanwhile pay us for the total cost of the 2 story house RIGHT now!!!!"

Yup, many people need cluephones out there.