BD owners help me out!

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

That's MPEG-4.

I think he was referring to the second Underworld movie. That one and "The Covenant" were demo style movies, if only the latter wasn't so terrible.

But the question is, would one actually be able to noticeably see that negligible blocking (that probably was "visible" for less than a second) under "normal" viewing conditions? Especially that shot, which would test any codec. I'm betting not.

I agree with this statement. I really have to squint to tell the differences between the two in that link Ruined gave. At any rate, few bd titles come out in mpeg2 anymore. It seems high bit rate AVC encodes are the standard...with vc-1 likely to continue with Warner.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I really have to squint to tell the differences between the two in that link Ruined gave.

I actually put on my new glasses and looked hard at those comparison pics. I hate to admit it (guess I just don't know what to look for) but damn if they didn't look the same to me. I know Ruined's heart is in the right place but dude, I don't see a difference.

I'll also note that on my monitor, the pics Sezy posted....the HD Broad looks better to me.

I'm hopeless.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

I actually put on my new glasses and looked hard at those comparison pics. I hate to admit it (guess I just don't know what to look for) but damn if they didn't look the same to me. I know Ruined's heart is in the right place but dude, I don't see a difference.

I'll help you out. Pay special attention to the areas I circled here.

In this first image, there are 6 adjacent macroblocks (about .5cm in size) right smack on Tom Cruise's face. Then the gradation from dark to light is blocky as also circled.

These artifacts are not present in the VC-1 version linked above.

[Ruined]

Now in this image, look at the blocking in the circled areas. It is not there in the VC-1 version linked above.

[Astrakan]

I'm with Iggy, I can't really see the difference. And I don't think I want to learn how to. By staying ignorant I think I'll enjoy my movie watching experience more rather than picking out every single flaw in the image quality.

KM

[brian]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

I'll also note that on my monitor, the pics Sezy posted....the HD Broad looks better to me.

I hate comparisons like the Robocop pictures above because I can never be sure if the film I'm watching has had the color or contrast tweaked, nor can I know if it's how it's intended to be seen. The Robocop picture on the bottom is certainly more dynamic, but the whites bloom and it's obvious that the contrast is cranked up. Is that how it's supposed to be seen?

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by brian

I hate comparisons like the Robocop pictures above because I can never be sure if the film I'm watching has had the color or contrast tweaked, nor can I know if it's how it's intended to be seen. The Robocop picture on the bottom is certainly more dynamic, but the whites bloom and it's obvious that the contrast is cranked up. Is that how it's supposed to be seen?

The film's inherent grain is present in the broadcast version, even if the contrast is pumped up, in motion the broadcast version will exhibit more fine detail.

[Sehnzeleid]

Also Ruined, I still don't seen the big deal when that shot takes a half a second. I could see making a big deal if Cruise was merely walking and the MPEG-2 compression was so bad you could definitely see it for several seconds, but like I said before it's most likely invisible unless one sits 6 inches from their screen or is viewing at over 100" and even then is purposely watching the encode, not the film.

That's not to say all MPEG-2 artifacts are invisible on Blu-ray, but I don't think it's such an enormous problem for me to refuse to purchase a given release that happens to have such an encode.

[PunkMunkey]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

By staying ignorant I think I'll enjoy my movie watching experience more rather than picking out every single flaw in the image quality.

I think you're on to something here ...frankly, in the context of a motion picture, it's going to be really difficult, if not impossible, to see the artifacting that Ruined is pointing out...in still pictures it's hard enough for some people to discern! A larger screen size may make these artifacts more apparent, but even then they'll only appear for a split second (most of the time).

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

I'm with Iggy, I can't really see the difference. And I don't think I want to learn how to. By staying ignorant I think I'll enjoy my movie watching experience more rather than picking out every single flaw in the image quality.

KM

Wow, I have to say that you are pretty accurate with this statement. I know that I used to be oblivious to EE, but my friend could see it. But when I went to high def and then started looking at dvd again, I noticed it all over the place. I did ask dugpa to list all the compression artifacts he found in movies that he gave mediocre scores to, but perhaps like you, I shouldn't be looking for flaws if I can enjoy the movie without noticing them.

[elfman]

Some people can notice things like blocking and mosquito noise easier than others. Some people hardly every notice it. (and thanks to Youtube, our standard for video has gone WAY down, actually... just the way it is)

I can't stand all of those little red dots on theatrical films. Most of my friends never even notice them, but I wanna scream every time I'm into a movie and then those red dots splash across someone's white shirt on the screen. (first time I noticed them was on Gandalf in Return of the King, during the Minis Tirith battle) Those really take me out of the movie every time...

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by elfman

I can't stand all of those little red dots on theatrical films. Most of my friends never even notice them, but I wanna scream every time I'm into a movie and then those red dots splash across someone's white shirt on the screen. (first time I noticed them was on Gandalf in Return of the King, during the Minis Tirith battle) Those really take me out of the movie every time...

Yet another example of the lengths studios will go in their piracy paranoid, the consumer be damned.

[Ruined]

One last link in case people don't know what to look for:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/missioni...detail_2x.html

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Derb

I suggest you all should rent Underworld

Originally Posted by ganthc

I think he was referring to the second Underworld movie. That one and "The Covenant" were demo style movies, if only the latter wasn't so terrible.

Not so much. Underworld Evolution has a ton less artifacts in VC-1 than the MPEG2 BD as we can see from the below link:

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/underwor...detail_2x.html

And as you stated, that is considered a "demo" movie by many BD owners. Proves my point that the best MPEG2 offers is still bested easily by AVC/VC-1.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Not so much. Underworld Evolution has a ton less artifacts in VC-1 than the MPEG2 BD as we can see from the below link:

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/underwor...detail_2x.html

Yes, but the choice seems rather clear between paying upwards of $40 for the import HD DVD or $19 for Blu-ray with PCM audio for what's a mediocre movie anyway. This was one title I just couldn't see buying even when I only owned HD DVD. Who said it was demo material? The Underworld Blu-ray kicks its ass.

And also, that's another split second shot at 200% zoom, is your HT in a side closet?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

Yes, but the choice seems rather clear between paying upwards of $40 for the import HD DVD or $19 for Blu-ray with PCM audio for what's a mediocre movie anyway.

Or, you don't buy either. If the movie sucks, then no need to own either one obviously, but if you do like it you can always wait until the inevitable AVC special edition is released.

This was one title I just couldn't see buying even when I only owned HD DVD. Who said it was demo material? The Underworld Blu-ray kicks its ass.

ganthc said it was demo material last page, and Derb gave it a high score + I believe this was the MPEG2 Underworld movie he was referring to as demo material also on the last page.

And also, that's another split second shot at 200% zoom, is your HT in a side closet?

I'd imagine "200%" on the average 20" PC monitor DVDFILE forum members are using to view the comparison shots is not too unlike 100% on a 60" HDTV that they very well may have in their HT.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Or, you don't buy either. If the movie sucks, then no need to own either one obviously, but if you do like it you can always wait until the inevitable AVC special edition is released.

But sometimes it's okay for things to be "good enough"

Also ganthc said "demo style", that's different from saying its "demo material".

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

But sometimes it's okay for things to be "good enough"

Sure, though "good enough" is different for every person. For instance, on the sound side 1.5mbps lossy or even 640k lossy is probably "good enough" for me. I wouldn't pass over a title simply because it has 640k DD. You don't hear any artifacts with 640 DD and yeah the high end might be rolled off compared to 1.5mbps DD/DTS or lossless, but a somewhat rolled off high end doesn't "stick out." Hell, THX rolls off the high end and it is considered a feature!

Video-wise though, I think the artifacts pointed out in this thread on some of the most hailed MPEG2 transfers are a LOT more noticable than the difference between 640k DD and lossless. I mean, its not like we are talking less dynamic range in the color, we are talking about lots of digital squares being stuck in the picture. Sure, it may only happen during big action sequences (explosions/fast motion), but once you know what a macroblock looks like its hard as hell to not see them IMO because they look plainly artificial.

So for me I'm trying to restrict my MPEG2 purchases to lesser known titles that may only see a couple of releases, like the aforementioned Volver.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by Ruined

I think the artifacts pointed out in this thread on some of the most hailed MPEG2 transfers...

Actually, I'd called Resident Evil: Apocalypse and Layer Cake to be nearly perfect as MPEG-2 encodes.

[brian]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Not so much. Underworld Evolution has a ton less artifacts in VC-1 than the MPEG2 BD as we can see from the below link:

http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/underwor...detail_2x.html

Now that's nasty looking.

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

Actually, I'd called Resident Evil: Apocalypse and Layer Cake to be nearly perfect as MPEG-2 encodes.

RE: Apocalypse has some nasty artifacts in black areas, an unfortunate side effect of mpeg2's inability to concentrate on smaller areas.

[Iguana Man]

Originally Posted by brian

Now that's nasty looking.

I finally saw it in the first pic from that link. WOW! Everything from her hair going left has squares and rectangles.

Now I can see it.........THANKS DICK!

The other two though I don't see nuthing.

[ganthc]

The first two are pretty obvious. The third was hard to see. I do have to say that I agree with Sehnzeleid in that the split second those artifacts were shown, I probably missed them completely. I don't envy dugpa's ability to detect every artifact that could possibly appear in a video presentation.

[supercutz]

I guess the bigger question would be why the hell would any company bother using Mpeg2 when there's much better codecs available that are commonly used on HD media?

[dugpa]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I don't envy dugpa's ability to detect every artifact that could possibly appear in a video presentation.

It's not easy being me.

Originally Posted by supercutz

I guess the bigger question would be why the hell would any company bother using Mpeg2 when there's much better codecs available that are commonly used on HD media?

Because changing codecs requires investing in new hardware and software at their encoding center. Add to that the fact that Sony holds part of the patents in mpeg2, and they were trying to cut corners and dollars. Unfrotunately for them public reaction to their first buy-ray discs was bad enough that they decided to clean up their act.

[ganthc]

Doesn't Sony own some patents on AVC, and that's why it's the preferred choice of blu-ray studios?