ramey70's forum posts

Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
[QUOTE="miss_kitt3n"]You dont need Sony to tell you that Blu-Ray has won, just check the sales figures.

Right now it's:

Blu-ray>>HD-DVD

Soon:

Blu-Ray>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HD-DVD
mikasa
Actually if you look at movies sold HD DVD > Blu Ray. In fact, Blu Ray has only sold more movies in one month since the start of the format war. And those movies were sold to PS3 gamers who got bored waiting for a decent game to ship so they bought movies to justify their $600 waste of money.

A lot of it has to do with the fact that Bluray is starting to see some decent releases lately. You didn't honestly expect Hitch and Ice Age 2 to outsell Batman Begins et al did you?
Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
[QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="ramey70"]Mikasa, if you are actually serious about understanding the real merits of MPEG-2 as far as movie content goes then I'd suggest you contact Gary Murrell at AVS and he'll give you a complete rundown of the ins & outs of the arguement. He's extremely friendly and VERY knowledgeable regarding the subject. AVS is a great forum and quite often above the childish putdowns and immature debate style that you see here.mikasa
I actually know quite a bit about compression techniques and the reasons mpg4 is "better" than mpg2. Yes MPG2 can be good but it requires a lot more space then VC-1. Which makes VC-1 > mpg2.

In terms of efficiency that would absolutely be the case. However, in terms of PQ it's not. That's why the 50GB bluray releases using MPEG-2 actually look better than their 25GB counterparts. There's enough space to accommodate a properly transfered and encoded MPEG-2 subject.

Wrong again. Are you being obtuse deliberately? You are the first person I have ever heard claim MPG2 gives better PQ. At best it can give comparable PQ at a huge cost in size. but if you allow VC-1 to take up that same amount of space then VC-1 will have better PQ. You got to compare apples to appels. By changing one of the constants you are incorrectly improving the arguments for one codec over the other. You need to compare them on the same playing field. Kind of like comparing AMD to Intel. Would it be fair if I had 4 GB RAM in my AMD64 box and only 256 in my intel Core2 Duo box then said Quake had a better performance on the AMD64 box. Therefore AMD > Intel.

Your problem is that you think I'm being "obtuse" or trying to win an arguement. As if I had a dog in this fight. I own both Bluray and HD-DVD movies. I am simply clearing up the often repeated misconception that MPEG-2 automatically equals bad picture quality. At no time did I ever declare MPEG-2 to be "better" than MPEG-4 or VC-1. You can easily look back at my posts to see that. In fact, I even said that I would prefer VC-1 or MPEG-4. But this all started because you assumed the position that anything using MPEG-2 would look bad. I simply countered that it isn't always the case, especially since some of the best looking movies on HD-DVD or Bluray are encoded in MPEG-2.
Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
[QUOTE="ramey70"]Mikasa, if you are actually serious about understanding the real merits of MPEG-2 as far as movie content goes then I'd suggest you contact Gary Murrell at AVS and he'll give you a complete rundown of the ins & outs of the arguement. He's extremely friendly and VERY knowledgeable regarding the subject. AVS is a great forum and quite often above the childish putdowns and immature debate style that you see here.mikasa
I actually know quite a bit about compression techniques and the reasons mpg4 is "better" than mpg2. Yes MPG2 can be good but it requires a lot more space then VC-1. Which makes VC-1 > mpg2.

In terms of efficiency that would absolutely be the case. However, in terms of PQ it's not. That's why the 50GB bluray releases using MPEG-2 actually look better than their 25GB counterparts. There's enough space to accommodate a properly transfered and encoded MPEG-2 subject.
Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
I would also like to point out that I also don't think that MPEG-2 is neccessarily "better" than VC-1 or MPEG-4.    VC-1 and MPEG-4 are much more efficient in that they require less space and lower bitrates.   If I were actually the one making the decisions I would probably go with VC-1.   However, my stance has been that MPEG-2 can, and sometimes does, produce just as good or superior PQ to MPEG-4 and VC-1.  Kingdom of Heaven, Crank, Black Hawk Down, and Ice Age 2 on Bluray all show that to be true if the transfer is performed correctly.
Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
Mikasa,  if you are actually serious about understanding the real merits of MPEG-2 as far as movie content goes then I'd suggest you contact Gary Murrell at AVS and he'll give you a complete rundown of the ins & outs of the arguement.  He's extremely friendly and VERY knowledgeable regarding the subject.  AVS is a great forum and quite often above the childish putdowns and immature debate style that you see here.
Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="ramey70"][QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="echelon"][QUOTE="mikasa"] Most of those bluray movies are mpg2, so they look slightly better than a DVD upscaled. Where as HD DVD uses vc-1 which blows away mpg2 in compression and picture quality.


I could argue this into the ground but I wont. He said that there are more HD-DVD movies out then Blu-ray movies. I proved him wrong.

And I'm saying bluray may have more movies, but most are a little better than an upscaled DVD. So in other words it's a waste of money. Also the best thing about HD DVD is those discs that are dual sided. DVD on one-side and HD DVD on the other. Best of both worlds.

Where is your numerical evidence that most BD movies are "a little better than an upscaled DVD" based on the fact they use MPEG2? Especially considering some of the best in terms of PQ (Black Hawk Down and Crank) are in fact MPEG2 encoded?

Nearly every review of bluray movies has said that. Now I haven't looked at new reviews in the past month or so, but when I last looked PQ on BluRay was a little better then an upscaled DVD.

You must have looked many months ago. Even in September releases such as Lethal Weapon were scored equally in PQ to their HD-DVD counterpart. Even after then, especially when the dual layer 50GB Blurays were released, Bluray PQ was accepted as equal to HD-DVD. The early gripes you heard about MPEG-2 mainly had to do with the lack of space for it to used with any relevant quality on a single layer 25GB BD. The dual layer BD-50 allows MPEG-2 to acheive great results, and it shows.
Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
[QUOTE="mikasa"][QUOTE="echelon"][QUOTE="mikasa"] Most of those bluray movies are mpg2, so they look slightly better than a DVD upscaled. Where as HD DVD uses vc-1 which blows away mpg2 in compression and picture quality.


I could argue this into the ground but I wont. He said that there are more HD-DVD movies out then Blu-ray movies. I proved him wrong.

And I'm saying bluray may have more movies, but most are a little better than an upscaled DVD. So in other words it's a waste of money. Also the best thing about HD DVD is those discs that are dual sided. DVD on one-side and HD DVD on the other. Best of both worlds.

Where is your numerical evidence that most BD movies are "a little better than an upscaled DVD" based on the fact they use MPEG2? Especially considering some of the best in terms of PQ (Black Hawk Down and Crank) are in fact MPEG2 encoded?
Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
[QUOTE="ramey70"]An MPEG-2 compressed Bluray can, and sometimes does look as good as a MPEG-4/VC-1 compressed HD-DVD or Bluray. The most important factor is the quality of the original source and the subsequent transfer. Some recent MPEG-2 Bluray movies have been rated equally to their HD-DVD counterparts in terms of PQ. In fact, venture to AVS and make the claim that MPEG-2 will always be worse than MPEG-4 or VC-1. I double dare you. You'll be laughed at.

And for what it's worth, most recent Bluray movies have been released in VC-1 or MPEG-4 rendering it a moot point either way.
mikasa
MPG2 can never be as good as VC-1. No matter what. Simple fact. Are you really saying you an MPG2 file that looks almost as good as VC-1 will take up the same space on disc? If so, please post that at AVS and give me the link as I'd like a good laugh. Also it looks like what you're saying is BluRay is still playing catch up and if you just go buy a bluray movie you may be getting one of the crappy MPG2 encoded movies.

Crank is often considered one of the best HD movies in terms of PQ of either HD-DVD or Bluray and is encoded in MPEG2. Did you not know that?
Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
An MPEG-2 compressed Bluray can, and sometimes does look as good as a MPEG-4/VC-1 compressed HD-DVD or Bluray.   The most important factor is the quality of the original source and the subsequent transfer.  Some recent MPEG-2 Bluray movies have been rated equally to their HD-DVD counterparts in terms of PQ.  In fact, venture to AVS and make the claim that MPEG-2 will always be worse than MPEG-4 or VC-1.  I double dare you.  You'll be laughed at.

And for what it's worth, most recent Bluray movies have been released in VC-1 or MPEG-4 rendering it a moot point either way.
Avatar image for ramey70
ramey70

4002

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 ramey70
Member since 2006 • 4002 Posts
[QUOTE="Ps2stony"][QUOTE="andrewwg94"][QUOTE="Ps2stony"]Excuse the off-topicism, but does this mean that 1080p is the best?andrewwg94
1080p is king of the best, (and king of the price too :lol: )

Sooo, would I be able to get a 1080p TV for under $1000? If so what range of sizes would those be?

that's allmost impossible, no less than 2 thousand $. sizes are usually from 40" to 70" i would go with 50"

I don't know where you are shopping but I got a 56" 1080p Samsung delivered to my door for $1,699 and there was zero sales tax.