[HD-DVD Challenge] MPEG2, VC-1 and H264 with real uncompressed source movie

[zambelli]

Perhaps good idea for DMO filter or WMP11 because default PP4 is simply always too high for my eye. PP1 is very better for quality and PP0 very better for my CPU ... ;-)
I actually only just noticed you set a PP1 requirement for VC-1 at the beginning of the thread. I'll adhere to that and re-run PSNR and SSIM on my encodings. You can probably start entering the VC-1 results "officially" when I post the new numbers. :)

[akupenguin]

Well it's really interessing and curious. VC-1 can use different PP for each image and PP level is indicate in the bitstream. Post Process for VC-1 on windows seem doesn't work like that.
If it had to work the same way everywhere, it wouldn't be called "postprocessing", it would be "decoding". The field in each frame header is just a hint.

[Sagittaire]

@Zambelli

I have problem for 24 Mbps encoding. 24 000 000 seem to be higher than the maximum bitrate for VC-1 with WMCmd.vbs ???

This CLI done 9 999 999 bps and not 24 000 000 bps:

cscript.exe wmcmd.vbs -input azerty.avs -output VC1-24Mbps.wmv -v_codec WVC1 -v_profile AP -v_mode 4 -v_bitrate 24000000 -v_peakbitrate 29400000 -v_peakbuffer 320 -v_performance 60 -videoonly -pixelformat YV12 -v_keydist 600 -v_bframedist 2 -v_dquantoption 2 -v_loopfilter 1 -v_mmatch 0 -v_mslevel 1 -v_msrange 0 -v_mvcost 1 -v_percopt 0 -v_denoise 0 -v_edgeremoval 0

[drmpeg]

Here's the PSNR graph for the first 3500 frames. This is from a new encode at 24 Mbps average, 29 Mbps peak, 25 fps progressive and 15 frame GOP.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3686/edpsnrpx3.th.jpg (http://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=edpsnrpx3.jpg)

Worst frame is 29.125 dB.

Ron

[tchaikovsky]

@Zambelli

I have problem for 24 Mbps encoding. 24 000 000 seem to be higher than the maximum bitrate for VC-1 with WMCmd.vbs ???

This CLI done 9 999 999 bps and not 24 000 000 bps:

cscript.exe wmcmd.vbs -input azerty.avs -output VC1-24Mbps.wmv -v_codec WVC1 -v_profile AP -v_mode 4 -v_bitrate 24000000 -v_peakbitrate 29400000 -v_peakbuffer 320 -v_performance 60 -videoonly -pixelformat YV12 -v_keydist 600 -v_bframedist 2 -v_dquantoption 2 -v_loopfilter 1 -v_mmatch 0 -v_mslevel 1 -v_msrange 0 -v_mvcost 1 -v_percopt 0 -v_denoise 0 -v_edgeremoval 0

It works properly at bitrate less than 20Mbps. i think :)

[zambelli]

I have problem for 24 Mbps encoding. 24 000 000 seem to be higher than the maximum bitrate for VC-1 with WMCmd.vbs ???
I don't think the bitrate is capped in the script - if any limitation exists, it's either in the WME9 SDK or in the WMV encoder DMO. I'll look into it.

[zambelli]

OK, so here's the best I've got so far with WMV9 AP at 6Mbps:

1 B-frame:
-input ED_1920x1080.avi -output Elephant_1080p25_6Mbps_B1_P80_Loop1_MM2_MSL4_MSR0.wmv -videoonly -v_codec WVC1 -v_mode 4 -v_bitrate 6000000 -v_peakbitrate 29400000 -v_peakbuffer 320 -v_keydist 0.6 -v_framerate 25 -v_performance 80 -v_bframedist 1 -v_loopfilter 1 -v_mmatch 2 -v_mslevel 4 -v_msrange 0
SSIM: 84.75006234
Overall PSNR: 44.2776 dB


2 B-frames:
-input ED_1920x1080.avi -output Elephant_1080p25_6Mbps_B2_P80_Loop1_MM2_MSL4_MSR0.wmv -videoonly -v_codec WVC1 -v_mode 4 -v_bitrate 6000000 -v_peakbitrate 29400000 -v_peakbuffer 320 -v_keydist 0.6 -v_framerate 25 -v_performance 80 -v_bframedist 2 -v_loopfilter 1 -v_mmatch 2 -v_mslevel 4 -v_msrange 0
SSIM: 84.98550747
Overall PSNR: 44.2432 dB

Metrics run with post-processing = 1 (weak deblocking), as requested.

Sagittaire, feel free to log the better score on the first page for VC-1. The question is: which do you value more, PSNR or SSIM?

Personally, I don't think there's much point in doing comparisons at 24Mbps. For this particular source it's obvious 24Mbps is overkill, so I don't think we'll see any difference between H.264 and VC-1.

[IgorC]

Personally, I don't think there's much point in doing comparisons at 24Mbps. For this particular source it's obvious 24Mbps is overkill, so I don't think we'll see any difference between H.264 and VC-1
Not only between H.264 and VC-1 but also MPEG-2.

So temporal results for 6 mbps are:
VC-1 44 dB
H.264 53 dB
+9 db is a huge difference.

[Sharktooth]

@zambelli: Well, it's obvious h.264 shines at mid/low bitrates, so maybe a 24mbps comparison would be more "fair" for VC-1 and MPEG-2...

[zambelli]

So temporal results for 6 mbps are:
VC-1 44 dB
H.264 53 dB
+9 db is a huge difference.
53 dB? You must've misread something. Nobody has actually reported complete results for x264, as run through Avisynth. The "very partial" results that Sagittaire has reported have stated the overall PSNR to be 45.806 dB. That's 1.5dB higher than VC-1 at the same bitrate, which is not all that unusual for a low bitrate such as 6Mbps.

[foxyshadis]

6 mbps is 11 hours on a dual-layer hd-dvd, or 10 with audio, so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that studios are much more likely to use 12+ even for 1080 video. Frankly, we should be benchmarking scenarist hd, ms vc-1 studio, mainconcept (?), sony, and whomever else the studios use. x264 is kind of cheap, because it'll beat always any contenders (except possibly the latest ateme) by some sort of margin, but won't be used by any studio until it comes with a far more advanced gui. :p Now, if sonic or some other company were to merge its gui with x264, the game could change....

[zambelli]

@zambelli: Well, it's obvious h.264 shines at mid/low bitrates, so maybe a 24mbps comparison would be more "fair" for VC-1 and MPEG-2...
But we're already getting PSNR > 44 dB and SSIM > 84 at only 6Mbps. If we double that bitrate, we'll probably get SSIM into the 90s with both VC-1 and H.264, and that's already approaching transparency. What do you expect will happen at 24Mbps? SSIM=99.9%? ;) I just don't think it will be very challenging above 12Mbps, not with this source.

[Sharktooth]

You're right, the source is "too clean".

[*.mp4 guy]

I did a 12 Mbps encode a while ago with X264, it wasn't quuite withing the test restrictions, and it took forever, but I can tell you it was definately transparent to me

[bkman]

You're right, the source is "too clean".

Isn't that what I said several pages ago? :p

[IgorC]

53 dB? You must've misread something. Yes, it's my mistake. My apologies.

[benwaggoner]

Well I make modification for the test after reflexion:

[Framerate at 25 fps
1080p25 GOP 15 or 1080p23.976 GOP 14 don't change anything for quality (aka average quantizer) at the same bitrate. 1080p25 is fully compliant with the HD-DVD and will be always progressive (for encoding process and for decoding process).
I'm still going to argue that we should use 23.976. All the announced HD DVD titles will be using 23.976 in Europe, so if we're trying to target HD DVD performance, that's what we should be using.

Plus it is the intended frame rate, so it's just the right thing to do, and leaves open the option to adding a soundtrack later for a complete compression demo.

[benwaggoner]

I see your point. I always assumed that it dynamically picked between the other 3 ranges but never exceeded them. I should probably check with our devs though. Setting it to fixed 1024/256 forces the codec to always search that range on every frame, which might not be optimal.

Macroblock Adaptive does exactly what you think - picks the optimal mode of or less than 1024/256. It's safe to use for this clip, and should hit optimum efficiency and performance.

[benwaggoner]

Thank I'm currently encoding with these settings:
-v_codec WVC1 -v_mode 4 -v_bitrate 6000000 -v_peakbitrate 29400000 -v_peakbuffer 320 -v_keydist 0.6 -v_framerate 25 -v_performance 80 -v_bframedist 2 -v_loopfilter 1 -v_mmatch 2 -v_mslevel 4 -v_msrange 0
I left out the dquant settings this time, but I'll probably add them in the next round of encoding.
Have you tried -v_bframedist 1? I find that generally works better for CGI content, and HD in general.

[zambelli]

Have you tried -v_bframedist 1? I find that generally works better for CGI content, and HD in general.
Yep! See few posts above. :)

[drmpeg]

Since this movie is characterized by mostly easy sequences and a few really difficult sequences (especially the one starting around frame 2800), the minimum PSNR is a more interesting number.

In your first set of results, the minimum Y PSNR was 27.6798 dB. Assuming this happened around frame 2800, then the VC-1 encoder did 1.44 dB worse than my real-time MPEG-2 encoder at 29.125 dB.

Assuming the VC-1 encoder actually reached the peak bitrate at this low PSNR, then a possible conclusion is that the VC-1 encoder doesn't do well with complex sequences.

I'll be glad to graph your frame by frame results so that a better comparision can be made. I'll PM you with my e-mail address.

Ron

But we're already getting PSNR > 44 dB and SSIM > 84 at only 6Mbps. If we double that bitrate, we'll probably get SSIM into the 90s with both VC-1 and H.264, and that's already approaching transparency. What do you expect will happen at 24Mbps? SSIM=99.9%? ;) I just don't think it will be very challenging above 12Mbps, not with this source.

[tchaikovsky]

@Zambelli

I have problem for 24 Mbps encoding. 24 000 000 seem to be higher than the maximum bitrate for VC-1 with WMCmd.vbs ???

This CLI done 9 999 999 bps and not 24 000 000 bps:

cscript.exe wmcmd.vbs -input azerty.avs -output VC1-24Mbps.wmv -v_codec WVC1 -v_profile AP -v_mode 4 -v_bitrate 24000000 -v_peakbitrate 29400000 -v_peakbuffer 320 -v_performance 60 -videoonly -pixelformat YV12 -v_keydist 600 -v_bframedist 2 -v_dquantoption 2 -v_loopfilter 1 -v_mmatch 0 -v_mslevel 1 -v_msrange 0 -v_mvcost 1 -v_percopt 0 -v_denoise 0 -v_edgeremoval 0

Anyway, I find out a way to make WMV files that bit rate over 20Mbps by WMEA, a GUI for WME9 with AP.

I use the 10000 to 10999 frame PNG sequence make a WMV file that use compress settings is 24Mbps CBR 1pass. The file size is 115MB, 4 times size of the file 6Mbps VBR 2pass I made a while ago. Then, use 24Mbps VBR 2pass (peak bit rate) to make another one. It seems work properly.

There is another problem with WMV. When I make WMV use two pass VBR mode(CBR does not), “Total coded frames: 995”(994 in another one) be found in the encoding statistics (x264 does not drop frames). No matter wmcmd.vbs or WMEA used.

You can download WMEA on my blog if you want to make 24Mbps WMV.
http://galaxies.blogcn.com

BTW: choose "Ultra Mode" option on General page of settings.

[trbarry]

53 dB? You must've misread something. Nobody has actually reported complete results for x264, as run through Avisynth. The "very partial" results that Sagittaire has reported have stated the overall PSNR to be 45.806 dB. That's 1.5dB higher than VC-1 at the same bitrate, which is not all that unusual for a low bitrate such as 6Mbps.

I just now found this thread and skimmed. Did I miss it somewhere? Did we ever get x264 full ssim & psnr results posted?

- Tom

[benwaggoner]

Assuming the VC-1 encoder actually reached the peak bitrate at this low PSNR, then a possible conclusion is that the VC-1 encoder doesn't do well with complex sequences.

Well, I'm confident THAT'S not the problem. It's a particularly challenging and unique sequence, with all those thin moving diagonal lines. I'm not sure how well the objective measurements will correlate with subjective quality in that case.

FWIW, this test is targeting HD DVD compatibility (although I don't appear to have been persuasive in my plea to do it at 23.976 since that's what all HD DVD titles are being done at), but we're using the WMV encoder. The VC-1 encoder the studios are using supports many other modes and features, including segment reencoding.

Time permitting, I'd like to make a version of the clip using that studio encoder (not the same as Studio Edition) later so we can see how much of a difference it makes.

[benwaggoner]

I just now found this thread and skimmed. Did I miss it somewhere? Did we ever get x264 full ssim & psnr results posted?

Not yet, just VC-1 and MPEG-2.

I'd also like to see the best version of each posted, so we can compare subjectively as well as objectively. I feel that with modern codecs, objective measurements are becoming less and less correlated with subjective quality. I'd love to see us move to some kind of double-blind subjective testing like Hydrogen Audio does. Kind of painful to transport and decode lossless HD, though :).

[trbarry]

Not yet, just VC-1 and MPEG-2.

I'd also like to see the best version of each posted, so we can compare subjectively as well as objectively. I feel that with modern codecs, objective measurements are becoming less and less correlated with subjective quality. I'd love to see us move to some kind of double-blind subjective testing like Hydrogen Audio does. Kind of painful to transport and decode lossless HD, though :).

Ben -

Looking forward to your "professional" encodes.

I'd like to see the best entries posted for scrutiny somewhere also. But for now I'm curious and would settle just for a table of PSNR & SSIM.

While I don't consider the metrics the final word I do give them a lot more credibilty than many do. And they are certainly a good summary place to start.

- Tom

PS - If your results are improved over Zambelli's (and x264) this should give you a chance to show off the new multi-pass VC1 improvements AmirM's been recently bragging about. ;)

[trbarry]

I'm still going to argue that we should use 23.976. All the announced HD DVD titles will be using 23.976 in Europe, so if we're trying to target HD DVD performance, that's what we should be using.

Plus it is the intended frame rate, so it's just the right thing to do, and leaves open the option to adding a soundtrack later for a complete compression demo.

It's my understanding that in Europe BD progressive must be at 23.976 and that almost all HD DVD will also be that way. So I agree. It's the intended original rate and should be encoded that way. Let the players adjust it if needed. Many Euro players will not need it and then can output the original without messing with it.

But I'm in the USA and thus don't really consider I have a vote on this part except from an engineering perspective. ;)

- Tom

[bond]

It's my understanding that in Europe BD progressive must be at 23.976 and that almost all HD DVD will also be that way. So I agree. It's the intended original rate and should be encoded that way. Let the players adjust it if needed. Many Euro players will not need it and then can output the original without messing with it.that sounds very strange. american movies might be shot at 23.976, tough i doubt european ones are. seeing all the mess arising from this strange 23.976 i kinda would prefer good old straight forward 25fps be used everywhere ;)

[benwaggoner]

that sounds very strange. american movies might be shot at 23.976, tough i doubt european ones are. seeing all the mess arising from this strange 23.976 i kinda would prefer good old straight forward 25fps be used everywhere ;)
Movies everywhere are shot 24 fps. They're slowed down 0.1% for NTSC, and sped up 4% for PAL delivery. There is a little bit of 25p production for PAL-region only direct-to-video or direct-to-broadcast, but anything targeting global reach or a theatrical run is shot 24.

Using 23.976 in PAL regions is much closer to the original artistic intent. FWIW, this is why PAL DVD run times are typically shorter than for NTSC. Home theater advocates are pretty passionate about this.

Now that PAL HD sets are required to support NTSC rates, we're probably entering the era of slow decline of 25/50 for delivery. 24 is better for movies, and 60 is better for everything else now that we'e eliminated the PAL resolution advantage in HD.

[bond]

why is there still the need for the 24->23.976 slowdown btw?

[*.mp4 guy]

So that 3:2 Pulldown will work correctly for interlaced displays, you can't do 3:2 Pulldown on 24 fps material and get good results on a 59.94i display.

[zambelli]

Once again, it's important to distinguish between encoding framerate and decoding framerate. Even if PAL movies end up being encoded at 23.976, it's still possible for a PAL player to perform a 5% speedup or 24th frame repetition on-the-fly in order to meet the 25fps/50Hz output requirement.

[zambelli]

I'd also like to see the best version of each posted, so we can compare subjectively as well as objectively.
The only caveat to that is that a 10 minute movie at 6Mbps ends up being 430MB in size. It's not an easy filesize to host or download. At 12Mbps and 24Mbps, that number would double and quadruple respectively.

[Sharktooth]

i can host the files for a limited period of time.

[benwaggoner]

The only caveat to that is that a 10 minute movie at 6Mbps ends up being 430MB in size. It's not an easy filesize to host or download. At 12Mbps and 24Mbps, that number would double and quadruple respectively.
Yeah, this would definitely be a job for Bittorrent. Although I'm sure we could find a way to host our clips :).

[Sagittaire]

I'm still going to argue that we should use 23.976. All the announced HD DVD titles will be using 23.976 in Europe, so if we're trying to target HD DVD performance, that's what we should be using.

Plus it is the intended frame rate, so it's just the right thing to do, and leaves open the option to adding a soundtrack later for a complete compression demo.

Well read the previous thread. I choose 25 fps because:
- Compliant with HD-DVD
- Clearly progressive
- I use 2 bframe and no adaptative bframe is a problem for VC-1 with 0.6006 sec max keyframe interval
- Moreover Conclusion for 25 fps will be the same than for 23.976 fps

[Sagittaire]

I just now found this thread and skimmed. Did I miss it somewhere? Did we ever get x264 full ssim & psnr results posted?

- Tom

I make really full and complete test ... and make encoding and test at 1080p with my little sempron is really slow ... ;-)

[benwaggoner]

Well read the previous thread. I choose 25 fps because:
- Compliant with HD-DVD
- Clearly progressive
- I use 2 bframe and no adaptative bframe is a problem for VC-1 with 0.6006 sec max keyframe interval
- Moreover Conclusion for 25 fps will be the same than for 23.976 fps
Oh, I understand, and it's probably too late to change now. But since there aren't going to be many or any 25p HD DVD titles, it keeps it from beeing a truly relevant test. But it won't change the codec ranking.

Note most HD VC-1 is done with 1 bframe, so that winds up not being that big an issue.

[crypto]

Even in PAL land all movies shot on film have 24 fps. In theaters each frame is shown twice resulting in 48 fps. Video transfers (SD) are done using the PAL speedup.

Blu-Ray titles in PAL land are also all in 24p. BR PAL players have a permanent 3:2 pulldown. All PAL HD displays can handle 60Hz.

About the 23.976 fps, that's what the cameras are really set to. It avoids the hickup that would accour every 1000th frame @24 fps.

[bond]

why should the framerate influence the visual quality?

[crypto]

1000/1001

When the NTSC color television system was being developed, the designers wanted to make it compatible with all of the old black and white systems that were already in people’s homes. To do this, they had to make some compromises. The thing that has probably caused the most problems for our industry over the years is that the field rate was changed by 1/1.001 from 60 to 59.94 per second. This was a small enough change that the older TV’s would still receive the new color broadcast and allowed for the new color information to be encoded into the broadcasted signal. This offset gives rise to “niceties” such as drop-frame timecode and audio that also has to run at the right rate. Although having analog origins, it has also been extended into the digital and HD world where 24, 30, and 60 frames/fields per second becomes 23.98, 29.97, and 59.94 to be compatible with existing NTSC formats and workflows.


http://www.highdef.com/library/glossary.htm

[benwaggoner]

why should the framerate influence the visual quality?
More frames per sec at fixed bitrate means fewer bits per frame.

[Sagittaire]

More frames per sec at fixed bitrate means fewer bits per frame.

Well in fact it's more complex if you use use really short GOP (time fixed) with no adaptative bframe. In this case more bits per frame doesn't mean always higher quality by frame ...

But more generaly this test is comparison between codec and make comparison at 25 fps between codec A at 6000 kbps and codec B at 6000 Kbps will done exactly the same conclusion than comparison at 23.976 fps between codec A at 5750 kbps and codec B at 5750 Kbps. Framerate doesn't change anything if you use the same for all codec ... ;-)

[benwaggoner]

But more generaly this test is comparison between codec and make comparison at 25 fps between codec A at 6000 kbps and codec B at 6000 Kbps will done exactly the same conclusion than comparison at 23.976 fps between codec A at 5750 kbps and codec B at 5750 Kbps. Framerate doesn't change anything if you use the same for all codec ... ;-)
Agreed - frame rate won't change the rankings of the codecs.

[drmpeg]

Graphs of Zambelli's VC-1 encodes. The color key is:

Elephant_1080p25_6Mbps_B1_P80_Loop1_MM2_MSL4_MSR0.PSNR.log = black
Elephant_1080p25_6Mbps_B2_P60_Loop1_MM2_MSL4_MSR0_MVC1_DQO1.PSNR.log = red
Elephant_1080p25_6Mbps_B2_P60_MM2_MSL4_MSR0.PSNR.log = green
Elephant_1080p25_6Mbps_B2_P80_Loop1_MM2_MSL4_MSR0.PSNR.log = blue

B – v_bframedist
P – v_performance
Loop – v_loopfilter
MM – v_mmatch
MSL – v_mslevel
MSR – v_msrange
MVC – v_mvcost
DQO – v_dquantoption

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/8051/vc13100by9.th.jpg (http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vc13100by9.jpg)

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/4589/vc16200xj8.th.jpg (http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vc16200xj8.jpg)

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1359/vc19300ir1.th.jpg (http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vc19300ir1.jpg)

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/576/vc112400ig6.th.jpg (http://img165.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vc112400ig6.jpg)

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/7640/vc115500zn6.th.jpg (http://img158.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vc115500zn6.jpg)

And a graph of VC-1 versus MPEG-2 for the first 3500 frames. MPEG-2 = violet.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/7899/vc1mpeg2jj9.th.jpg (http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=vc1mpeg2jj9.jpg)

On the difficult sequence starting at frame 2800, the VC-1 encodes are about 5 dB better than MPEG-2. Pretty impressive.

BTW, the minimum PSNR reported in Zambelli's summary is an error. It occurs on the last frame and would appear to be a frame mismatch. The actual minimum PSNR is around 34 dB.

Ron

[zambelli]

Graphs of Zambelli's VC-1 encodes. The color key is:

On the difficult sequence starting at frame 2800, the VC-1 encodes are about 5 dB better than MPEG-2. Pretty impressive.

BTW, the minimum PSNR reported in Zambelli's summary is an error. It occurs on the last frame and would appear to be a frame mismatch. The actual minimum PSNR is around 34 dB.

Thank you for doing the graphs, Ron, and for catching the PSNR error!

I'm doing one last encode (this one experimenting with range reduction) and then I think I'll take a break and watch the "competition" for a while. :)

[Sharktooth]

The overall MPEG-2 vs VC1 graph shows MPEG-2 having a better PSNR in the majority of frames except the "difficult sequence".
Also the MPEG-2 has a wild oscillations of PSNR values along the average "imaginary" line. This is maybe due to a too high B to P frame quantizer ratio.
Adjusting the bitrate distribution and the B frames ratio for a more constant quality will deliver a much better MPEG-2 performance and IMHO it wont be too far from (if not better than) the VC-1 results.
drmpeg, could you please try re-encoding adjusting the codec settings as i just suggested?
It would be also interesting to see how MPEG-4 ASP codecs (with the same limitations) perform against the others even if they were not included in the HD-DVD/BD standard.

[crypto]

The overall MPEG-2 vs VC1 graph shows MPEG-2 having a better PSNR in the majority of frames except the "difficult sequence".

Yes, at high bitrates MPEG-2 is still a good choice. But one should keep in mind that drmpeg is comparing MPEG-2 24 MBit/s VBR vs. VC-1 6 MBit/s VBR. Too bad we have no bitrate graph. I am sure at the critical range starting at frame 2800 the MPEG-2 bitrate is capped while VC-1 has enough headroom to go up to 29.4 MBit/s.

Anyway its an impressive result for VC-1. Also these graphs can't express the advanced features like like fade out encoding. In the recent reviews HD DVD (VC-1) vs. Blu-ray (MPEG-2) testers especially mentioned the smoother fade outs and dissolves on the HD DVD side. (and a better PQ)

[Sharktooth]

Sure, VC1 did a really good job. I only made my comments coz i saw some inconsistancies in the MPEG-2 encode.

[bond]

hm the comparison at the same bitrate for both mpeg-2 and vc-1 would rock