.mkv vs DVD video quality

[buytick]

When I rip a full DVD to an .ISO file, it is usually 4gb in size or larger. When I convert a file to .mkv on Handbrake it yield a file maybe 1gb in size.

I am curious as to the video quality on a 55" TV. Does the visual quality of the .mkv in 1080p equal the DVD video quality??

Thanks

[_Al_]

I am curious as to the video quality on a 55" TV. Does the visual quality of the .mkv in 1080p equal the DVD video quality??

Generally it is better, but occasionally someone can always mess up a bit by setting encoder the way it does not distribute enough bitrate for that particular type of video or resolution. Or it could be significantly better in one part ( well lit scene) and worse in the other (scenes with dark gradients or just gradients where banding or visible macroblocks could be introduced).

Hopefully that MKV is not your video, made from that DVD, upscaling it to 1080p, rather than general MKV from web, I think not, but anyway, if you did that, in that case ,it is always worse.

[newpball]

When I rip a full DVD to an .ISO file, it is usually 4gb in size or larger. When I convert a file to .mkv on Handbrake it yield a file maybe 1gb in size.

I am curious as to the video quality on a 55" TV. Does the visual quality of the .mkv in 1080p equal the DVD video quality??

Thanks

First of all DVD is standard definition video, SD. 1080p is HD. A huge difference!

You cannot make HD out of an SD source.

H.264 (the encoding likely put in your MKV) is far more efficient than MPEG-2 (standard DVD encoding) . A simple rule of thumb is 2:1.

Disclaimer: Some people on this forum disagree with me on the huge difference between 1080 and SD, also some members seem to disagree on the better efficiency of H.264 over MPEG-2.

[newpball]

I am curious as to the video quality on a 55" TV. Does the visual quality of the .mkv in 1080p equal the DVD video quality??

Generally it is better...

Please tell me you are kidding!

[buytick]

Lou, I haven't a clue what you wrote. Let me make this clearer. If I watch a DVD on my 55" LCD TV (1080P) is the picture quality better than if I took that same DVD, which I own, and rip it, then convert it with Handbrake to an .mkv file and watch it on the same TV. WHich picture quality is better???

[_Al_]

I thought that 1080p was meant for video resolution, but now you refer clearly as TV resolution.

Anyway, that MKV of yours is always worse.

[jagabo]

The MKV will normally be worse because you are re-compressing the DVD video with a lossy codec (presumably h.264). But if you allow sufficient bitrate and use the right settings the loss of quality won't be very noticeable. Start with Handbrake's High Profile preset. On the Video tab select h.264 (x264) as the Video Codec. Framerate: Same As Source or 23.976 fps if you inverse telecine film based material. Constant Quality: 18. x264 Preset: Slow. x264 Tune: Film or Animation, whichever is appropriate for your source. That will be nearly indistinguishable from your DVD at normal playback speeds. If you zoom in on still frames you'll see minor differences.

[newpball]

The MKV will normally be worse because you are re-compressing the DVD video with a lossy codec (presumably h.264). But if you allow sufficient bitrate and use the right settings the loss of quality won't be very noticeable. Start with Handbrake's High Profile preset. On the Video tab select h.264 (x264) as the Video Codec. Framerate: Same As Source or 23.976 fps if you inverse telecine film based material. Constant Quality: 18. x264 Preset: Slow. x264 Tune: Film or Animation, whichever is appropriate for your source. That will be nearly indistinguishable from your DVD at normal playback speeds. If you zoom in on still frames you'll see minor differences.

Does handbrake have a decent deinterlacer (with frame doubling) for interlaced material? Otherwise the quality will certainly not match the original.

[lordsmurf]

When I rip a full DVD to an .ISO file, it is usually 4gb in size or larger. When I convert a file to .mkv on Handbrake it yield a file maybe 1gb in size.
I am curious as to the video quality on a 55" TV. Does the visual quality of the .mkv in 1080p equal the DVD video quality??
Thanks

First of all DVD is standard definition video, SD. 1080p is HD. A huge difference!
You cannot make HD out of an SD source.
H.264 (the encoding likely put in your MKV) is far more efficient than MPEG-2 (standard DVD encoding) . A simple rule of thumb is 2:1.
Disclaimer: Some people on this forum disagree with me on the huge difference between 1080 and SD, also some members seem to disagree on the better efficiency of H.264 over MPEG-2.

^ @newpball: You really need to read posts, instead of ranting like an idiot.

A "DVD rip" source = 720x480/576 max, or SD quality. (DVD resolutions can be as low as 352x240.)
It was never HD 720p/1080p.

________

@buytick:

Re-compressing lossy MPEG-2 to lossy H.264 (MKV container) will always look worse.

The only caveat is if any restoration is done on the MPEG-2, and if the H.264 bitrate can sustain the restorations. The H.264 deblock may also help, but mostly for restored footage.

So, as usual, "it depends".

[hello_hello]

Some video is hard to encode, so depending on the bitrate fine noise might become a little blocky..... that sort of thing...... but generally I agree with jagabo. While theoretically there's a quality loss if you simply re-encode (applying filtering on the way through can be a different story but you can't do much of that with Handbrake) if you use a high quality setting (ie CRF18) the encoding is usually fairly "transparent" in that the encode looks just like the original. And as x264 can compress more efficiently than mpeg2, usually the result will be a much smaller file size.

[hello_hello]

Disclaimer: Some people on this forum disagree with me on the huge difference between 1080 and SD, also some members seem to disagree on the better efficiency of H.264 over MPEG-2.

I'll bite. Which forum members don't think h264 is more efficient than mpeg2, given "more efficient" is kind of the whole point of it.

Does handbrake have a decent deinterlacer (with frame doubling) for interlaced material? Otherwise the quality will certainly not match the original.

Not all DVDs are interlaced, so not all require de-interlacing, but the answer is yes, it does.

[newpball]

Not all DVDs are interlaced, so not all require de-interlacing, but the answer is yes, it does.

That's progress! Last time I checked (some time ago, don't run handbreak except for benchmarks and stress testing) it did not do deinterlace with frame doubling.

Good thing, handbreak is gaining allure!

[Cornucopia]

I guess with the wrong, totally inappropriate settings, h264 COULD be less efficient than MPEG2, but that would be a rarity.

I think if the comparison is between:
1. DVD SD MPEG2 original clip resized during playback/display to the 1080 diplay size
vs.
2. Clip re-encode AND resized to 1080 with h264 and displayed with no susequent resizing

Really, the factors that influence this is the relative merits of the hardware resize algorithms vs. the software algorithms, and whether the loss due to recompression is less (due to good settings and high enough bitrate) than that resize difference. Difficulties can arise when the assumption of "efficiency" doesn't accommodate the commensurate rise in bitrate necessary to realize artifact-free recompression with 6x the # of pixels as the source.

Scott

[jagabo]

I think if the comparison is between:
1. DVD SD MPEG2 original clip resized during playback/display to the 1080 diplay size
vs.
2. Clip re-encode AND resized to 1080 with h264 and displayed with no susequent resizing

That can't be what he's asking about because Handbrake can't enlarge the frame. He must be talking about the original DVD vs. an SD re-encode.

[hello_hello]

One more try.......

Disclaimer: Some people on this forum disagree with me on the huge difference between 1080 and SD, also some members seem to disagree on the better efficiency of H.264 over MPEG-2.

I'll bite. Which forum members don't think h264 is more efficient than mpeg2, given "more efficient" is kind of the whole point of it?

[Skiller]

H.264 (the encoding likely put in your MKV) is far more efficient than MPEG-2 (standard DVD encoding) . A simple rule of thumb is 2:1.

That simple rule of thumb should be taken with grain of salt. No, I'm not saying H.264 isn't more efficient than MPEG2 (who would say that? ) but it largely depends on the content how much better H.264 really is.

Let me give you an example. If you have a noisy VHS capture and cannot denoise it without it looking like plastic the noise will negatively offset the efficacy advantage of H.264 over MPEG2. Quite severly actually in my experience. And with clean content and lots of static parts (like Anime) the opposite happens and H.264 becomes much, much more efficient over MPEG2.

Disclaimer: Some people on this forum disagree with me on the huge difference between 1080 and SD

I agree to disagree (about huge difference), and most Average Joes with their TVs at the opposite end of the living room would probably too.

[buytick]

Of course, all of you are talking tech way above my pay grade. I had two reasons for the question. 1. Which format yields a better picture - the .iso from the DVD or an .mkv from the same DVD (a commercial movie DVD not a homemade one) 2. Since the MKV is so much smaller it would be easier to save the file on my external storage, but I wouldn't want to do that if the video quality was so much worse.

[racer-x]

Of course, all of you are talking tech way above my pay grade. I had two reasons for the question. 1. Which format yields a better picture - the .iso from the DVD or an .mkv from the same DVD (a commercial movie DVD not a homemade one) 2. Since the MKV is so much smaller it would be easier to save the file on my external storage, but I wouldn't want to do that if the video quality was so much worse.

Only you can answer that question....

[LMotlow]

Of course, all of you are talking tech way above my pay grade. I had two reasons for the question. 1. Which format yields a better picture - the .iso from the DVD or an .mkv from the same DVD (a commercial movie DVD not a homemade one) 2. Since the MKV is so much smaller it would be easier to save the file on my external storage, but I wouldn't want to do that if the video quality was so much worse.

I think the qustion is already answered, if not piecemeal. When you say a 4GB commercial DVD is re-encoded to a 1GB mkv with h264, there's nothing to be gained by re-encoding alone. Whether h264 is "more efficient" or not is debatable, depending on the source.

What is all this crap about reducing big DVD's so they'll fit on a 1GB USB stick? The question itself tells me there's a lack of understanding about what video encoding entails (it's not like ZIP or RAR, folks).

Tell you what: re-encode that 4GB DVD down to 1GB and see what you get. Your post says you've already done it. That alone should answer your questions. If you see no difference, it doesn't matter what we think. But IMO it's a waste of time and a definite quality loss..

[newpball]

Disclaimer: Some people on this forum disagree with me on the huge difference between 1080 and SD

I agree to disagree (about huge difference), and most Average Joes with their TVs at the opposite end of the living room would probably too.

I am not surprised you do not think there is a huge difference between 1080 and SD video. Apparently there are quite a few people hording on this forum downplaying the advantages of HD and promoting SD video.

How the opinion of Average Joes are relevant to this is beyond me.

Whether h264 is "more efficient" or not is debatable, depending on the source.

I certainly won't bother to debate this nonsense with you, H.264 is a more efficient codec by all good standards.

Next we are going to hear that 78rpm shellacs are actually not that bad compared to CDs.

[LMotlow]

Newball has changed the discussion to suit his myopic point of view. Pobably has no idea how many BluRays, both SD and HD, are encoded with newer BD versions of MPEG. I believe the original post asked the question: re-encode a commercial 4GB DVD down to 1GB with low-bitrate h264. Will quality suffer? Damn right it will. By "efficient" some people merely think bigger and faster is better. Got some other pups who think smaller and faster is better, and even smaller is even better than that.

Unless there's some cleanup to do on the original DVD, lossy re-encoding is more lossy, period. At a bitrate low enough to reduce 4GB to 1GB, forget it. It'll look as bad as VHS with artifacts added to the mess.

[buytick]

Thank you LMotlow
My solution is to keep the .iso and get more storage space.

[jagabo]

At a bitrate low enough to reduce 4GB to 1GB, forget it. It'll look as bad as VHS with artifacts added to the mess.

Nonsense. It will depend on the DVD. Many will look fine at 1 GB. Almost all at 2 GB.

[Skiller]

Apparently there are quite a few people hording on this forum downplaying the advantages of HD and promoting SD video.

We're not promoting SD over HD, we're just looking at it from a practical point of view whereas you don't.

How the opinion of Average Joes are relevant to this is beyond me.

Because Average Joes (or more precisely: non-videophiles) are the >99% of people watching...well everything. So why would their opinion not matter? Because they are not videophile?

[buytick]

Just when I thought I had a solution.

[usually_quiet]

Just when I thought I had a solution.

There is nothing wrong with keeping the original MPEG-2 video and the original audio, either as an ISO or in some other format, if your player can't handle an ISO. Yes you need more storage space, but it is faster and easier, plus you can keep the original menus and have the same quality as the original.

However, now that you are able to make an informed decision, if you really want to re-encode the DVD to a 2GB H.264 mp4 file, you can certainly do that. Many members here with a large movie collection to convert do it so they can make do with fewer HDDs or do it so they can watch on their tablet. They seem to feel the benefits outweigh a small quality loss.

newpball shows up to derail every single thread involving questions about DVDs, SD video, MPEG-2 video and cable TV. He calls it dissent. The rest of us call it trolling, as in picking a fight for one's own amusement.

[lingyi]

Just when I thought I had a solution.

Ignore the debate above and save your rip as is, get a larger hard drive and let your TV upscale (automatically) to 1080p. Your cost savings in reducing file size is <15 cents.

As I've gotten older (and older), I've come to realize and appreciate that I'd rather spend my time watching video rather than tweaking it to the nth degree.

[buytick]

Thank you. Being from the older set myself, it is excellent advice.

[Cornucopia]

+1 there.