|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 21st Jan 2008 16:37 Post subject: Blu-Ray vs re-encodes *quality question* |
|
 |
Hi all.
I've got a few blu-ray movies (Casino Royale, Ratatouille for example) that look stunning on my tv.
I've seen some x264 rips (or vc-1 re-encodes) of these movies floating around ranging from 5 to 15 or so gb.
Can anyone offer me their opinions on quality comparisons?
i.e. how much better is a 50gb version of a movie compared to a 15gb version of a movie?
I know my blu-ray disks come with all the extras and whatnot that a scene rip won't, but I don't see that requiring *that* much more space.
Maybe I'm wrong.. maybe there's no real perceivable difference in quality between a blu-ray and a blu-ray re-encode, but there's gotta be something!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Jan 2008 17:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Of course there's difference.  But then again, I've seen such good 1080p tips that you can really compare the source and the encode and not see the difference that much. 720p are out of the question.
But like you said, bluray/hddvd disks often contain extras and uncompressed audio tracks. Imagine having an DTS-HD, DD Plus and an uncompressed/high end track (like Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio or LPCM) which are huge. So you take a 50G movie, and after removing everything unwanted, you are left with a +/- 20GB movie. Encoding it to a 8GB/12GB 1080p encode (depending on compressibility) suddenly isn't that shocking.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mug2k
Posts: 698
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Jan 2008 20:16 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: | Of course there's difference. But then again, I've seen such good 1080p tips that you can really compare the source and the encode and not see the difference that much. 720p are out of the question.
But like you said, bluray/hddvd disks often contain extras and uncompressed audio tracks. Imagine having an DTS-HD, DD Plus and an uncompressed/high end track (like Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio or LPCM) which are huge. So you take a 50G movie, and after removing everything unwanted, you are left with a +/- 20GB movie. Encoding it to a 8GB/12GB 1080p encode (depending on compressibility) suddenly isn't that shocking. |
yes, for sure.. I'm not even talking about 720p as that's not in the same category. I was talking about straight 1080p source to 1080p re-encodes.
I did a little comparison of my Casino Royale blu-ray vs a 1080p rip (13gb or so) sample file and it was very, very difficult to see a difference in the video quality. If anything, the re-encode seemed a little darker and not quite as natural. I am not sure if that is due to some settings that the re-encode used, or if it is simply a limitation of the codec itself.
It was hardly perceivable during motion sequences, I had actually compared freezeframes of the same spot on both versions of the movie. I suppose anyone that is going to be that particular about analyzing the minute differences on a microscopic level could also find things to be displeased about on the blu-ray original as well.
Audio-wise, it seems like the content authors are simply trying to find ways to justify all the space they're afforded by the format... I really can't tell a difference between all the different audio tracks (english, at least.  ). DTS or even whatever the encoders are throwing in (AC3, I suppose?) sounds wonderful on my 5.1 system.
It seems that the opinions I've seen lean towards "little to no difference" in quality of an original vs. a well-done 1080p re-encode.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Jan 2008 20:36 Post subject: |
|
|
| Whirlwind wrote: | | I did a little comparison of my Casino Royale blu-ray vs a 1080p rip (13gb or so) sample file and it was very, very difficult to see a difference in the video quality. |
Haven't checked any rips myself, so I don't know if there is any difference, but what kind of display are you using to check the difference/view bluray movies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Jan 2008 20:50 Post subject: |
|
|
| Parallax_ wrote: | | Whirlwind wrote: | | I did a little comparison of my Casino Royale blu-ray vs a 1080p rip (13gb or so) sample file and it was very, very difficult to see a difference in the video quality. |
Haven't checked any rips myself, so I don't know if there is any difference, but what kind of display are you using to check the difference/view bluray movies? |
Both an LG 24" LCD monitor (my computer display) and the Samsung LN-T4681F TV.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Mon, 21st Jan 2008 22:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| mug2k wrote: | jeez, how many gigs do you think the soundtracks are ?. Something like 5-10gb ?  |
Depends. I've seen movies with DD Plus, DTS-HD and LPCM on the same movie (I think it was Phantom of the Opera, but not sure), so yeah... And add some commentaries and it grows to insane levels. And all those lossless audio tracks are really a waste if you ask me. You can only feel the difference if you have really top of the line sound system (insane audiophiles). Otherwise, DTS-HD (@1.5mpbs) is really enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 01:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| Whirlwind wrote: | | Parallax_ wrote: | | Whirlwind wrote: | | I did a little comparison of my Casino Royale blu-ray vs a 1080p rip (13gb or so) sample file and it was very, very difficult to see a difference in the video quality. |
Haven't checked any rips myself, so I don't know if there is any difference, but what kind of display are you using to check the difference/view bluray movies? |
Both an LG 24" LCD monitor (my computer display) and the Samsung LN-T4681F TV. |
First off, you are not going to tell anything on a 24" anything, you need to be up in the high 30's to see a perceptible difference even between 720 and 1080.
Secondly, rips are better, the reason, they are free
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 02:07 Post subject: |
|
|
Blurays are free too... 
And I see a huge difference between a 720p and a 1080p on a 24" monitor. Maybe you check your eyes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 02:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| dirtymurt wrote: |
First off, you are not going to tell anything on a 24" anything, you need to be up in the high 30's to see a perceptible difference even between 720 and 1080.
Secondly, rips are better, the reason, they are free |
I disagree with you on the 24" monitor.
But, perhaps you missed the part about the 46" Samsung I'm also using.
Free is immaterial, and has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nouseforaname
รber-VIP Member
Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 04:01 Post subject: |
|
|
From what I've read, there is no perceptible difference in 720p and 1080p on a 42" @ 6 ft distance, so if you are right in front of it (as with a computer monitor) you should see a difference ...
asus z170-A || core i5-6600K || geforce gtx 970 4gb || 16gb ddr4 ram || win10 || 1080p led samsung 27"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 04:01 Post subject: df |
|
|
| chiv wrote: | | i just download anything with awesome visuals, ie sky captain, ratatouille, final fantasy, van helsing etc, or anything that is a classic must-have-else-gay film, like face off, the rock, the frighteners, blade runner... |
How was hd of Blade Runner? I downloaded hd version of Full Metall Jacket (SEPTIC) it was even remastered and quality wasn't much better than normal dvd. I just stoped downloading those HD versions of old films because I don't think you get much out of it. No mater what they do with film it was still shot on an old camera. I think you even get better quality (quality not resolution) if you go for one of Criterion remastered DVD's. Unforenetly those are quite hard to find, there is couple of them on emule and some rare ones lying on torrents with a seed or two.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 04:43 Post subject: Re: df |
|
|
| fawe4 wrote: | | chiv wrote: | | i just download anything with awesome visuals, ie sky captain, ratatouille, final fantasy, van helsing etc, or anything that is a classic must-have-else-gay film, like face off, the rock, the frighteners, blade runner... |
How was hd of Blade Runner? I downloaded hd version of Full Metall Jacket (SEPTIC) it was even remastered and quality wasn't much better than normal dvd. I just stoped downloading those HD versions of old films because I don't think you get much out of it. No mater what they do with film it was still shot on an old camera. I think you even get better quality (quality not resolution) if you go for one of Criterion remastered DVD's. Unforenetly those are quite hard to find, there is couple of them on emule and some rare ones lying on torrents with a seed or two. |
The final cut is astounding. They used a 4k sampling process on the original negatives, and completely re-edited the film. It looks -really- good.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 15:19 Post subject: |
|
|
If you watch films on a monitor, you usually sit right in front of it where you notice alot of difference. I notice more detail on my 20.1" sitting up close than my 50" Plasma sitting on my sofa.
Monitors are not meant for watching movies. That' for projectors and TV's >50.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 16:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| digitalman42 wrote: | | You see a huge difference on a "24 monitor?? that's pretty amazing because I worked at circuit city for 3 years selling tv's and computers. I couldnt even tell a single difference between a 720p and 1080p "32 I could only see a difference when it was on a "37 or "40 you must have 10/10 vision. |
Perhaps you were comparing 24" 720p HDTV to 24" 1080p HDTV. I'm talking about a 1080p monitor that upscales 720p. This is noticeable even on 24" monitors and HDTVs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigperm
Posts: 1908
Location: Alberta,Canada
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 19:55 Post subject: |
|
|
The majority of BR films are not even close to 50Gigs. Most are on SL BR and are about 12-15gigs for video. Alot of the space used on BR is for PCM audio tracks which are huge compared to a DD+ or True HD encode. Some BR that have more the 25Gigs worth of video were encoded in MPEG2, so if they are converted to AVC .264 or VC-1 they will be about half that size.
I have found BR HD rips to be close or exactly the same quality as the original BR.
And on your computer monitor you can easily see the difference between 720p and 1080p. Your only sitting what, 1 1/2 feet away.
The viewing screen size argument with 1080p vs 720p is only reinvent if you take into account viewing distance.
50+ inch TVs are only needed to show a difference between 720p and 1080p when you are sitting over 7-8 feet away. Heck @ 4-5 feet a 32 inch TV shows a huge difference between 720p and 1080p
Its a ratio Viewing Distance:TV Size
| Jenni wrote: | | I drunk. I don't fucking care! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bigperm
Posts: 1908
Location: Alberta,Canada
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 20:02 Post subject: Re: df |
|
|
| fawe4 wrote: | | chiv wrote: | | i just download anything with awesome visuals, ie sky captain, ratatouille, final fantasy, van helsing etc, or anything that is a classic must-have-else-gay film, like face off, the rock, the frighteners, blade runner... |
How was hd of Blade Runner? I downloaded hd version of Full Metall Jacket (SEPTIC) it was even remastered and quality wasn't much better than normal dvd. I just stoped downloading those HD versions of old films because I don't think you get much out of it. No mater what they do with film it was still shot on an old camera. I think you even get better quality (quality not resolution) if you go for one of Criterion remastered DVD's. Unforenetly those are quite hard to find, there is couple of them on emule and some rare ones lying on torrents with a seed or two. |
FMJ is not a very good master, hence it was a poor HD version. I have Blade runner on HD DVD and it looks amazing, totally blew me away. If old movies have good masters or are remastered and were originally shot on a good medium(35mm), they look fantastic. Check out Casablanca on HD DVD, it is probably one of the best looking HD DVDs out there, and hence AVS has given it a reference quality rating.
Here is a good link for you.
35mm vs HD
http://www.filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm
35mm film vs HD = Little or no difference
Now movies like 28 days later is a different story. The majority of the film was shot with 480p digital cameras, so no HD treatment will look any better than an up convert. I have no clue how Sony can sell this as an HD BR, because it technically cannot be.
| Jenni wrote: | | I drunk. I don't fucking care! |
Last edited by Bigperm on Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 20:04; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel ๐ฎ๐ฑ
|
| Posted: Tue, 22nd Jan 2008 20:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Movie size depends on the codec used to encode it. Kingdom of Heaven was 50GB and was a barebones release (no extras at all), but used MPEG2 () and was almost 4hrs movie. When the 12GB 1080p x264 (MPEG4 AVC) release came, it looked almost the same as the 50GB original.
But not many blurays/hddvds use MPEG2 anymore, all have pretty much moved to h264(MPEG4 AVC)/VC1, which are highly superior to MPEG2.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
