Good news for Sony : Digigami MPEG-2 Encoder destroy h.264

[Mmmkay]

But that information is moot, isn't it? Surely it's taken that the same techniques were used unless stated otherwise? In the case of the study, if VBR was used, we can assume it was used across the board. If CBR was used, we can likewise assume it was used across the board.

I don't think you can fairly come to this conclusion. They were comparing FRExt's H.264 performance against a known standard for MPEG-2 delivery, not MPEG-2 itself. DVHS is bound by its CBR limitations, it would not make sense for them to demonstrate the potentials of H.264 as a viable Blu-Ray video format if they were to limit it to CBR. Remember, the point of the study is not to discredit MPEG-2 as a delivery format, but to demonstrate how good H.264 compares against a competing product. If they were comparing performance against the equivalent Blu-Ray MPEG-2 content then I think they would have to declare variable or constant bitrates.

I've not done a study myself, but I am willing to bet that the higher the compression ratio, the more important a variable bitrate becomes. And as such, to get the results they did in their study for an 8Mbps H.264 stream, I would have to assume they encoded it as VBR.

The study isn't disingenuous because they are comparing it against a product, not a technology.

[edit] Just to say, this Digigami study is incredibly bogus and I wish this conversation we're having about the FRExt trials was happening elsewhere

 

[chachi]

The test say 16 Mbps h.264 look better than 20Mbps mpeg2, but basing on what digigami say, they can make mpeg2 perform better and have a 16mbps mpeg2 with the same quality or look better than the 16mbps h.264.

You have to understand that the Digigami thing is a press release, they want to sell people on using their codec so they can make money. The main advantages to MPEG2 are that it uses fewer resources and probably has cheaper licensing than the more modern codecs.

The thing scooby quoted that said the 8mbps h.264 video was judged superior to the 20mbps MPEG2 is important not so much for what it means for HD discs, but because it's inevitable that we're moving to network delivery of video just like we've seen with audio. Think about the CD - who's going to buy one in 5 years? Sure, the quality is better than you can get online, but the difference either isn't apparent, or isn't important enough to most consumers to outweigh the convenience. Labels will someday realize that shipping around millions of plastic discs around and paying stores for placement doesn't make any sense and they'll go the way of the cassette. The same thing will happen with video. We're at a point now where it isn't really feasible to do this with HD quality video but connection speeds are constantly increasing and the video codecs are getting better. You can already see the smart companies lining up business models - GoogleVideo, Apple's iTunes, etc.

 

[supervegeta]

You have to understand that the Digigami thing is a press release, they want to sell people on using their codec so they can make money. The main advantages to MPEG2 are that it uses fewer resources and probably has cheaper licensing than the more modern codecs.

No it is not just a press release they have all the video sample on their site you can download and see by yourself that they are able to encode mpeg2 files with a very low bitrate and an hig video quality.

They are not trying to sell their mpeg2 codec , they are trying to sell their hardware.

Every hardware encoder can give a different quality result, so i don't change my idea that a sigle test is not rapresentative of all the hardware cofigurations because i can point out that another test with another encoder give a different result and this make the scooby test not rappresentative to me.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Remember, the point of the study is not to discredit MPEG-2 as a delivery format, but to demonstrate how good H.264 compares against a competing product. If they were comparing performance against the equivalent Blu-Ray MPEG-2 content then I think they would have to declare variable or constant bitrates.

Perhaps. Reading the introduction again it seems targetted at demonstrating how Panasonic's implementation of FRExt compares with existing DVHS. I dont see anything clearly showing VBR or CBR though. We can take CBR as granted for the MPG2 encoding if that's the case with DVHS. If FRExt only comes in VBR flavour then that cements that, but if it's selectable the h.264 result could be either or by my reckoning.

Though really, I don't see why they're bothering anyway! The BluRay consortiuum set out to create a large capacity disc capable of high bitrates. Why are they concerned to evaluate low-bitrate codecs? Especially seeing the results suggests that their FRExt at 16 Mbps footage was pretty much as good as the original (which I read as uncompressed) footage! Why create a super-sized disc format if anything above 16 Mbps will go unnoticed? Okay, BluRay isn't just about HD movies. Maybe the specs were defined and finding they had room for high-bitrate MPEG2, some were happy to settle for that for convenience

 

[chachi]

No it is not just a press release...

Well, it's obviously just a press release, not that there's anything wrong with that. The video samples are nice but the h.264 stuff I've seen has all been better, but that could be due to the source material. Firefox + noscript have conspired to make me write this over again for the third time so I'll just skip to the chase and post the link to a thread discussing the Digigami encoder by people more into video than videogames:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=96145&pp=20

 

[supervegeta]

Well, it's obviously just a press release, not that there's anything wrong with that.

What i mean by saying it is not just a press release is that they have for real clip valitating their assertions that MPEG-2 VBR can produce HD encoded at standard def DVD bitrates :

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=756445&postcount=81

Reading the thread you posted and the digigami blog i found more confirmation that the quality of the video depend a lot on the encoder and the hardware used.

This validate my idea that the scooby test can't be rapresentative of every possible encoder on the market.

 

[scooby_dooby]

What i mean by saying it is not just a press release is that they have for real clip valitating their assertions that MPEG-2 VBR can produce HD encoded at standard def DVD bitrates

You realize that these guys sell MPEG2 encoders right? I prefer independant studies, this is a sales pitch.

 

[supervegeta]

You realize that these guys sell MPEG2 encoders right? I prefer independant studies, this is a sales pitch.

As far as they proof what they are saying is true ( and they did providing real mpeg2 hd clips with low bitrate and good video quality on their site ) i don't care if they say this to sell more hardware, that's what they are supposed to do, i care about the information itself.

The test you posted can also be really outdated because you always have new encoders or newer version of the same encoder coming out every time with better performance.

Your test don't even say what hardware they used.

 

[Mr. Hanky]

You realize that these guys sell MPEG2 encoders right? I prefer independant studies, this is a sales pitch.

Unfortunately, the "independent study" you prefer to cite does not address vbr mpg2 picture quality, as it would be implemented on a retail disc format. Judging from later posts in the topic, the premise that they have compared vbr mpg4 to cbr mpg2, and got the feedback results they did, is quite a possibility. That should worry you, if you really hold value over studies that have relevancy (especially, if you intend to keep citing the study as the gospel, as you have been doing). The study simply would be showing the potential that mpg4 can reach, but it isn't exactly referencing the best example of mpg2- just a "standard" flavor of it.

Seller of mpeg encoder hardware or not, the design of the encoder has quite a LOT to do with the quality of the video, regardless of the series of the algorithm. No doubt, the best mpg4 encoder will outperform the best mpg2 encoder at lower bitrates, but such is not guaranteed in real practice. Mpg4, itself, will not guarantee superior results, if the encoder hardware/software is "el cheapo", for instance. Likewise, it is certainly possible that a well established, professional-grade mpg2 encoder suite could outperform it in PQ, given suitable bitrate. So if a company decides to publicize that they have an mpg2 solution that rivals typical mpg4 performance, that is no small claim. They would fully expect intense scrutiny, so they must feel confident they can make good on the claim (otherwise the whole exercise would have been pure product suicide, and why would they risk that over some PR?). I'm not saying that substantiates the claim, but it shouldn't be discounted outright just because they "sell" merchandise. You should keep your mind open to the possibility, if you haven't already reviewed their materials and samples behind the claim.

 

[chachi]

Seller of mpeg encoder hardware or not, the design of the encoder has quite a LOT to do with the quality of the video, regardless of the series of the algorithm. No doubt, the best mpg4 encoder will outperform the best mpg2 encoder at lower bitrates, but such is not guaranteed in real practice. Mpg4, itself, will not guarantee superior results, if the encoder hardware/software is "el cheapo", for instance. Likewise, it is certainly possible that a well established, professional-grade mpg2 encoder suite could outperform it in PQ, given suitable bitrate.

Most encoders (including this one) are software running on PCs. The quality of the encoder definitely makes a difference but there's question about whether this one is even all that good.

The best h.264 encoder is going to produce better results than the best MPEG-2 encoder most of the time. I don't think you'll find too many arguments saying otherwise from any independent sources. However that's not what the Digigami guy is saying, contrary to the thread title. He's saying that their encoder can produce HD quality movies at DVD bitrates and that the resulting movies can be played on lower end hardware. I think where most people here are concerned this comes down to a Sony thing and the PS3 supporters are invested into the success of Blu-Ray where Sony (but not anyone else, AFAIK) is using MPEG-2 for their BR movies. At a high enough bit-rate the difference between the two codecs isn't going to matter, people won't be able to tell the difference, and with the storage capacity of BR Sony can probably get away with it. That doesn't mean that MPEG-2 is better or the claims have merit, it just means that in this application it might not (probably won't?) matter.

After I posted that thread I read some more and it seemed kind of harsh on the Digigami guy, which wasn't my intent but there was a link in there to an AVSforum post by Ben Waggoner who is a video guru and he puts things into perspective. I don't think too many people who are in the know would have anything bad to say about him even if he does work at MS now.