comparison between bluray and brrip

[xenotox]

Hello...


I was wondering how much difference it is visible in a 50 inch full hd tv between a full bluray and a 1080p bdrip. I kwow it all depends of the conversion... but for a 13 gb rip is there any difference?


Can you post some pages talking about this?


thanks

[guns1inger]

Lets see . . One is a professionally encoded video stored on a disc, the other is a ripped and hacked version that may have been badly cropped, badly resized and badly encoded. Will there be a difference ?

Of course there will be a difference.

However there is little point starting a long thread or writing discussion papers on a topic that clearly contravenes the rules of this site. The term BDRip was originated by the video pirate scene, and is used pretty much exclusively for labelling pirated BluRay videos.

[redwudz]

Why 1080? A BD is usually 1920 X 1080. Anything less will be less quality. If you crunch down a 30GB BD disc to less than half the size, sure there will be quality losses. How much depends on how it was done. A real 'BD Rip' will be an exact copy of the original BD. Or it's not a 'rip'.

When you convert it to a lesser quality format, you will have a lesser quality file. How much depends on how it was done and what format/dimensions/bitrate/audio/etc. it was converted to. You are the only one that could answer that.

[NWNewell]

I would like to know this as well.

I'm not cropping the resolution... but typically you're lowering the bit rate to get the file smaller.

I've got a decent set up:
- Onkyo SR706 A/V Receiver
- Athena Technologies 5.1 speakers
- Samsung LN52B850 (240Hz, 150000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio)
- and I'm typically sitting about 8'-12' away

The Dark Knight and Ironman, for example, BR's I have are encoded at a bitrate of around 32-34mbps and are 30+GB in size. I'd like to move these to my HTPC, and possibly stream them from a media server (at least within my home network). But they are just way too big for that.

At what point does quality loss really start to be come noticeable? I know most HD signals range from 10-19, depending on your provider. So, I was thinking of using that as a guideline, but that is a pretty wide range. On the high side, that's still a pretty good size file. But on the low side, your only only achieving about a 3rd of the bit rate... I would think that has to be reasonably noticeable.

What are folks thoughts and preferences for settings/software for undetectable quality loss while maintaining reasonable file sizes???

I'm thinking for ditching the HD audio tracks and just sticking with the DTS 1.5mbps audio since while my setup is reasonable, it is not perfect, the room is not acoustically optimized, and if/when I stream to other locations, they will not have quality audio setups.

But what about the video bitrates??


Thanks for the help!!

[guns1inger]

All the 1080 HD broadcast television I have watched, while superior to SD, is noticeably inferior to BluRay, more so with reference material such as Dark Knight and Iron Man. Re-encoding them at half their normal bitrate will be a major quality drop if you maintain the original resolution. And the bigger the screen, the more obvious it will be.

[mpalm887]

Lets see . . One is a professionally encoded video stored on a disc, the other is a ripped and hacked version that may have been badly cropped, badly resized and badly encoded. Will there be a difference ?

Of course there will be a difference.

However there is little point starting a long thread or writing discussion papers on a topic that clearly contravenes the rules of this site. The term BDRip was originated by the video pirate scene, and is used pretty much exclusively for labelling pirated BluRay videos.

Even though you are probably the biggest gun around here, I have to point out that that seems a little preemptive, and kinda rude. The only reason BDRip is a piracy term is because for a while it was mainly pirates that were ripping Blu-rays. Now there are a lot of one-click solutions out there and joe-blow guys like me can do it themselves. I don't see how his question is against the rules of this site, especially when the name of this sub-forum is Blu-ray to AVI/MP4/MKV/WMV.

And to the OP... I'm new to this, but I have just started ripping my own collection of Blu's and can tell you that there is definitely a difference, and if you're talking about shrinking the video portion down to 50% file size then you will see a BIG difference. On 2nd thought, if you aren't a videophile at all then you may not. My mom can't see the difference between a DVD and some Blu-rays but I seem to pick up even small changes in bit rate.

If you want to preserve quality during your rip then consider just demuxing the m2ts file in the Blu-ray back-up folder and then recombining only the video with the audio stream you want, or downmix the space-hogging streams like uncompressed PCM to .ac3 and then remux just the one audio stream with your untouched video. One of my rips had a 22GB main movie but the video portion was just 11GB, and there were several other audio tracks etc. It wasn't a favorite movie of mine so I remuxed an MKV with just .ac3 and had almost no quality loss on the video reencode since my output files are usually around 12GB.

I'm thinking for ditching the HD audio tracks and just sticking with the DTS 1.5mbps audio since while my setup is reasonable, it is not perfect, the room is not acoustically optimized, and if/when I stream to other locations, they will not have quality audio setups.

May I offer some perspectives? I would plan for the future. Hard drive space is just getting cheaper and cheaper so shaving down quality in the name of space-saving will annoy you down the road when your child has fed your Blu-ray to the dog and all you've got is your 7GB MKV leftover. Furthermore, have you seen how long it takes to encode these things? Who wants to redo their collection of rips with better audio streams and less compression once you actually have an awesome audio set-up? Not me.

I've chosen to go with minimal compression, just keeping ONE audio stream and it's almost always the highest bitrate stream like uncompressed, or DTS-HD. Sure it's eating more disk space but I can slap down $100 and have another TB+ and I'm ready for more ripping. When I DO have my sophisticated AV setup I will thank myself for keeping things legit, and I won't feel like I want to go get the actual blu-ray out of the closet because I don't want to be jipped on quality. If you are streaming you will probably have some transcoding going on that shouldn't be a big deal for the audio tracks to be mixed down on the spot for random viewing/listening.

[Dv8ted2]

Lets see . . One is a professionally encoded video stored on a disc, the other is a ripped and hacked version that may have been badly cropped, badly resized and badly encoded. Will there be a difference ?

Of course there will be a difference.

However there is little point starting a long thread or writing discussion papers on a topic that clearly contravenes the rules of this site. The term BDRip was originated by the video pirate scene, and is used pretty much exclusively for labelling pirated BluRay videos.

Even though you are probably the biggest gun around here, I have to point out that that seems a little preemptive, and kinda rude. The only reason BDRip is a piracy term is because for a while it was mainly pirates that were ripping Blu-rays. Now there are a lot of one-click solutions out there and joe-blow guys like me can do it themselves. I don't see how his question is against the rules of this site, especially when the name of this sub-forum is Blu-ray to AVI/MP4/MKV/WMV.

And to the OP... I'm new to this, but I have just started ripping my own collection of Blu's and can tell you that there is definitely a difference, and if you're talking about shrinking the video portion down to 50% file size then you will see a BIG difference. On 2nd thought, if you aren't a videophile at all then you may not. My mom can't see the difference between a DVD and some Blu-rays but I seem to pick up even small changes in bit rate.

If you want to preserve quality during your rip then consider just demuxing the m2ts file in the Blu-ray back-up folder and then recombining only the video with the audio stream you want, or downmix the space-hogging streams like uncompressed PCM to .ac3 and then remux just the one audio stream with your untouched video. One of my rips had a 22GB main movie but the video portion was just 11GB, and there were several other audio tracks etc. It wasn't a favorite movie of mine so I remuxed an MKV with just .ac3 and had almost no quality loss on the video reencode since my output files are usually around 12GB.

The point guns1inger was trying to make is that it will never approach the quality level of the original disc, so there is no point in discussing it.

[mpalm887]

In that case he's right. Yes quality drop, case closed.

[jagabo]

Reencoding with the same bitrate, or even a higher bitrate, will result in a noticeable loss of quality. Reencoding with a lower bitrate even more so.

[ocgw]

Hello...


I was wondering how much difference it is visible in a 50 inch full hd tv between a full bluray and a 1080p bdrip. I kwow it all depends of the conversion... but for a 13 gb rip is there any difference?


Can you post some pages talking about this?


thanks

Actually, if you are making a "backup" of a legally owned Blu Ray discs for your HTPC and you want to save HDD space you use AnyDVD HD + TsMuxer to rip out all the subtitles, and all but 1 5.1 core audio track to reduce a average 30GB Blu Ray to 18GB, then if you use BD Rebuilder to shrink to BD-9 (7.7GB for DL-DVD) w/ all the highest settings you will get a video that is surprising close in subjective video quality to the original

The extremely efficient x264 codec does well w/ sharply defined bright video @ low bit rates, but will pixelate on a few scenes w/ blurry, dark or monotone backgrounds

1 out of 5, or 10 movies just will not turn out right using this method (probably poorly mastered in the first place)

This method works for I on a 56" Samsung 1080P DLP

ps. about HD audio, I have big speakers and amps, and 5.1 core audio is about as much "dynamic sound" as I or any 1 needs imho

ocgw

peace

[Dv8ted2]

Hello...


I was wondering how much difference it is visible in a 50 inch full hd tv between a full bluray and a 1080p bdrip. I kwow it all depends of the conversion... but for a 13 gb rip is there any difference?


Can you post some pages talking about this?


thanks

Actually, if you are making a "backup" of a legally owned Blu Ray discs for your HTPC and you want to save HDD space you use AnyDVD HD + TsMuxer to rip out all the subtitles, and all but 1 5.1 core audio track to reduce a average 30GB Blu Ray to 18GB, then if you use BD Rebuilder to shrink to BD-9 (7.7GB for DL-DVD) w/ all the highest settings you will get a video that is surprising close in subjective video quality to the original

The extremely efficient x264 codec does well w/ sharply defined bright video @ low bit rates, but will pixelate on a few scenes w/ blurry, dark or monotone backgrounds

1 out of 5, or 10 movies just will not turn out right using this method (probably poorly mastered in the first place)

This method works for I on a 56" Samsung 1080P DLP

ocgw

peace

You are nowhere close to the truth. You lost roughly 23GB. That will not even be close to the original. Any time you reencode you lose quality. When you ripped the disc, you lost quality. You can not magically gain that quality back. The goal should be to have it as clear as possible. The goal should not be to compare it to the original disc, because it will never approach the quality.

[ocgw]

Hello...


I was wondering how much difference it is visible in a 50 inch full hd tv between a full bluray and a 1080p bdrip. I kwow it all depends of the conversion... but for a 13 gb rip is there any difference?


Can you post some pages talking about this?


thanks

Actually, if you are making a "backup" of a legally owned Blu Ray discs for your HTPC and you want to save HDD space you use AnyDVD HD + TsMuxer to rip out all the subtitles, and all but 1 5.1 core audio track to reduce a average 30GB Blu Ray to 18GB, then if you use BD Rebuilder to shrink to BD-9 (7.7GB for DL-DVD) w/ all the highest settings you will get a video that is surprising close in subjective video quality to the original

The extremely efficient x264 codec does well w/ sharply defined bright video @ low bit rates, but will pixelate on a few scenes w/ blurry, dark or monotone backgrounds

1 out of 5, or 10 movies just will not turn out right using this method (probably poorly mastered in the first place)

This method works for I on a 56" Samsung 1080P DLP

ocgw

peace

You are nowhere close to the truth. You lost roughly 23GB. That will not even be close to the original. Any time you reencode you lose quality. When you ripped the disc, you lost quality. You can not magically gain that quality back. The goal should be to have it as clear as possible. The goal should not be to compare it to the original disc, because it will never approach the quality.

Have you actually ever made DL-DVD Blu Ray backups to play in a PS3?

I have, over 20

unlike "some", I am not guessing or extropolating, I have experience doing just what the OP asks

ps. you don't "lose" 23GB if the "main movie" is only 18GB in the first place, and I only use the slowest, highest quality, double pass reencoding settings w/ the Trellis Algorithm

TsMuxer is not a reencoder, it is a demuxer-remuxer, there is no loss of quality in the rip, only a small loss in the perceived quality w/ the reencode w/ BD Rebuilder

ocgw

peace

[lordsmurf]

Re-encoding loses quality -- arguing with this is stubborn and idiotic.

What you can argue, however, is how much quality is lost. That largely depends on what you're doing.

In some cases, the loss is imperceptible to us.

Screen size and decoder chipset/software can affect this, too!

[ocgw]

Re-encoding loses quality -- arguing with this is stubborn and idiotic.

What you can argue, however, is how much quality is lost. That largely depends on what you're doing.

In some cases, the loss is imperceptible to us.

Screen size and decoder chipset/software can affect this, too!

You speak wisely my friend-as I NEVER said there was no loss in quality

edit: Now I want to be clear, because a surprising number of ppl don't understand what "ALL HIGHEST SETTINGS" means, they will claim all highest settings (AA,AF) on their gfx cards when they are only running @ medium resolution lmao

BD Rebuilder has 4 quality settings, use the lower 2 and you might as well buy the DVD, the 2nd highest is OK, but not worth the time imho

Now when you use the highest quality setting in conjunction w/ the "Trellis" algorithim, @ 1080P to 1080P you are @ "highest settings"

This will take 2 full days to reencode w/ early dual core cpus, now if you have a Phenom II, or a i7 you can get this reencode done in 3-6 hrs

What I am saying is this: Only after demuxing to the main movie, and only after reencoding w/ BD Rebuilder in "ALL HIGHEST SETTINGS" can you make as DL-DVD size movie that is subjectively close to the original in 4, out of 5 cases because not all BD movies are created equally

Some are MPEG2, some are VC-1, and some are h.264, @ various bit rates, some were shot in digital, and some were transfered in a telecine from film

You will only KNOW when you try it for yourself

imho the biggest factor is how well the movie was shot in the first place, as it has always been, a reencode of a well shot movie can be subjectively superior in visual quality to a "untouched" Blu Ray movie that was poorly shot

ps. technically this is a "Blu Ray to Blu Ray" thread because BD Rebuilder outputs a Blu Ray compliant folder structure ready to burn to Blu Ray discs w/ imgburn (The OP said "full bluray and a 1080p bdrip")

ocgw

peace