Will Warner support Blu-ray?

[London Geezer]

You know, i also fail to see what your point is, and i've been following the discussion for a while now.

What's being argued here, really? That a lossy format like VC9 will look worse that a lossy format like MPEG2? Fine, but I'm not sure why lossless formats have been mentioned since they will not be used for anything any time soon.

Obviously lossless formats will look better, but saying that a lossy format can't produce the same quality as another lossy format, only because it's more compressed, is not necessarily right, since it fails to address all other aspects of the formats.

 

[iknowall]

You know, i also fail to see what your point is, and i've been following the discussion for a while now.

My point is always the same, and is also the same of the sony vice president Don Eklund :

Sony Pictures’ senior vice president of advanced technology Don Eklund apparently said
"Advanced (formats) don’t necessarily improve picture quality. Our goal is to present the best picture quality for Blu-ray.Right now, and for the foreseeable future, that’s with MPEG-2.”

What's being argued here, really? That a lossy format like VC9 will look worse that a lossy format like MPEG2? Fine, but I'm not sure why lossless formats have been mentioned since they will not be used for anything any time soon.

Obviously lossless formats will look better, but saying that a lossy format can't produce the same quality as another lossy format, only because it's more compressed, is not necessarily right, since it fails to address all other aspects of the formats.

I never said this, i said that is not possible for a lossy codec dont lose quality with the compression, because only a loseless codec dont lose quality when compress the video.

So given the fact that when you compress more than 3 : 1 it start to lose quality, you can understand that a 20 : 1 compression with mpeg2 preserve more the image quality than a 50 :1 compression with Vc1

 

[London Geezer]

I never said this, i said that is not possible for a lossy codec dont lose quality with the compression, because only a loseless codec dont lose quality when compress the video..

I don't think anyone ever contested that, it's rather logical.
What the others are saying is that a more compressed video won't necessarily look worse than a less compressed video on another format. Because the two formats can be very different in their implementation and efficiency.

So given the fact that when you compress more than 3 : 1 it start to lose quality, you can understand that a 20 : 1 compression with mpeg2 preserve more the image quality than a 50 :1 compression with Vc1

Of course.

But i think we should look at Sony's claims with a little bit of reality-goggles.

Sony have pretty much ALL their movies already recorded in MPEG2 at HD resolutions. Of course they'll want to release them like that without spending even more money converting them all to MPEG4. And obviously they'll say they chose MPEG2 "because it looks better". Not saying it's not true, but what else do you expect them to say?!

 

[rendezvous]

So given the fact that when you compress more than 3 : 1 you start to lose quality, you can understand that a 20 : 1 compression with mpeg2 preserve more the image quality than a 50 :1 compression with Vc1 .

But I don't think that is the question here.

The real question is which of the codecs will bring the best image quality for bitrates that would make it possible to store the whole movie on a disc i.e. same compression levels for both codecs.

I have yet to see a comparison of MPEG2 and MPEG4 at _high_ bitrates, but it is fairly obvious that MPEG4 deliveres higher image quality at low bitrates.

 

[iknowall]

But I don't think that is the question here.

The real question is which of the codecs will bring the best image quality for bitrates that would make it possible to store the whole movie on a disc i.e. same compression levels for both codecs.

Yeah i understand this and i alredy coverred this point in one of my previous post :

"Assuming that 80Mbit/sec give you a professional theater quality , it take about 41Gb for 1 hour of hd video , with a 100gb blu ray disk you can have a professional quality.

If you use half the bitrate, 40Mbit/sec, you can store 2 hour of hd video in a 50Bg blu ray disk with a very high quality also"

Mpeg4 hd is not optimized to have hig bitrate like 40mbit/sec, so it make more sense to use mpeg2.


Is clear that blu ray disk capacity was made with the mpeg2 spec in mind.

but it is fairly obvious that MPEG4 deliveres higher image quality at low bitrates.

Mpeg4 is made to work with low bitrare condition and i agree it look better, mpeg2 would start to show artifact in the same compression condition.

 

[Gubbi]

Only a person with no clue about what a lossless codec is can though this .

You're pure comedy gold.

You wrote:
It don't look just as good, it will look always better in mpeg2 because the video is less compressed and the Vc1 is not a lossless codec.

Logic inference: VC-9 is inferior to MPEG-2 because VC-9 is not loss less -> You think MPEG-2 is loss less.

I stated that a codec wich use a compression ratio higher than 3:1 is not loseless, i also stated that mpeg2hd use a 20:1 compressiona ratio , so it is clear mpeg2 is not loselss.

Nowhere in that post did you state that MPEG2 has a 20:1 compression ratio.

This :
"VC-9 and H.264 gets the same visual fidelity as MPEG-2 at 2-4 times the compression ratios."

and this :
"they conceded that given 3 x the bitrate MPEG2 will look as good."

Are false statement because VC-9 and H.264 are not loseless.

You can't have 2-4 times the compression ratios and have the same visual fidelity.

Here's a little something for you to read. Check out the foreman tests near the bottom.

When the compression ratio in higher than 3:1 the visual fidelty start to decreases.

You wont beleave me ? No problem, i gave you a link about it :

"Absolute absence of losses is a very strong requirement, therefore it is often hard to achieve compression ratios above 3:1. "
http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/lossless_codecs_en.html

Here you go again on lossless codecs. Get a clue.

The inherent irony/sarcasm of your choice of nickname is not lost on me.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[iknowall]

You're pure comedy gold.

You wrote:
It don't look just as good, it will look always better in mpeg2 because the video is less compressed and the Vc1 is not a lossless codec.

Logic inference: VC-9 is inferior to MPEG-2 because VC-9 is not loss less -> You think MPEG-2 is loss less

You sure have alot of fantasy

It means that it will look always better in mpeg2 because it is less compressed, given the fact that the Vc1 codec is not a loseless codec his higer compression ratio than mpeg2 means a worse video quality.

Nowhere in that post did you state that MPEG2 has a 20:1 compression ratio.

You can't read can you ? I stated it at the end of the post, next time try to read better.

No it is not. Given the fact that the original uncompressed hd master have a bitrate of
1.485Gbits per second and given the fact that when you compress more than 3 : 1 it start to lose quality, you can understand that a 20 : 1 compression with mpeg2 preserve more the image quality than a 50 :1 compression with Vc1 .

Here's a little something for you to read. Check out the foreman tests near the bottom.

How many times i have to say please get a clue ?

How many times i have to say you can't read can you ?

First it's obvious that at such low bitrare mpeg4 give better result, it is made fot that .

Second i stated this just in my previous post :

"Mpeg4 is made to work with low bitrare condition and i agree it look better, mpeg2 would start to show artifact in the same compression condition."

Here you go again on lossless codecs. Get a clue.

The inherent irony/sarcasm of your choice of nickname is not lost on me.

Cheers
Gubbi

Here again you dont have any clue because if you state that :

"they conceded that given 3 x the bitrate MPEG2 will look as good"

You said that an mpeg4 video look as good as the mpeg2 one that have 3 times the bitrate.

So this means that an mpeg4 26mbit/sec. with a compression ratio of 60:1 look as good as an mpeg2 80mbit/sec. video. with a compression ratio of 20:1

Given the fact that 3 x less bitrate means also 3 x more compression.

This is just false unless the codec can compress the video with a 60:1 compression ratio and dont lose any quality aganist the mpeg2 one, unless it can apply a 3 times higer compression ratio without lose quality in comparison with the mpeg2 one.

But this is impossible, because only a lossless codec can compress more a video without lose quality , not a lossy codec like mpeg4.

This is why i mentioned the loseless codec, to make you undestand how you are wrong
with your assumption.

Hope that now you will finally undestand

 

[VNZ]

Featurewise, H.264 is completely backwards compatible with MPEG-2. That would render this whole argument largely pointless.

As with every MPEG codec, encoders will take a while to mature -- so I'm sure there's a point in using MPEG-2 over H.264 right now where bitrate is not an issue. In time though, there is no question what so ever that H.264 will beat MPEG-2 in every bitrate condition. Since, at the very worst, you can make it perform equally. Using H444P (4:4:4 chroma at 12 bits per channel) there will certainly be no problem to achieve a superior result. I suppose it will take a couple of years until all necessary software and hardware systems are in place to replace MPEG-2 in the high end, but it will happen.

Edit: The FRExt overview explains the high end extensions to H.264 pretty well.

 

[iknowall]

Featurewise, H.264 is completely backwards compatible with MPEG-2. That would render this whole argument largely pointless.

As with every MPEG codec, encoders will take a while to mature -- so I'm sure there's a point in using MPEG-2 over H.264 right now where bitrate is not an issue. In time though, there is no question what so ever that H.264 will beat MPEG-2 in every bitrate condition. Since, at the very worst, you can make it perform equally. Using H444P (4:4:4 chroma at 12 bits per channel) there will certainly be no problem to achieve a superior result. I suppose it will take a couple of years until all necessary software and hardware systems are in place to replace MPEG-2 in the high end, but it will happen.

Edit: The FRExt overview explains the high end extensions to H.264 pretty well.

In such hi end condition like 4:4:4 12bit video there are alredy today porfessional codecs that blow h.264 out of the water .

Dvcpro hd , hdcam sr , all of those professional codecs blow h.264 out of the water in temr of quality, and of course blow mpeg2 also.

So why waste time trying to adapt h.264 to do what you can alredy do with those codecs and with a better result ?

This dont make sense to me.

 

[War]

h.264 was made for the net not for hd dvd or blu ray.

 

[AlphaWolf]

h.264 was made for the net not for hd dvd or blu ray.

mpeg2 wasn't made for blu-ray either.

 

[VNZ]

I thought all this was about MPEG-2 versus H.264, though.

For non-linear editing systems I suppose there's not too much point in switching from all these proprietery codecs to H.264. For any kind of distribution it does make sense to use a non-proprietary one, though. And here H.264 will replace MPEG-2. Why? Because it can and will produce at least as good results as MPEG-2 (read: better results) at any bitrate, even the higher extremes.

I wouldn't be too surprised if we see high end editing systems using intraframe only H.264 at 4:2:2/4:4:4 10/12 bits in the future, though. It's a very versatile format, featuring even lossless encoding.

 

[War]

Well i would not put it that way.

I would have said mpeg2 was not made for HD.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Well i would not put it that way.

I would have said mpeg2 was not made for HD.

/agree

 

[iknowall]

I thought all this was about MPEG-2 versus H.264, though.

If you talk about hi bitrate condition, 4:4:4 12bit , this is a professional realm and you have alredy professional codec used in those condition.

For non-linear editing systems I suppose there's not too much point in switching from all these proprietery codecs to H.264. For any kind of distribution it does make sense to use a non-proprietary one, though.And here H.264 will replace MPEG-2. Why? Because it can and will produce at least as good results as MPEG-2 (read: better results) at any bitrate, even the higher extremes.

If it use the same compression ratio at hi bitrate it wont give you a better result, so why change ?

And if you are such in condition to have an hi bitrate this means you can use a professional codec.

If you have to change from mpeg2 make more sense using a superior codec than mpeg2 like for example dvpro hd.

Dvcpro hd quality blow h.264 out of the water at any hi bitrate , so why waste time with
h.264 ?

To decode it you also have need a lot less power than to decode mpeg2hd and mpeg4.

I wouldn't be too surprised if we see high end editing systems using intraframe only H.264 at 4:2:2/4:4:4 10/12 bits in the future, though. It's a very versatile format, featuring even lossless encoding.

Today you alredy can use dvpcro hd and you dont have even need an hi end editing system because the codec itself is not cpu heavy .

 

[iknowall]

mpeg2 wasn't made for blu-ray either.

But it was made for the Tv broadcast environment wich is still an hi end professional environment .

 

[TrungGap]

I wouldn't be too surprised if we see high end editing systems using intraframe only H.264 at 4:2:2/4:4:4 10/12 bits in the future, though. It's a very versatile format, featuring even lossless encoding.

Yep, especially with FRExt amendment to h.264, otherwise the only thing that kept h.264 from being utilized is cost and its new-ness. Imagine buying a movie with 3+ version on it, Ultrahighres, Personal Video Record format and mobile devices format...the consumers will never need to rip and encode it for themselves (of course with DRM).

 

[aaronspink]

Only a loseless codec give the same visual fidelity with more compression. VC-9 and H.264 are NOT loseless, you seems to miss this point.

No, I'm pretty sure you are missing the point. For a given bit rate, the more advanced codec can achieve higher image fidelity. This isn't rocket science, the same thing happens in audio codecs where, as over time, more advanced codec are created that give either better quality at the same bit rates or the same quality at lower bit rates. MPEG2 is very old as far as video compression goes.

He know that he is talking about beleave me it is his work.

It may be his work, but it doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about or is even being honest with what he knows.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[aaronspink]

B
Are false statement because VC-9 and H.264 are not loseless.

You can't have 2-4 times the compression ratios and have the same visual fidelity.

When the compression ratio in higher than 3:1 the visual fidelty start to decreases.

Then explain AAC and MPEG2 Layer 3 audio compression and how AAC is able to acheive either higher fidelity at the same data rates or same fidelity are lower data rates.

These things happen, technology advances, our ability to compress better at the same quality advances.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

 

[aaronspink]

I am saying it is not possible for a lossy codec dont lose quality with more compression, because only a loseless codec can do this.

More efficient mean with and higher compression ratio, but do not means he don't lose quality with the compression, because only a loseless codec dont lose quality with the compression.

And I'm saying you don't know wtf you are talking about. It is possible for a different lossy codec to have either the same quality at higher rates of compression or better quality at the same rates of compression. If you don't want to believe, want to refute volumes of research, or just want to troll, go ahead.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.