Sonic unveils HD-Series AVC encoder for Blu-ray releases

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Sonic unveils HD-Series AVC encoder for Blu-ray releases.

 April 18, 2005 06:30 AM US Eastern  Timezone Sonic Introduces  Mastering-Quality H.264/AVC High Definition Encoding for Next Generation Disc  Formats; Sonic HD-Series AVC Encoder to Enable...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10166-Sonic-unveils-HD-Series-AVC-encoder-for-Blu-ray-releases.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10166-Sonic-unveils-HD-Series-AVC-encoder-for-Blu-ray-releases.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

Well there you go - this is the end of DVD - only when I was getting used to MPEG-2. I can’t believe that we have a LARGE capacity format and instead of using high bit rate MPEG-2 25mbit or uncompressed video they are the using the CRAPPY H.264 which CLAIM to deliver image quality at lower bit rate… THey fool a lot of people but on large TV sets and if you look closely you will notice that H.264 has visible artifacts and in some scenes worse than the same one encoded with MPEG-2. Can’t believe MPEG-2 is now obsolete, only to be replaced with an inferior product.


#3

on large TV sets and if you look closely you will notice that H.264 has visible artifacts and in some scenes worse than the same one encoded with MPEG-2
Since I cannot verify this statement, I wonder if this scenario is due to insufficient parameters used to encode in H.264 or if there is a fundamental insufficiency in the actual codec. Any ideas or experts on this?


#4

I have verified this - While the film industry uses industrial quality codecs which give far better results than consumer codecs, I am still worried that the mainstream user will be forced to use inferior shite! Having used MAINCONCEPT’s H.264 I was utterly disappointed in the quality, same video clip side by side MPEG-2 9mbit vs. H.264 - Mind you there are some cases where H.264 is better, there are other times where I found MPEG-2 to be better. Now in some cases H.264 is superior to MPEG-2 when dealing with low quality consumer MPEG-2 codecs. I always laugh when people say how DivX is better than DVD or near DVD quality, these people should watch those clips on a large TV… Much like the same people who said MP3 128kbit is “CD-QUALITY” when it is FAR from it… Now the same thing is happening with video…we are being duped!


#5

My TV is not so large, 43" Pioneer PDP-435 BUT I find divx to be of great quality on it. I use an xbox as my front end, with the LAN streaming video from the shared drives in my PC. Works great. I would also say, at low bitrates, ie. 1500kbit, that a DV source encoded to divx looks 500% better than the same source encoded to mpeg-2 at the same bitrate and resolution. How this would be at 25mbit, I have never tried so dont know. with movies the divx will NEVER look better than DVD because the source is nearly always DVD…


#6

H.264 and MPEG-4 was originally suited to low bitrate applications and will still be so. As far as i know, I have used Nero Digital H.264 encoder - and such artifacts are present depending mostly on bitrate, have the bitrate to ~3mbps and you probably would not notice the difference between DVD MPEG-2 (at around 6mbps) as long as you take the time to do a analysis stage … etc. On a large TV - i reckon H.264 is better value - bitrate vs. quality.


#7

I’m not sure who says divx looks better than dvd. I think most say divx looks close to dvd. Xvid and Nero digital are even better though and it becomes harder to pick the difference between those and dvd. Rimmer66, how big is your tv? You should probably wait and see higher bitrate H.264 used for HD before making any premature judgments. :slight_smile: