Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by JediFonger, Nov 2, 2006.
just curious. haven't read anything about it anywhere.
Yes, Warner has been using it for it's BD's the past few waves. This week's Unforgiven & The Searchers were the first VC1 BD-50's but the space was pretty much wasted on those.
I have Corpse Bride and it's VC-1.
There have been approximately 25 releases so-far on Blu-Ray in VC-1. Almost all of the Warner titles are VC-1.
The Warner VC-1 titles are excellent. I wish all studios would switch to this codec ASAP.
so... VC1 on BR loox EXACTLY/PRECISELY like HD-DVD?
Yep. They are using the same transfers and I haven't noticed any difference between formats on those particular titles. However, some of the Paramount titles look better on Blu-Ray in mpeg-2 than on HD-DVD in VC-1.
That's interesting; care to elaborate? I'd read the titles that were out on both formats looked identical, but never that one looked better than another. And oddly, I think I've only read about VC-1 titles compared to MPEG 2 titles, not the ones that are the same codec. Despite the bashing, it wouldn't surprise me to see an MPEG2 title look better though. Only because encoding with MPEG2 has had ample time to be perfected, and some of those Blu-Ray titles are using those 50GB without all the sound options on the HD-DVD titles. The quality of compression improved by leaps and bounds over the years with DVD. It will be interesting if the same happens with the newer codecs. If they're starting out looking damn good... Anxious for the 50GB advanced codec Blu-Ray discs that have all the bells and whistles.
Yes, I'm interested to hear which titles you're referring to as better on BR than HD DVD? Crawdaddy
Not according to any review I have read. And I try to make it a point to read reviews from 2 or three sources. I have seen reviews that give BD rating on Video equal standings to it's HD counterpart, and have read reviews that give HD an ever so slight edge, but I think you would be hard pressed to show me on review that BD was given the edge over HD.
Since Ben's a reviewer for this site perhaps he's talking about his own experiences which is why I asked him the name of the titles. Crawdaddy
Thanks for the clarification. BTW, I have been quite impressed with many of the new BD releases. It looks like, from a quality stand point, this issue of which format can produce a better quality image may be put to bed. One can always hope.
i'd love it if our current HD media list is updated with the codec each disc is using. if i had a player, i'd go by the codec+features of ea. release. just a suggestion =).
I wouldn't turn down a disc with incredible picture quality just because of the codec used.
Sure! Mission: Impossible 3 was ever so slightly better, in my opinion, than its HD-DVD counterpart. Sleepy Hollow was also an improvement on Blu-Ray. I feel like the thing that is making the blu-ray releases look slightly better (in some cases) is how grain is handled. In many cases, HD-DVD titles all but wipe out any film grain and leave a perfectly smooth image. This hasn't been the case with BLu-Ray. I like how grain is finely and accurately presented. It's very natural and film-like. Sleepy Hollow is an interesting example. It's a very grainy film that was a mess on HD-DVD. The grain often just seemed to devolve into a swarming noise-like image. The blu-ray edition was much more stable and I didn't get any of that "swarming" or movement from the film grain. I found this same improvement with Tomb Raider and Aeon Flux as well.
The "swarming noise" is something I noticed a lot in V for Vendetta. It'll be interesting to see how this title looks on BD.
Additional sources include widescreen review. I think the time of better on one system or the other is over, and any minor differences are can no longer be stated as the fault of the format, but rather minor differences in coding, or user perception. When the formats are beginning to look so close in quality, it is now a toss up. There was a time, not so long ago, that I would have given HD the immediate nod for purchase when faced with a movie released in both formats, now it is not that simple a choice. BD has come along way since Warner and Paramount have begun releasing product. This is not meant to be a slight to Disney of Fox releases.
Hmm. Do you think it's the handling by different codecs (MPEG2 vs. VC1 ON MI:3) or something else? I'm guessing this is something very subtle most wouldn't even notice. And hopefully no one in the magazines confuses grain with noise. We shouldn't be seeing noise in images anymore! (unless there's a real problem) We finally have enough resolution we should actually be able to see "normal" grain as opposed to "grainy scene" or "grainy filmstock" grain. I just wondered if, in cases where a little more compression was necessary, something's done to reduce the grain in the image to make it compress easier. Or if certain codecs handle grain differently. I remember early DVD's when everyone talked about how MPEG2 handled smoke or fog on a particular transfer. It took a while for compressionists to get a handle on that. The comments about V for Vendetta are interesting too, as I saw there's a thread touting it as "spectacular." I'll have to look into that thread too.
Is PHANTOM OF THE OPERA VC-1?
I don't think it becomes a toss up. If PQ is comparable, then the next two factors enter play. 1. Price. The closer to $100-200 for a player it gets, the faster adoption will occur. 2. Library size. If one format doesn't fill half an aisle and the other format fills 3, it sends a clear message to people which format to buy. So... 1. Price parity and significant drops should occur in the same relative time frame, Neither one has a disadvantage in complexity that would keep one abnormally high. 2. HD-DVD simply doesn't have the backing to compete. They need to sign studios, if they don't, by the time the formats start hitting mass market pricing, they simply won't have sufficient product to encourage people to buy them over BR. If pricing is within a realm of tolerance for both formats, library size is the deciding factor. People will want to buy 1 player, not 2, and they'll buy whichever one lets them see the most movies. Sony still has time to screw this up though. If HD-DVD can obtain market share among early adopters, fence sitting studios may choose to support it. BR's pricing gives HD-DVD a window here, and PS3 has many problems that may yet tank it, or at least slow it's adoption sufficiently to make it a non-factor. Of course, the primary deciding factor is out of both of their hands. HDTV installed base, which is pretty bad right now. In fact, the only thing HDTV has going for it ATM is LCD's. CRT, Proj, and Plasma have been relatively stable in pricing for a long time now and are too expensive for mass adoption. These things need to get under $1000, preferably ~$750 especially the critical 30-40" segments.