AVC vs VC-1 comparison?

[twolfe18]

throughout this thread, everyone has been talking about content on BD and HD-DVD, but what about TV? AFAIK there is a lot of AVC content out there on TV and not so much VC-1. why is AVC more popular on TV and not on disc formats?

i mean, for HD-DVD there is sort of an answer for that, being that every time a movie is encoded in VC-1, MS and all the HD-DVD cronies get paid a bit, but that doesnt explain BD. for BD, since they seem to have some bitrate to spare (:eek:), i can fully understand going with mpeg2 for some movies.

what the most relevant posts in this thread have pointed out is that, movie studios who have to encode their content need assurance (from a company like MS or others that own VC-1) that their technology will work every time, support included. i mean, i would love it if Universal Pictures said to Doom9, "get some people together and encode our movies!" but that is not going to happen. i honestly dont think that movie studios really care about the slight differences in video quality between VC-1 and AVC, they have advertising specialists to smooth everything over with the consumers (who in the end, drive the entire business)

to wrap up my question then, why do TV stations (who need to have the same assurances that their content will be properly encoded) choose to go with AVC more than movie studios?

[foxyshadis]

VC-1 is not part of the DVB standards, so you'll never see it being broadcast.

[ToS_Maverick]

also TV-Stations need every bit of spare bitrate and efficiency. thus they chose AVC, either to minimize their cost and/or maximize quality.

[olivierdb]

CoreAVC isn't an encoder...

My understanding is that CoreAVC is a H.264 video codec which can be used for both encoding and decoding? However, CoreAVC's web site seem only to offer a software decoder! It certainly limits what one can do with CoreAVC as, to my knowledge (maybe drmpeg may through in his 2 cents here!), CoreAVC is hardly present on any HD media today. I've read Joost use CoreAVC, I guess that means an encoder does exist. But, would one really want to spend time encoding to CoreAVC for the slight improvements it may bring over other AVC flavours or VC-1? It's nice to have the best technology around, but, if it doesn't reach a critical mass then it will be short-lived.

[Dark Shikari]

My understanding is that CoreAVC is a H.264 video codec which can be used for both encoding and decoding? However, CoreAVC's web site seem only to offer a software decoder! It certainly limits what one can do with CoreAVC as, to my knowledge (maybe drmpeg may through in his 2 cents here!), CoreAVC is hardly present on any HD media today. I've read Joost use CoreAVC, I guess that means an encoder does exist. But, would one really want to spend time encoding to CoreAVC for the slight improvements it may bring over other AVC flavours or VC-1? It's nice to have the best technology around, but, if it doesn't reach a critical mass then it will be short-lived.No... CoreAVC is just a decoder. Joost uses it for... decoding.