MPEG2 or H.264 for Blu-ray?

[SameSelf]

OK, maybe a stupid question here. But when I am in Encore, I have a choice to encode as either MPEG2 or H.264. I assume that H.264 is the preferred choice. Am I right? Then again, why does a choice exist? Are there cases where I might want to encode a BD as MPEG2?

Thanks as always!

[smrpix]

H.264 is more modern and a bit more efficient -- but either will work fine. If your current source is already Blu Ray compliant, stick with whatever it is.

[newpball]

A bit more?

I thought the general consensus was you need about twice the size of H.262 to match the quality of H.264.

[smrpix]

A bit more?

I thought the general consensus was you need about twice the size of H.262 to match the quality of H.264.

That's an oversimplified generalization whose validty diminishes as you get into Blu Ray level bitrates.

[SameSelf]

hmmm, so if I understand correctly, MPEG2 exists for MPEG2 sources. Makes sense, I guess. I have never come across any HD MPEG2 sources. All the HD footage I have seen is MPEG4.

Footage is MPEG2? --> BD MPEG2
Footage is MP4? --> BD H.264

EDIT: On further thought, all my HDV footage is MPEG2. So, I guess if I were to author a BD with that, I should use MPEG2?

[poisondeathray]

hmmm, so if I understand correctly, MPEG2 exists for MPEG2 sources. Makes sense, I guess. I have never come across any HD MPEG2 sources. All the HD footage I have seen is MPEG4.

Footage is MPEG2? --> BD MPEG2
Footage is MP4? --> BD H.264

EDIT: On further thought, all my HDV footage is MPEG2. So, I guess if I were to author a BD with that, I should use MPEG2?

No it doesn't matter what the source was. The codec used for compression doesn't care - all it "sees" is uncompressed data (video is decoded/uncompressed before it's recompressed)

At typical BD bitrates, the differences are usually smaller. The lower the bitrate , the larger the advantage for h.264

I'm being nitpicky here, but if you're talking about AME or Encore specifically (Adobe's license Rovi/Mainconcept version) - the BD encoder tends to be smoother for h.264 (fewer fine details kept), with typically slight problems in gradients and shadows. Their MPEG2 encoder will result in noiser encodes, yet keep those fine details. In scenes with high motion, their MPEG2 encodes will tend to "break up" and have fine pixellation. Neither are very good for BD IMO, but your average viewer probably won't be able to tell the difference at BD bitrates on typcial footage

[SameSelf]

That is very interesting feedback especially the nitpicky part, thank you.

Regarding the AME encoder, I have heard it said (here and other places) that x264 beats the socks off on any other H.264 encoder. So, maybe I should just focus on exporting my timelines out of PP to x264 for BD authoring? Of course, I need to work on developing a BD compliant script for ffmpeg. But that is another problem.

FWIW: Sony's Blu-ray compliant encoder costs $40,000!

[smrpix]

I have heard it said (here and other places) that x264 beats the socks off on any other H.264 encoder.

More Exaggeration. It's better, but your feet will remain snug. AME can directly utilize x.264 vfw if you export as .avi, but...

I need to work on developing a BD compliant script for ffmpeg. But that is another problem.

...that is a HUGE problem, even if it sounds easy. AFAIK no one's actually done it to the complete satisfaction of Encore or TMPGenc.

FWIW: Sony's Blu-ray compliant encoder costs $40,000!

Sure, but DVD Architect is slightly less.

[poisondeathray]

Encore is ok with x264 BD, DVDA only ok with progressive x264 (it has problems with muxing MBAFF)

At high BD bitrates, there are minor differences between AVC encoders. Mid range bitrates, there are visible differences, even to your average viewer. At low bitrates, there are big differences.

There are many reviews, comparisons posted. Have a look, but more importantly , do some tests yourself and see for your own eyes.

The major weakness of AME's AVC encoder is unbalanced quantization - it's heavily weighted towards "bright" luma blocks. You end up with crappy shadow detail, banding along gradients. Image is softer and fine details are erroded - it's as if a mild low pass blur filter was applied. These are "signature" artifacts of Mainconcept/Rovi AVC. Anyone who deals with compression and encoding frequently can almost identify them immediately - it's that obvious to the trained eye. The higher end SKU's in Rovi's line give you access to other settings that can help with this somewhat, but those versions are not licensed by Adobe. (They have to pay more money for access to more features).