DVDR vs 2GB BDrip

[Vyoam]

I downloaded a 4GB DVDR movie and was disappointed with its quality. I have seen 2GB AVC BDrips of same length better in quality.
So, I was wondering
Are all BDrips (at least 2GB) better than DVDR releases?
If Blu-Ray is so better than DVD, why isn't Blu-Ray more popular?

Please reply.

[hech54]

Buy the movie on both DVD and Blu Ray and compare different re-encoding strategies for yourself.

[jman98]

Are all BDrips (at least 2GB) better than DVDR releases?

Not necessarily. It depends on how the encode was done and if the person doing it knew what they were doing or not. Many times they do not.

If Blu-Ray is so better than DVD, why isn't Blu-Ray more popular?

Please reply.

BluRay costs more.
BluRay requires HDTVs to watch it in high definition. Some people may not feel that the improvement is worth the extra cost.
BluRay is more difficult to copy as you basically have to buy commercial ripping programs whereas DVDs can be ripped for free. I do know that is somewhat possible to rip BluRays for free, but the only free programs that work may be months behind in updates over the commercial rippers.
BluRay takes longer to convert to other formats because the file sizes are so much larger than DVDs.

[Vyoam]

Thanks jman98.

[jagabo]

There's no way of knowing the quality of any download until you've downloaded it and viewed it for yourself.

[Vyoam]

Do you know of any DVD releases better in quality than good (~2GB) Blu-Ray rips?

[hech54]

Oh my......

[Vyoam]

After browsing around, it seems to me that properly made BDRips always outdo DVDs. The reason I was curious is that a DVD has twice as much data as a BDRip (H.264 mkv/mp4 ~2GB to be precise) so I thought it must deliver similar quality. The reason of the difference is perhaps the inferior mpeg2 codec of DVDs.

[yoda313]

The reason of the difference is perhaps the inferior mpeg2 codec of DVDs.

Actually bluray CAN use mpeg2 as well.

The two main differences in REAL dvds and REAL bluray is resolution and bitrate.

Dvds are 720x480/576.

Blurays are 1920x1080.

Also dvds top out at 10mb/s or so video bitrate with audio mixed in.

Blurays can top out at 40mb/s.

Any compression you do to a bluray will, all things being equal, look better than a dvd compression since you are starting out with higher quality.

Also you can leave a bluray compression at 1280x720 if you want and that will look better than a standard dvd.

You are really comparing apples to oranges. If you are talking about divx/xvid or h264 rips of the SAME dvd than you can do more comparisons since you are using the same starting point. The same holds for comparing rips from the SAME bluray. You have a single starting point.

This is like saying a commercial dvd looks better than a commercial vhs. This is usually perfectly obvious as they are produced and sourced completely differently. The comparison isn't valid from a technical standpoint as your source materials are different.

[jagabo]

The quality of any downloaded video depends on how the video was handled. Just because it says "Blu-ray rip" doesn't assure quality. It doesn't mean it's definitely from a Blu-ray disc. It doesn't mean it's the movie it says it is. It doesn't mean it's even a video.

If Blu-Ray is so better than DVD, why isn't Blu-Ray more popular?

Blu-ray discs and movies cost more. Some people don't care about HD or have an HDTV to view it on.

[Vyoam]

Thanks for the replies. Though, they weren't on point. Yeah, I am comparing an optimal BDRip to an untouched DVD in terms of qualilty. Its obvious that Blu-Ray tops DVD. Blu-Ray can use mpeg2 but that's irrelevant.

What I wanted to confirm is that one can, with optimal encoding settings, indeed make a Blue-Ray disc rip that's better than the DVD and half its size. That I know now. That's the reply I was looking for.

I thought when you go from a >25GB source to 2GB the result always comes worse than a DVD video for the same material, in terms of visual quality. (I should have wrote this as my question)

I usually watch movies on TV or theatre. I haven't seen movies on DVD. Forget Blu-Ray. Then I saw a few BDRips. I expected DVD video to be better than BDRips, until I saw that DVDR which wasn't good. I thought it might just be an exception. That's why this thread.

[jagabo]

h.264 encoding is more efficient than MPEG 2 encoding. That's all there is to it.

[Vyoam]

Yeah. Wish DVDs could use AVC.

[hech54]

Thanks for the replies. Though, they weren't on point. Yeah, I am comparing an optimal BDRip to an untouched DVD in terms of qualilty. Its obvious that Blu-Ray tops DVD. Blu-Ray can use mpeg2 but that's irrelevant.

What I wanted to confirm is that one can, with optimal encoding settings, indeed make a Blue-Ray disc rip that's better than the DVD and half its size. That I know now. That's the reply I was looking for.

You didn't get that reply because nobody in their right mind(or with half of a brain) can type that reply. This thread(well...your contributions to this thread) have been filled with nothing but generalities, hearsay, opinions and other people's opinions that you've found on the internet. Yes H264 is wonderful and superior to MPEG2....but to sit here and say that every 2GB BD rip will always be better than a DVD rip(especially rips you are downloading from the internet) is absurd, moronic and flat-out wrong.
I bet that wasn't the reply you were looking for either was it?

[yoda313]

Blu-Ray can use mpeg2 but that's irrelevant.

I usually don't argue too much in threads but I have too on this point.

In your post you said that mpeg2 was inferior. I pointed out that bluray can use mpeg2 so in that regards Mpeg2 in and of itself is NOT inferior. The part of mpeg2 that becomes inferior is when it is on the dvd format. The dvd format can not do high def and high bitrates so it can't compete with bluray mpeg2.

I haven't seen movies on DVD. Forget Blu-Ray. Then I saw a few BDRips. I expected DVD video to be better than BDRips, until I saw that DVDR which wasn't good. I thought it might just be an exception. That's why this thread.

If you haven't seen real bluray than you don't really know what your starting with.

As I mentioned of course bdrips will almost always look better than dvd rips because you are starting with higher source material.

And also you can leave a avchd at 1280x720 which is more detail than a dvd so it will definitely look better.

-----------------

And hech54 is right this is a lot of generality stuff. Each case is going to be different. Out in the "wild" you won't know who did what to make the final compressed video you are looking at. Each process can be totally different. Some might bitstarve it to shrink it down to a more manageable size.

In the end:

Buy the damn dvd or bluray.

---------------

If on the other hand you are wanting to make your own backups for your own use than you need to say so and learn the different techniques and programs that are available.

[Kerry56]

On another note, I often times make dvd copies of my blu ray discs. My sister and brother do not have blu ray players, so if I want to loan a movie to one of them, or watch at their house, I have to make a dvd-video from the blu rays.

The copies I'm making with BD-Rebuilder or AVStoDVD are quite good, but I don' t have a commercially made dvd with which to compare them. Do you think the output from HCenc can compare favorably to the commercial dvds when converting from blu ray source? If the movie is fairly long (close to two hrs or so) I convert to DVD-9 rather than DVD-5. I know this is terribly vague and there are a lot of variables, including the sometimes poor transfers from film to dvd, but I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Can HC produce mpeg2 from blu ray source that can rival commercially made dvds?

The largest screen I've watched the dvd conversions on is a 42" LCD and the picture is quite good on it, so its not like I'm going to stop doing it. Just thought it might make a more interesting discussion than downloads of dubious origin.

[yoda313]

@kerry56 - I too have made dvds from blurays so i can play them on my other tvs that don't have bluray players on them.

I personally think they look just as good if not a little better than the pressed dvds. I haven't done it with a direct comparison to the pressed dvd of the same movie but I could if I wanted too - I have all the star trek movies on bluray and dvd but haven't ripped and converted those.

But the thing is you can control exactly how much you put on the dvd from the bluray source. Studios have to compromise menu size and bonus content and things like preview trailers that all take up space. On your home made dvd from the bluray you can put just the movie on their and max out the bitrate as much as possible.

From that standpoint your downconverted dvd SHOULD look better than the store bought equivalent since you are maximizing the video as much as possible - especially if you are putting it on a dual layer rather than single layer - which you should if this is a bluray downconvert to preserve more of the quality.

[odgeuk]

Interesting old thread. I found it when I was looking for an answer to a similar question. I think the OP got a bit of hard time on this. I think he was actually looking for confirmation (as am I) that it's possible to have a better quality Video from a BluRay Rip that is smaller in size than the DVDR of the original source. i.e. Is it possible that a 2GB Blu-ray rip of a movie could be much better in quality than the 4.3GB DVDR of the same movie, despite the BlurRay rip file being so much smaller (less than half the size in this case).

I guess the answer is a "Yes"? Due to some points made on this thread about the inferiority of Mpeg2 used for DVD?

It's an interesting question that I'm sure a lot of people are curious about and I would like to know more about how and why.

[Baldrick]

As jagabo mentions: H264/AVC is much more efficient than mpeg2. For technical differences read https://secure.connect.pbs.org/conferences/technology/2010/presentations/Wed_MPEG-4%20...30_Goldman.pdf

[yoda313]

Baldrick is correct but also its a question of resolution. You can do high def with h264 but not mpeg 2 when its in dvd format. That will also make it look much better.

I guess the answer is a "Yes"? Due to some points made on this thread about the inferiority of Mpeg2 used for DVD?

[JetrellFo69]

I'm trying to ascertain why one would want a Bluray compressed to less than half the size of a single layer DVD. All AVCHD DVD's I've seen are dual layer. It's a good bet that whatever single layer DVD you're comparing to a bluray rip half the DVD's size probably had a poor source. Since you've downloaded whatever it is you're watching, knowing the source of said rip would probably help explain the quality difference you are talking about.

[deadrats]

I'm trying to ascertain why one would want a Bluray compressed to less than half the size of a single layer DVD. All AVCHD DVD's I've seen are dual layer. It's a good bet that whatever single layer DVD you're comparing to a bluray rip half the DVD's size probably had a poor source. Since you've downloaded whatever it is you're watching, knowing the source of said rip would probably help explain the quality difference you are talking about.

because many people are on crack, that's why. if you have a dvd authored from a high quality source, with a high quality mpeg-2 encoder, it's going to be a higher quality product than something some guy did at 4 times the resolution and half the bit rate.

[odgeuk]

Well, I'm lost.

I wonder how many people would agree that it is possible to compress a 25GB+ Blu-Ray source to 2GB and achieve a result that looks richer in quality than it's equivalent 4.3GB Single-Layer DVD release? If so, is it simply a 'perception' thing due to the differences in the original source (resolution for instance).

[jagabo]

possible to compress a 25GB+ Blu-Ray source to 2GB and achieve a result that looks richer in quality than it's equivalent 4.3GB Single-Layer DVD release?

Depends.

[Baldrick]

It's because you can NOT compare different video codec compressions by the file size. Try compress a blu-ray to a 2GB MPEG2(same as in DVD) in 1080p/720p HD resolution...it wont look good.

[odgeuk]

It's because you can NOT compare different video codec compressions by the file size. Try compress a blu-ray to a 2GB MPEG2(same as in DVD) in 1080p/720p HD resolution...it wont look good.

Of course! And so one hopes that you can get a higher quality product, in a smaller file size. That would be good, really good. I'd like that. I'd really dig it.

[orsetto]

As to the original thread topic, which is one of those face-palm comparisons of "what are the best downloaded pirate videos" (lets not kid ourselves), the best answer was jagabo's succinct "Depends."

BluRay in the first place is not a cure-all and does not always look staggeringly better than the DVD version of the same video: each format has things it does well, and others it does very badly, and each interacts differently with the same source material. Even today, there are cases of new release where the BD has more technical resolution but subjectively is painful to watch compared to the DVD version. This is rare but it does happen.

When people rip these discs for upload sites, all bets are off. 3 out of 4 people make atrocious choices of rip/conversion settings, with the resulting files either looking worse than they should or having unnecessary playback issues. Ripping and compressing for maximum quality is a bit of a black art: you either know how to do this reliably, or you don't. Most people don't, those who think they are geeks and "know all about" it are often the worst offenders.

So when it comes to downloads, its blind luck. The 2GB BD rip may look better than the commercial DVD, or it might not. The specific TV display is a big factor, as is personal visual taste. I can tell you I've seen incredibly compressed DVD rips (>200MB) of television shows that look breathtaking on a 40" display, while I've also seen 900MB BD rips of the exact same episode that were unwatchable. Ditto for movies: I've downloaded 800MB rips of studio DVDs I own that look very close to the original, while the same title uploaded as a 4.6GB BD rip looked like crap. And vice versa.

Source material + original studio disc coding x skill of person doing the rip + display type/quality x personal visual perception = TOTAL ROLL OF THE DICE FOR EACH DOWNLOAD.

It depends. Its depends, And, oh yeah: it depends.

[yoda313]

It depends. Its depends, And, oh yeah: it depends.

I'd just like to reiterate that a bdrip into a mp4 container using h264 or even divx/xvid can be done using hd resolution. This factor alone can make comparisons to a similar rip from a dvd source null and void. The simple fact that you have more real estate to work with in the bd rip with hd versus the sd rip of the dvd. There is simply more detail available - POTENTIALLY.

Of course as has been mentioned the encoding choices made greatly alter this. Not to mention the source itself as orsetto and others have pointed out.

But if you could have an "all things being equal" setup than a 2gb 1080p OR 720p conversion from a bluray will look better than a compress 2gb dvd rip SIMPLY based on resolution alone since dvd is max 720x480/576.

Also I guess its implied that the dvd comparison is from a dual layer disc but if its from an early days dvd that was only single layer than you have even less bitrate to work with on a single versus dual layer disc.

Edit - not to mention what type of compression was used on the dvd rip - are we talking deep anaylsis mode in dvd shrink or just a simple slider bar to hit 2gb? Or some other mpeg encoder to hit 2gb with other "improvement" techiniques for transcoding?

[JetrellFo69]

Well, I'm lost.

I wonder how many people would agree that it is possible to compress a 25GB+ Blu-Ray source to 2GB and achieve a result that looks richer in quality than it's equivalent 4.3GB Single-Layer DVD release? If so, is it simply a 'perception' thing due to the differences in the original source (resolution for instance).

It has nothing to do with "perception" as you cannot see both a 25GB image from digital and the same 2GB DVD image from 3rd generation analogue tape and say they are the same, you can see the difference with your own eyes.....even IF the same codec was used. One could certainly try and make them look similar but in the end all that data is missing and you could not just magically put it back in.

[theewizard]

blue ray HD is a great format

the problem is 2gb data is only 2GB period

the idea that you can compress 20gb or more into 2gb even using h.264 and retain the same quality is inherently false, you are going to loose data

the idea that 2gb in HD res is going to be sharper and more detailed and higher quality than 4.3gb DVD is false,
granted 2gb of h.264 will hold more data than 2gb of mpeg2

but to say that HD at 4x the resolution of DVD and 5x the data can be compressed to 1/2 the size of a DVD and still retain greater quality, would mean that the file would have to contain over 16x the amount of compressed video than the DVD

and this is starting with the OEM bd and DVD and then doing a side by side comparison

to say that a DL 2gb BD rip is bettter than the factory DVD ... I don't think so, or as they say around here "no way jose"