First BD titles under scrutiny: The Fifth Element and others (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

In defense of Nils, I don't think he's saying that the older codec on a smaller disc is just as good, but that the older codec used with more disc space combined with a higher bit rate can achieve similar results to the new codec. In short, he's asking for proof that the older codec will cause degradation in PQ, if disc space wasn't an issue. Also, the condition of the masters will factor into this equation.





Crawdaddy

 

[JeremyErwin]

Hmm. I think that people are more or less familiar with the kinds of artifacts that mpeg-2 can cause-- e.g macroblocking. Some have even trained themselves to recognize it, along with edge enhancement . But since VC-1 hasn't been around as long, the artifacts are less visible. It remains to be seen whether the artifacts remain out of mind...

 

[RobertR]

I agree that the older codec with a higher bit rate can acheive similar results, Robert, but the problem is that BD is currently stuck with less space than HDDVD, so they don't have the bigger space to work with. They HAVE to get BD50 and advanced codecs going, else they just don't have a basis for saying they're superior.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Robert,
I don't think any of us are disputed those important points!





Crawdaddy

 

[JediFonger]

what's the phrase? pride goeth before the fall? =). first PS3 blunders, now BR player+title blunders. i wonder what's next?

don't get me wrong, i'm kinda' neutral in both camps. on one hand, i want 1080p (hopefully VC-1 to conserve space+quality) regardless of which format. i just want it!!!!

second, i want BluRay cause i wanna' backup some of the 1080p over the air/cable HD files i wanna' preserve =). hopefully there will be more open ended players in the future that plays back 1080p from recordings much like DVD players today playback mpeg4 .avi's. that'd be sweet.

 

[Rob_HD]

Probably because they spend all their time on online forums making spin and not enough back in the development room making product.

IMO, they'll have a long haul to dig out of this situation since, even when 2 G players start to ship next year, most of the BD titles on the shelves will still be the compromised releases, so it won't be worth buying a player until these are eliminated...

 

[Rob_HD]

If these early BD releases can't be considered proof then I don't know what is...

And as for the second part of your sentence... WHAT?? You've clearly missed out on a couple year's worth of posting. VC1 in the same space and bit-rate as an Mpeg2 encoding is universally acknowledged as superior to Mpeg2 - Mpeg2 would need 2 or 3 times the bandwidth of VC1 to equal it by and large - and even then, there are types of artifacting unique to Mpeg2 that will be present at almost ANY bitrate.

Come on, Nils. All of this is based on fact and most of it could have been foretold. Mpeg2 with these restrictions is never going to be able to give a class-leading presentation, even when all the noise has been removed from the movies, as has been widely reported.

 

[Robert Crawford]

As an objective participant in these HD format discussions, I want to ask you a couple of questions for clarification purposes. If mpeg2 is used with a higher bitrate and let's say 50 GB discs will those conditions allow it to match the PQ of discs encoded with VC1 and using 30 GB discs? If not then what are you basing that on, some printed factural article or your valued opinion? In regard to the different encoding being used by each format, some of us are trying to discern what are stated facts from just strongly opinionated comments.




Crawdaddy

 

[Rob_HD]

Hi Crawaddy,

Pretty much meant just as I said, which didn't address Mpeg2 on 50 Gig at all.

But in response to you question, my opinion would be that Mpeg2 on 50 Gig would not be preferable to VC1 on 50 Gig. Even at the much higher bitrates used on studio master tapes, Mpeg2 still introduces certain artifacts which are not a feature of VC1.

But the problems I've highlighted are more than just the single issue of the Video Codec used. Having to use multichannel uncompressed PCM audio is also killing a lot of space on these BD releases.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Agreed. Why waste bandwidth on LPCM when DD+/DDTHD and DTS-HD all can do the job. Force Sony to release a player with advanced audio decoding!!!

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

And yet mysteriously they are not showing up on many of the first BD titles despite the limited space and MPEG2... amazing.


Once again, there are real reasons to strongly urge all studios to use either VC1 or MPEG4, but that isn't to suggest that MPEG2 is currently not capable of providing a PQ equal to that of wither VC1 or MPEG4... it just requires more space to do it... and seeing as even you admit that space is critical, it is one more reason why many feel that Blu-ray with its 50GB BD-ROM and 100GB BD-R is the superior format with the greatest chance of longevity as a format than HD DVD which is really only a carry over of DVD and thus limited by its older disc structure design.

For cost, HD DVD is certainly the better choice right now... but for how long? And of course if manufacturer and studio support remain where they are now, those supporting HD DVD will have a very limited selection of players and fewer titles to chose from. These are certainly important factors to consider when investing for the long term.

I completely understand why some gladly bought the first HD DVD players and Blu-ray players, and are for the most part very happy with their decisions. However, my personal recommendation, especially for anyone unsure of what these formats have to offer and weary of their longevity as formats, is to wait on both formats to work out their kinks, and reveal their full potential, and improved features. Those with patience are usually rewarded.

 

[RobertR]

That's my attitude as well, although I'd say that the BD25/MPEG2 problem is a bigger kink to work out than what HDDVD needs to work on.

 

[Rob_HD]

Hmm.. nothing wrong with the thought per se, however, HD DVD has proven itself worthy of my $500. My wallet will remain patient for BD to fix their problems, tho.

 

[Walter Kittel]

A 'mixed' review...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/xxx.html

- Walter.

 

[Dave Mack]

"This is third Blu-ray title I've reviewed so far, and it comes after the mixed results I had encountered previously with the disappointing 'The Fifth Element,' and the better if inconsistent '50 First Dates.' Unfortunately, the disc I hoped would be my first knockout now leaves me batting zero for three. While 'xXx' does look pretty good on Blu-ray, it still suffers from some noticeable image quality problems that, quite frankly, I just didn't expect from a format that has been has highly touted as this one."

Third disappointing BD disc in a row for the guy....

 

[JediFonger]

this is interesting. is Sony using the same MPEG2 compression as Cable or over the air movie broadcast MPEG2? if so, we already do notice interlaced pixelization issues with that, don't we?

so if we know that, why bother with MPEG2? IS MPEG2 the problem? when will the 1st batch of VC-1 BluRay hit?

 

[RobertR]

Probably never for any Sony-owned movie. From other studios, maybe in a few months? I'd be scrambling like crazy to distance myself from the Sony MPEG2 love affair if I were them.

 

[JediFonger]

didn't i read that it sounded like sony was waiting for vc-1 to become more mainstream before beginning to use it? didn' they help with it somehow?

 

[dpippel]

As a sideliner on both HD disc formats, I've gotta say that the more I read about the issues the more pessimistic I become about high definition DVD. Sony's blunders with BluRay just adds fuel to the fire. The way things are going I'll be very surprised if either format grows into anything more than niche products for videophiles, much like the market position that SACD/DVD-A occupy in the audio realm. I certainly won't be buying into this (IMO) farce anytime soon. How disappointing that something with so much promise has been so botched by the industry.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

That seems to sum it up.. why does'nt this surprise me?