How come VC-1 is such a popular choice on Blu-Ray? It seems like most movies today are encoded in VC-1, whilst some are encoded in MPEG-4 AVC. A few, very rarely, are encoded in MPEG-2. Now, MPEG-2 I understand the lack thereof: it's old, outdated and requires a much higher bitrate for the same amount of picture quality. But MPEG-4 AVC certainly competes very well against VC-1 in terms of quality and bitrate ratio. What's the deal here? Is Microsoft bribing the movie studios to encode their Blu-Ray movies in VC-1?
------------------------------- 97 Estoril/Black M3/4/5 "Although we've experienced an M3 sedan with an automatic, our test car came fitted as God intended, with a 5-speed manual ..." Road & Track May 1997, testing the M3 Sedan
What, you think people choose the video format on Blu-ray for quality reasons? The authoring houses involved in these decisions often wouldn't know good video quality if it hit them upside the head with a sledgehammer. Plus, at the bitrates Blu-ray allows, if your encode has any visual difference from your source, you're doing it wrong, whether with VC-1 or H.264, or even MPEG-2.
------------------------------- The only TRUE engineering .... IS GERMAN ENGINEERING!!
So okay, we can rule out the quality factor for the sake of argument (I'm still convinced that MPEG-4 AVC requires much less size storage with the same quality, which is definitely a plus, but anyway). What other incentives do movie studios have to use VC-1 over MPEG-4 AVC? Is it encoding time? Somehow, I doubt that would be an issue.
Here you go: It's a great souce of info andt there's also . And as far as the inloop filter goes I actually was leading to the fact that there seem to be discs where it has been turned off for AVC - thus giving the whole thing a more grittier look - one that you hardly ever see with VC-1.
Search
Users
Entrance
RE: VC-1 over MPEG-4 AVC on Blu-Ray?
