[PS3] Blu ray playback tested

It does make sense, avi is just a wrapper around other formats (thus why you can have an avi file that won't play on your machine even though you can play others).

Compressing a master makes sense, you take it to the lowest bit rate that is still lossless, mpeg 2 can do compression of a file while still leaving it lossless, why take up more space than you need when you can restore the output perfectly, heck you could output it, screen capture and make it an animated png if you wanted.

MPEG 2 is iirc the mastering format of choice since it is lossless at relatively low bit rates (still significantly above the rate we get on DVD / other formats).

 

What the hell are you talking about? MPEG2 is LOSSY.

And what exactly do Amoeba have to do with VC-1? I've never seen artifacts approaching that description.

 

Lol you should take a look at the AVS thread commenting this interview, pure comedy genius with some hilarious photoshop stuff... Don should seek a job at comedy central

 

Compressing a master makes absolutely no sense. As the name suggest, it's the source which you derive all your copies from. You don't compress unless you absolutely have to...
E.g.: You don't convert your lossless audio master to mp3 and use it as blueprint to manufacture CDs.

The same thing applies to video masters. You just don't compress to MPEG-2, uncompress again and afterwards encode it to VC-1. It will look by far worse than a straight master to VC-1 conversion. and vice versa!

 

Sigh...even in B3D, the same MPEG-2 vs VC1 arguments exist...


MPEG-2 CAN give a phenomenal picture, as can be witnessed by anyone with either a D-VHS player or some of the best that have appeared on Blu-ray Disc. The issue at hand for most people such as myself when on AVS is that until the PS3 launched the movie quality was never BETTER on Blu-Ray. It was always equal or slightly softer (don't even think about blaming the Samsung NR chip on all of the problems) than the HD DVD, yet the players were twice the cost. So the argument was typically why should I pay double for equal or lower quality? Now that the PS3 is here (if you can find one), it should render the argument moot.

I would posit that those who claim one side is more brainwashed than the other have never owned ANY HD format, and are merely disseminating their own form of FUD against either MSFT or Sony.

Both formats are phenomenal, both compression schemes are wonderful, just admit you hate one company over another and move on.

Full Disclosure: I have been an owner of HDTV for 4+ years now, D-VHS from the start (1080i MPEG-2), HD cable from whenever it was offered in my area, and now an owner of the 360 HD DVD player. Also, while Black Hawk Down does look absolutely stunning, I will never EVER, watch the movie again...what a clusterfuck of a Special Forces operation, that was SOCOM at its worst moment, EVER,

 

Lord Darkblade was talking about lossless compression though, which does make sense. You may save half the storage you'd otherwise needed for uncompressed footage. This would only make sense if the (de)compression could be managed in real-time though, as you'll want to be working on the data, and waiting a few seconds for each frame to load wouldn't be welcome!

I don't know if MPEG2 supports a lossless compression mode, but I don't think it does.

 

I should get my eyes check-out. Did glance over the lossless part. Anyway, AFAIK, there's no lossless MPEG-2 compression.

 

What is this real-time that you speak of?

 

I love the Black Hawk Down movie alot. It's one of my favorite movies of all time. But you hate for it is very justified and I never heard someone say they didn't like the movie for the reasons you listed. Quite different, yet intriging.

 

I don't think so, MPEG2 is about as lossless as a JPEG, i.e. not at all.

 

I don't hate the movie at all, I hate the situation my brothers were put in, because of the lack of common sense from the top. But this is a conversation better left for RPSC...if you haven't been in one of those situations...you wouldn't understand. Let me make this clear though, at no time was I ever deployed to Somalia. Having been through my share of "scrapes and bruises", even while still "hating" every branch but the Navy, I've got love for my bretheren.

I'd also like to take this time to say that the only reason I bought the BHD video game, is because unlike the other games, they donated 10% of their proceeds, to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. ADVERTISEMENT: Anyone that sells on ebay, if you are in the giving spirit, the Naval Special Warfare Foundation is listed as one of the charities.

While I am mostly open about my past, I agree with many of the familes named in the book and movie, that they should not have been named at all...

 

Agreed, but what about software, which format has most studio support? Which format has the most potential? This is what is discussed among those that are beyond the both formats are great. Call them phanboys if you want, but it´s legimate questions for some. Though at some point (if Microsoft can keep HD-DVD alive) the players will be so cheap you just have double everywhere you use them

 

While technically studio support is important, it might be more important to note, how large the catalogs are of those that support one format over another. Does it matter, it publisher x supports format a, if they only have 113 movies? If your favorite movies of all time are in that list maybe so...if not, out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Potential is a very hard thing to measure, and often walks the very fine tightrope of subjectivity vs objectivity.

We know your stance on any and everything Microsoft related, you have made that clear in your posts, let me just say that just because something may be PR does not make it untrue. VC1 is hands down better at compression, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. The issue becomes if something is transparent to the master at whatever bitrate, the "superior" format cannot make it look any better. I think the HD DVD vs BDR argument should be left in the storage medium arguements and not in picture quality debates. BD50 is FINALLY! here, transparent to the master using VC1 and transparent to the master using MPEG-2 are irrelevant if they both fit on their given media.

 

He's reviewing the PS3 on what it does now. It does not upconvert DVDs unfortunately. And no 1080i is a huge problem. A lot of people don't have 1080p sets and won't be able to take advantage of 1080 lines of resolution without a 1080i option. Using a controller is terribly clunky compared to a remote.

Also I have Xmen 3 on PS3 and the BluRay menu seems to stutters whenever I pull it up during the movie. Does it do that for anyone else? I know on the HD-DVD Add-on its a smooth transition when I pull up menus.

 

I used the menus for Tall Nights and it was just as quick as any menu should be.

 

Not slow. Choppy. As if it's moving at 1 frame per second when it pops out. If anybody remembers how the 360 Guide use to stutter when it popped out when the 360 launched last year you'll understand wat I mean.

 

Yeah it was somewhat choppy. It popped like once or twice. It came up quick, but did this pop then pop thing. I notice it for a second, but over looked it because the menu speed was fast.

 

I guess your own of the "brainwashed" guys from AVSFORUM if you think that:

I think you will find lots of people thinking that AVC will "easily" beat VC-1 in the long run. And it has been suggested by several people that MPEG2 can hold it´s own on a SL-BD as long as the encoder doesn´t suck ass (realtime is not the way to go) and it´s around 20-22mbit average.

And you know as well as i do that the discussion after the "transparent encode" is about Peak Bitrates, and number of Audio Tracks and what codecs that are in.

About the studio support:

Hardware:

As it´s crystal clear it´s not Sony vs Microsoft, it´s more like Toshiba+Microsoft against the world, and if you read my other posts you would have noticed i planned on buying a HD-DVD player along time ago. I was actually supposed to get one next week with 6 movies, but sadly my friend that was on a US visit didn´t come through. While HD-DVD is alive i might as well enjoy those titles since it will take ages before they hit Blu-Ray.

 

It's no mystery that the VC-1 spec is newer/more advanced than MPEG-2, so given good encoders for both VC-1 should provide better results at a given bitrate. Same goes for AVC compared to VC-1, except for the slight grain-killing quality of AVC (which should be resolved with FGM eventually).

 

More advanced doesn't necessarily mean better quality. You could have a more advanced codec that gets much better low bit-rate compression quality, but has lower quality in higher bitrates.

...where that bitrate is below a threshold point where the compression ration is so low that the quality loss becomes a non issue. The idea behind MPEG 2's suitability is that when you have 50 GB's available, you can use high bitrates, at which point VC1 and h.264 haven't got a quality advantage. At that point, around 40 Mbps IIRC, people generally can't tell any difference between the codecs and the original. So if you can go that high in your bitrate, it doesn't matter which codec you use for quality issues, and you can pick the one that is most convenient.

That's the theory anyway.