…
…
…
…
…
You’re using a lot of words to describe what can be visualized with only a few pictures. You do so much work with this codec you’re bound to have a portfolio somewhere right? Some frame-accurate, frame-type comparisons between your sources, x264 and your commercial encoder at native resolution? Why not share those and prove your picture quality claims while sharing the settings used for both encodes instead of just rattling off numbers and bitrates and ending with “see for yourself!”
And that link you gave to their websites displays some examples of poorly mastered Blu-ray discs. Got a dark area in your film? Have some banding and blocking! Got a fast action motion sequence? You get some banding and blocking!
Jurassic World and Furious 7 have some pretty bad areas, Interstellar features banding in almost every IMAX scene, I can dig up more examples.
Source Blu-ray (encoded with Sirius PixelsTM) vs. Corrected Blocking and Banding, x264 encoded (far lower bitrates)
Jurassic World: http://someimage.com/KzHmLU0 vs. http://someimage.com/MndIkDv
Furious 7: http://someimage.com/LnmEJxd vs. http://someimage.com/1uwbTgt
Interstellar: http://someimage.com/ndPmGZj vs. http://someimage.com/LBYEEWz
Edit: Even better example, Blu-ray vs. Blu-ray. First image is Nightcrawler from the Norwegian Blu-ray vs. the US Blu-ray (encoded with Sirius Pixels). Both discs ~35 Mbps:
http://imgbox.com/w34vNBsZ vs. http://imgbox.com/vC2HbjyL
http://imgbox.com/M5Vo6Lfs vs. http://imgbox.com/nrQGv9ll
http://imgbox.com/C40t7Mzd vs. http://imgbox.com/ktwli0Tg