Compressed vs. Untouched BluRay

[Mitchlw]

Users,

I got a question..
What quality differences might occur when comparing a Compressed 1080p BluRay rip vs. Untouched BluRay?

Difference in;

- Audio quality?
- Video quality?
- Judder/Smearing Effect?
- etc..

I would like to hear your thoughts...

Cheers,
Mitch.

[Omertron]

If the rip is good, I would say that most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
The obvious places to look are in dark scenes with graduated greys, I can often see in SD rips the blockiness around the different sections that I don't see in a 720p and even less so in a 1080p rip.

The other place that I notice artefacts are around high action scenes where there is a lot of things happening on screen such as a panning explosion scene. Think the scene in gladiator where they are lined up in the forest and the explosions start the battle.

For smearing, check films that have a lot of gun fire and look at the casings being ejected from the gun, that is where you will see that sort of smearing and high compression artefacts because the compression cannot handle that small of a change amongst all the other things that are usually going on with a scene.

Those are the things that I notice anyway. For romcom rips for the wife, SD is perfect because nothing every happens in those films

[accident]

If we're getting into generalizations here, it really depends on the title. Fast paced tends to need to be higher. And then you have personal preference and screen size that all factor in. the average person really can't see a difference.

I don't really think there is 1 setup that works perfect for everything. I know I have different levels of compression depending on what quality I would want it at the next time I would watch it. I rarely keep anything full untouched and save a lot of space be doing so.

[Bazrah]

I keep everything as untouched but remove extra audio and extras to reduce overall size.

My thinking is that I've been through lots of formats and codecs (for audio in particular (mp3 192Kb, mp3 320Kb, mp3 VBR, FLAC)) that I don't want to regret going to a lossy format with my video so just stick with as-is but put it in mkv with all the extras ripped out.

[NodNarb012]

I'm with Baz on this one; I rip main video and audio untouched to MKV. I'm paying for Blu-ray, I want to see and hear Blu-ray.

[Mitchlw]

So if im correct, that would be rips like around 20-30GB a movie???

Thanks for the information so far!

[Kir]

Mitchlw
Depends on a movie. For example, LOTR 1:1 rips would be over 100Gb.

[Mitchlw]

Im talking about the Main Movie + DTS-HD/True HD English audio...

All extra + unused audio tracks deleted.....

[minazza]

up to 40 GB only main movie plus two or three audio tracks

[NodNarb012]

On average, I'd say 20-30GB is about right based on my collection. Obviously, some will come in above or below that range, but it's a good estimate.

---

I have a few over 40GB with just main movie and single HD audio track. Avatar and Minority Report are two that come to mind.

[Bazrah]

Most of mine are in the 15-25Gb range

[Plukh]

Most rips do the following:

1. Drop all extras (that's kinda obvious), encode only the main movie.
2. Reduce video bitrate to about 30% of the original.
3. Drop extra audio and subtitle tracks.
4. Extract smaller lossy core (DTS/AC3) from lossless (i.e. DTS-MA or TrueHD) audio tracks.

Most people can not discern a difference between high-bitrate lossy and lossless audio compressions in double-blind tests, so the only place where you can really expect to see a degradation is in the video stream. On modern H264 encoders you should look for the following three primary artifacts:

• ringing and/or color distortion around sharp edges;
• loss of minor color detail in uniformly-colored areas (i.e., faces looking suspiciously glossy, without wrinkles or minor defects, or blades of grass losing their different shades of green);
• extra grainy noise, especially in areas with smooth color gradients (i.e., the sky).
  

You rarely see actual motion artifacts in most rips, but if you do, you just know that the rip is terrible - it's pretty difficult to make a (responsible) rip with such a low bitrate as to produce motion artifacts in an HD rip. So, if you're deciding on storing rips or remuxes (with original audio/video streams), consider this:

1. What sort of equipment you'll be using to view them? If you go with an inexpensive 40" LCD, you won't ever see a difference in quality between a good rip and an original blu-ray.
2. Related to the above: do you plan to watch the video on mobile devices? Most cutting-edge devices we have available currently will play 1080p video - but many will struggle with original high-bitrate video; also, storage is a factor - you can get 3-4 1080p rips on a 32Gb device, but often you'll just have space for 1 (one) remux, which is totally uncool.
3. How many movies are you going to watch, and for how long do you plan to store them? If you watch, say, 50 movies a year, you'd need about 1.5 Tb of storage for remuxes - it's quite affordable (especially with newer 4Tb drives); however, if you're maintaining any sort of collection (for example, I have about 500 movies in my collection that I don't expect to delete ever), space quickly becomes an issue - and rips can make a critical difference between "just get another HDD" and "have to build my own RAID array".

[Bazrah]

I know it's OT, but with my equipment I can definitely tell between lossy and lossless audio, even the wife can tell the difference.

[Plukh]

(05-15-2012 06:22 PM)Bazrah Wrote:  I know it's OT, but with my equipment I can definitely tell between lossy and lossless audio, even the wife can tell the difference.

No, you don't. You think you can, but you really can't. Even the most talented audiophiles in the world, using expensive and precisely calibrated equipment, have trouble discerning between 1536 Kbps DTS encoding made with reference DTS encoder and lossless encoding of the same fragment in blind tests (the success rate is about 55%, with 50% being the expected result of simple guessing).

[Bazrah]

No, I really can.

Listen to the soundtrack on Sweeney Todd for example (as the Mrs has recently watched it and I was subjected to it ).

Lossy sounds great. Lossless has a greater depth and soundstage. I am willing to admit it might just be how the studio have mixed the track to make me think it's better, but either way, there is a difference.