I agree with "riverside_guy"'s comment above about film grain. How many times have we read the unjustified complaints about U2: RATTLE AND HUM's visual grain [on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray], and yet people are ignorant of the fact that this was indeed the director's intent!
FYI: I viewed the movie in the theater, also own both the full-screen and widescreen DD5.1 LaserDiscs, plus the standard DVD and HD-DVD, and ALL of the images project the added grain-effect from the director's D.of.Photography's use of various cameras. You'll notice that later in the film [color segments], with the 35mm cameras there is hardly any grain, compared to the earlier B/W segments.
Again, the grain was intential from the director!
As for the previous poster's rebuttal to my post, stating: "This phenomenon is engendered by efforts to push too much detail through MPEG2 at too low bitrates" - again this person is nuts!
FYI: MOST of the Blu-ray MPEG2 movies I own or have rented have moderately HIGH (not low!) bit rates [between 15 to 20mps], especially in comparison to standard DVD.
Yes, VC1 and MPEG4 have their benefits [and can be used at lower bitrates too], but a proper mastering with MPEG2, at the higher bitrates that Sony has used on most every title except the first ones, have produced outstanding quality Blu-ray images.
Blu-ray (and the various codecs) offer quality that's just as good as HD-DVD, although many of the Blu-ray discs provide either none or few (lame) extras, compared to the same on standard DVD and HD-DVD.
I may not have made myself entirely clear. Let me be specific. 15-20Mbps is not a high bitrate for 1080p24 video. Not even for AVC or VC-1. 25Mbps AVC or VC-1 _average_ is about right for most movies as long as we're talking about a true mastering job with multiple passes. 30Mbps is far preferable.
To repeat: MPEG2 at 1080p24 and at the bitrates in question is roughly one-third as efficient as the other two codecs. Please realize what this means: If you want the same detail you get from AVC at 25Mbps, you need to give MPEG2 75Mbps.
I have made test encodes with the appropriate software. I know these things for a fact. It's not reasonable to expect just anyone to have the access or the inclination to perform similar tests (actually, it's quite easy to test MPEG2 and AVC) so I'll end by saying take the facts or continue ignoring the evidence and the general concensus.
For those looking for a device strictly for reading, the new Kobo is a nice little option. It's small enough to slip into a pocket, can do more with a PDF than the competition, and at $129, it's $10 cheaper than both the Nook and Kindle WiFi.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I agree with "riverside_guy"'s comment above about film grain. How many times have we read the unjustified complaints about U2: RATTLE AND HUM's visual grain [on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray], and yet people are ignorant of the fact that this was indeed the director's intent!
FYI: I viewed the movie in the theater, also own both the full-screen and widescreen DD5.1 LaserDiscs, plus the standard DVD and HD-DVD, and ALL of the images project the added grain-effect from the director's D.of.Photography's use of various cameras. You'll notice that later in the film [color segments], with the 35mm cameras there is hardly any grain, compared to the earlier B/W segments.
Again, the grain was intential from the director!
As for the previous poster's rebuttal to my post, stating: "This phenomenon is engendered by efforts to push too much detail through MPEG2 at too low bitrates" - again this person is nuts!
FYI: MOST of the Blu-ray MPEG2 movies I own or have rented have moderately HIGH (not low!) bit rates [between 15 to 20mps], especially in comparison to standard DVD.
Yes, VC1 and MPEG4 have their benefits [and can be used at lower bitrates too], but a proper mastering with MPEG2, at the higher bitrates that Sony has used on most every title except the first ones, have produced outstanding quality Blu-ray images.
Blu-ray (and the various codecs) offer quality that's just as good as HD-DVD, although many of the Blu-ray discs provide either none or few (lame) extras, compared to the same on standard DVD and HD-DVD.
I may not have made myself entirely clear. Let me be specific. 15-20Mbps is not a high bitrate for 1080p24 video. Not even for AVC or VC-1. 25Mbps AVC or VC-1 _average_ is about right for most movies as long as we're talking about a true mastering job with multiple passes. 30Mbps is far preferable.
To repeat: MPEG2 at 1080p24 and at the bitrates in question is roughly one-third as efficient as the other two codecs. Please realize what this means: If you want the same detail you get from AVC at 25Mbps, you need to give MPEG2 75Mbps.
I have made test encodes with the appropriate software. I know these things for a fact. It's not reasonable to expect just anyone to have the access or the inclination to perform similar tests (actually, it's quite easy to test MPEG2 and AVC) so I'll end by saying take the facts or continue ignoring the evidence and the general concensus.