Hi there,
before BD chooses VC1, I will stay away from it... The quality is poooooorrrrr..... I bought one (House of Flying Dagger)...

I think original Region 1 DVD could be better than the BD with MPEG2 compression...

I also prefer to have at least Dolby TrueHD (though IIRC BD doesnt support it in its mandatory spec)... I dont want to hear DD in BD... A US$35 disc for MPEG2 video and DD sound? No kiddin...

Sorry to say... but Sony has to fix this problem immidiately...

Thanks.

I'm talking the BD movie with MPEG2 compression, NOT the VC1... so you better check which one that you have... lucky if you have title with VC1 compression...

The earlier version (almost all of the BD movie, at first) were encoded in MPEG2. This is simply no good (blocky image, color problem, ghosting effect, etc). I've a lot of friend in US/Canada, who returned back their BD Player and switched to HD-DVD. Dont have to ask why.

I bought one, "The House of Flying Dagger" and see myself the "great picture" from a BD movie I was so dissapointed. When I play it on my notebook (the Acer with BD drive), I can see it clearly on the PowerDVD's OSD that the movie was MPEG2 with DD audio track. It has become a "public secret" that BD with MPEG2 is a disaster...



Perhaps you are lucky because you buy newer movie (perhaps encoded in VC1 - I dont know because I dont have that movie). For this case, I have to admit that the PQ is good, just as good (actually totally the same) with HD-DVD quality.

But how about the sound track? Does it use "old" DD track? Too bad for me since, this is the same format with your old DVD. I dont think BD can support PCM uncompressed until Sony can mass product for its dual layer media. Lossless PCM simply can't fit the 25 GB BD single layer.

Thanks

---

Added on April 10, 2007, 11:21 pmYes you are correct.

The earlier title was poooooorrrrr.... You dont even want to spend US$ 1000-1500 (the price for BD Player at that time) to buy such crappy video (at least at that price point)...

But the latter title (encoded in VC1) should have competitive quality to HD-DVD (actually same quality hehehe).

The final problem is the sound track. BD can't use uncompressed PCM for its single layer BD disc. It just doesnt fit there... So stick with old DD track, unless Sony want to pay more for Dolby TrueHD (as used in HD-DVD).

---

Added on April 10, 2007, 11:26 pmI think if you search around, there are a lot of people complaining about this "BD with MPEG2 compression"... I dont believe at first, just like you, but when I buy one of the "MPEG2 BD" title, "The House of Flying Dagger" then I have to admit that the complain is totally right...

I think BD will beat HD-DVD because you cant get movie produced by Sony's Studio (and their friends) at HD-DVD format... so, like it or not, you have to buy BD for watching Sony's produced movie...

Anyway, Sony has moved to right path by using VC1... the old MPEG2 or AVC Compression at first used for BD was simply disaster...



This post has been edited by xneakers: Apr 10 2007, 11:26 PM

Hahaha... when it comes to VC1, so BD should be on the same level with HD-DVD...

So the problem is on the audio track... Dolby TrueHD is mandatory in HD-DVD spec, but I guess not for BD... We'll see how Sony will handle this...

Yup, but in HD-DVD the lowest audio format is Dolby Digital Plus (1500Kbps), while in BD still stuck with Dolby Digital (640 Kbps). You can see the different and it's quite significant.



Yup, 1500 Kbps vs 640 Kbps Quite significant.

According to Dolby spec for DDPlus:
Bit rate performance of at least 3 Mbps on HD DVD and up to 1.7 Mbps on Blu-ray Disc.



Yes, HD-DVD currently supports DDPlus or Dolby TrueHD, while BD supports DD or PCM Uncompressed.

I dont think PCM Uncompressed is a wise idea. You need at least 45-50 GB (dual layer BD or triple layer HD-DVD) for it, while you can get "same" quality with TrueHD lossless compression...

Thanks.

IIRC (read somewhere), Sony doesnt want to use VC1 due to royalty that they have to pay if they want to use VC1.



They simply dont want pay more money to get the formats. Sony have to pay royalty to use those HD formats.



For sure, because it's MPEG2.



I think Sony has realized it. Some studios already released the BD with VC1 and improving their audio track (perhaps with better HD format support).

They will hehehe...

Err... not that simple... Here's some stupid way to explain...

Find out the standard DVD resolution, I forget the exact number, around 720x480 or something?

Find out the BD resolution, around 1920x1080.

720x480 = 345.600
1920x1080 = 2.073.600

The ratio between the DVD and BD size should be around 1:6.

Let's say the standard Video bitrate for DVD is 7 Mb/s.

Then to achieve same result in 1080p for BD in MPEG2, you will need at least 6 time more bitrate... around 42 Mb/s.

Now check your BD's video bitrate (with MPEG2 compression). Around 17-20 Mb/s only!!! This simple wont produce best result (as we have discussed before, you need around 42 MB/s for achieve high quality movie at 1080p). Blocky image, artefact, etc are the common view for this case.

You may ask, why dont BD use those 42 Mb/s video bitrate? Because, with this bitrate, the 25 GB single layer BD media will not even enough to hold a full length movie! While a 50 GB dual layer BD media is still too expensive.

So, MPEG2 for BD is simply a silly things. You should move to VC1.

With the same bitrate, VC1 simply means better quality than MPEG2, even VC1 can use lower bitrate to achieve same/better result compared with MPEG2 movie (just like comparing MPEG with DivX).

Again, my suggestion, don't buy BD with MPEG2 or you shall regret yourself. I dont pick HD-DVD or BD side. Both are good, only if in VC1.

Thanks.

This post has been edited by xneakers: Apr 13 2007, 11:35 PM

The AVC is still inferior compared with VC1...

So, in addition, forget BD with MPEG2 or AVC

We are talking on the "ideal" condition... which means that the source was as best as we can and then encoded with those 3 codecs as comparison... Sure the result will be VC1>AVC>MPEG2.

You example is very common things happened in our world, so I wont complain... For example in audio world, I like Siti Nurhaliza... but her recording most likely very bad (bass/treble boost, almost no audiophile details, etc)... if there is someone want to put her recording in HDCD/SACD/XRCD formats, then the result wont be better compared to Kari Bremnes or Rebecca Pidgeon in standard CD-A format...

A miss universe will be looked pretty, even without any make up (extra cosmetics)... and on the other side, an "ugly" (sorry) girl will be looked ugly even if you put extra cosmetic on her...

Correct... even I was the one that saying the DVD Region 1 could be better than the BD with MPEG2 (see previous page)... on my case, the "House of Flying Dagger" on BD was so terrible...

But something strange here... if you can create good PQ with MPEG2 compression (example, the CRANK), I believe the result will be MUCH better with VC1... assumed that the source is the same. If you can't get better picture, at least you can save some space with VC1 to hold better audio. So why do you (Sony) use MPEG2? I still cant get the point why Sony forces to use MPEG2... even if you are saying that MPEG2 can produce good PQ... but with VC1, the result should be bettter. Agree?

Finally, I think you are right... it's necessary to review title by title of the movie...

Can anyone please check the bitrate for video on the Crank? I do really need confirmation here...

In my "somewhere around calculation", even the dual layer BD can't find high bitrate MPEG2 with uncompressed audio... So how come the Crank can do that? More information please...