.MKV image Vs. blu-ray image - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 24 Old 05-26-2009, 05:44 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Vancomycin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
MKV files are smaller than a full .iso blu-ray file. My question: Is the image quality of an MKV file the exact same quality as the .iso blu-ray or the image coming out of a blu-ray player? I am talking about the image from the same movie that is in 1080p resolution. I am not comparing the audio quality.
Vancomycin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 24 Old 05-26-2009, 05:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nosferax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Beauharnois, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vancomycin View Post

MKV files are smaller than a full .iso blu-ray file. My question: Is the image quality of an MKV file the exact same quality as the .iso blu-ray or the image coming out of a blu-ray player? I am talking about the image from the same movie that is in 1080p resolution. I am not comparing the audio quality.

Short answer no.

Every time you reencode a video file you lose some quality. Sometime the impact can be insignificant but depending on the material defect can creep up.

I've seen some prety good encodes and I've seen some pretty bad one.

The smaller the end product the worst it's gonna be.
Nosferax is offline  
post #3 of 24 Old 05-26-2009, 05:51 PM
Member
 
markrb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 168
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
MKV is a container like avi. What matters is the codec used and the amount of compression.
I convert the container of my Blu-Rays without touching the video at all. So in my case there is no difference at all. I just choose the convenience of the mkv format and convert the audio to loss less flac. It saves some space for me by loosing the menus and extra audio I don't need, but mostly it's just so I can store the movie on my HD and play directly through media portal without TMT or PowerDVD.

Mark
markrb is offline  
post #4 of 24 Old 05-26-2009, 05:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Nosferax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Beauharnois, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrb View Post

MKV is a container like avi. What matters is the codec used and the amount of compression.
I convert the container of my Blu-Rays without touching the video at all. So in my case there is no difference at all. I just choose the convenience of the mkv format and convert the audio to loss less flac. It saves some space for me by loosing the menus and extra audio I don't need, but mostly it's just so I can store the movie on my HD and play directly through media portal without TMT or PowerDVD.

Mark

True. Mkv is a container. But you won't get the disk space reduction of those encodes available on the net just by droping menues and extra.
Nosferax is offline  
post #5 of 24 Old 05-26-2009, 06:41 PM
Senior Member
 
curtisb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 24
The stuff that is ripped off on the net is almost always reencoded at a lower bitrate and so it can't be the same quality but it is possible to reduce the overall size of BR owned by removing the extra's. Full bitrate movie-only BR w/lossless audio only will run ~20-40gb depending on the movie. Doesn't matter if you leave it in BR format, MKV, TS, etc, it will be the same size.
curtisb is offline  
post #6 of 24 Old 05-26-2009, 10:56 PM
Member
 
Turtleggjp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisb View Post

The stuff that is ripped off on the net is almost always reencoded at a lower bitrate and so it can't be the same quality but it is possible to reduce the overall size of BR owned by removing the extra's. Full bitrate movie-only BR w/lossless audio only will run ~20-40gb depending on the movie. Doesn't matter if you leave it in BR format, MKV, TS, etc, it will be the same size.

Not entirely true. "BR format" (.m2ts) and TS have more container overhead than .MKV, so the MKV will always be a little smaller. Not as much smaller as one that has been transcoded, but maybe smaller by 1 - 2 GB. A movie that has been moved into the MKV container with no transcoding should look 100% identical to the original, assuming you were to compare playback of both using the same software player (PowerDVD and TMT may not support MKV files).
Turtleggjp is offline  
post #7 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 12:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Favelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosferax View Post

Short answer no.

Every time you reencode a video file you lose some quality. Sometime the impact can be insignificant but depending on the material defect can creep up.

I've seen some prety good encodes and I've seen some pretty bad one.

The smaller the end product the worst it's gonna be.

Wrongoooo.....the MKV file is smaller because it doesn't include all the extras, menus, other audio tracks, etc etc...not because it was compressed and re-encoded. MKV is a CONTAINER, that's it. Bit-for-bit identical to the Blu-ray.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosferax View Post

True. Mkv is a container. But you won't get the disk space reduction of those encodes available on the net just by droping menues and extra.

Yes, you will actually. My average Blu-ray MKV is about 22-24GB. Most of the extraneous stuff on Blu-rays is anywere from 8 to 15GB!! Even at 8GB, within 25 movies, you've saved yourself 100GB.

In terms of LFE, size does matter!
Favelle is offline  
post #8 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 02:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Think there are multiple answers, all right, but not all the time, here :

mkv is a container, like the m2ts container used by Blu-ray, and both can contain multiple audio and video streams in various encoding formats - though I don't think mkv supports all the codecs used by Blu-ray yet (like the subtitle format?). mkv has a lower overhead than m2ts AIUI. (m2ts is an MPEG2 transport stream - though it doesn't have to use MPEG2 video encoding - with extra packet time stamping compared to a regular MPEG2 ts I believe, with the timestamping aiding shuttling etc.?)

iso is a disc image format. A Blu-ray iso is normally a total backup of the Blu-ray image (though often without the AACS encryption) leaving the multiple video, audio, subtitling streams and menus and extras intact within their m2ts files in the image.

It is possible to extract the m2ts streams, of each item on the disc, so if you just want the movie, you can just keep the m2ts tracks for the movie, and ignore the m2ts files for the extras. This will reduce the size of the backup. However if you don't do anything to the m2ts files they will still contain all the subtitle and audio streams along with the video stream(s). (Multiple streams for PIP AIUI). Doing this causes no quality loss - as the original video and audio encodes are untouched.

You can also remux the m2ts stream to strip out subtitles, video and audio streams that you don't want, keeping things in an m2ts container, which will again reduce the file size, and again you haven't touched the encodes of the video and audio streams you've retained, so what you have is still at the original Blu-ray quality. (Usually the main English language stream on a BD is a high bit-rate PCM, True HD or DTS HD MA lossless track that can be between 3 and 5Mb/s, whereas many of the other audio tracks are <640kb/s DD or 1.5Mb/s DTS legacy compressed.

It is also possible to remux to mkv. If you JUST remux then there is no quality loss either.

HOWEVER - many people re-encode when they convert to mkv containers, they don't just remux. If you re-encode, you can massively reduce the filesize, by lowering the bitrate you encode at compared to the original encode, but in doing so you reduce the quality.

So - mkvs can be smaller either because they are re-encodes OR because they have fewer audio/subtitle tracks (and no extras and menus and interactivity) but are original encodes.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #9 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 04:19 AM
Member
 
anthony.s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 97
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post

by lowering the bitrate you encode at compared to the original encode, but in doing so you reduce the quality.

The important issue is whether the reduction in quality is perceivable.
For me it isn't so is an acceptable reduction.
anthony.s is offline  
post #10 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 04:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
talon95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthony.s View Post

The important issue is whether the reduction in quality is perceivable.
For me it isn't so is an acceptable reduction.

+1, you need a large 1080p display to see any difference if the encoding is done well. Even on my 130" front projection setup, I have to A-B compare to see any difference at all.
talon95 is offline  
post #11 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 05:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Yep - I have a background where I'm trained to assess picture quality objectively, and so am a lot more sensitive to artefacts than many others. Even on a 40" 1920x1080 display I can see artefacts that others probably miss...

Given that storage costs are increasingly low, I prefer to retain the original encoding. (I have a library of titles that I have purchased, and have an unRAID server to which I back them up as ISOs with no re-encoding or re-muxing. However some titles I purchase don't have English subtitles, and if I want to add these - I usually remux to MKV and add the subtitles that way)
sneals2000 is offline  
post #12 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 06:14 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MKANET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 5,727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 17
MKV IMO is a horrible choice for a container. Most of the time, people have to end up remuxing it to TS for a movie/video to be playable on a hardware player since there's so many ways for people to screw up MKV. MKV has great specs, but it will be a while before its legitamate as far as industry standards are concerned.

Can your HTPC Media Center / DVR Do this??

SageTV: Unrestricted full-quality 12 tuner HD Premium Cable recording, including "On Demand" in HD + OTA ATSC + DVB-S2 + Blu-ray/HD-DVD serving 5 clients.
MKANET is offline  
post #13 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 06:31 AM
Member
 
benjamin.r's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKANET View Post

MKV IMO is a horrible choice for a container. Most of the time, people have to end up remuxing it to TS for a movie/video to be playable on a hardware player since there's so many ways for people to screw up MKV. MKV has great specs, but it will be a while before its legitamate as far as industry standards are concerned.

True. But I assume most of us on this forum use an HTPC to playback those files, so it's not an issue.
benjamin.r is offline  
post #14 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Nosferax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Beauharnois, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Favelle View Post

Wrongoooo.....the MKV file is smaller because it doesn't include all the extras, menus, other audio tracks, etc etc...not because it was compressed and re-encoded. MKV is a CONTAINER, that's it. Bit-for-bit identical to the Blu-ray.

No i'm not. The vast majority of mkv available on the net are reencodes. And we are not talking about saving a couple of gig here and there we are talking about a substantial difference in disk space (and in quality).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Favelle View Post

Yes, you will actually. My average Blu-ray MKV is about 22-24GB. Most of the extraneous stuff on Blu-rays is anywere from 8 to 15GB!! Even at 8GB, within 25 movies, you've saved yourself 100GB.

Almost nobody rip the extra so this isn't even a point.
Most mkv of BR that I see available on the net are 4 to 10g... A quarter to half of yours. People who download those aren't really that concerned with quality anyway.
Nosferax is offline  
post #15 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 06:59 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
MKANET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 5,727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 17
When I meant hardware playback, I also meant software packages like Cyberlink PowerDVD, TMT using GPU assisted playback. No matter how you look at it, you just wont find too many good MKV files out there that you can download that will just play on any player. If youre dealing with blu-ray movies, its just better to leave a file as m2ts or convert it to TS, if you really have to.

However, MKV's are great containers if you are very careful to make them compatible with all players sensetive to industry specs.

However, I'm sure there are many people out there who dont care about any of this and archive their personally-made MKV files that work on their own setup; and, dont give a sh** if it works on another person's setup or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benjamin.r View Post

True. But I assume most of us on this forum use an HTPC to playback those files, so it's not an issue.


Can your HTPC Media Center / DVR Do this??

SageTV: Unrestricted full-quality 12 tuner HD Premium Cable recording, including "On Demand" in HD + OTA ATSC + DVB-S2 + Blu-ray/HD-DVD serving 5 clients.
MKANET is offline  
post #16 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 07:11 AM
Member
 
benjamin.r's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKANET View Post

However, I'm sure there are many people out there who dont care about any of this and archive their personally-made MKV files that work on their own setup; and, dont give a sh** if it works on another person's setup or not.

Exactly

Also, by using AnyDVD-HD and Media Player Classic Home Cinema, you can play just almost anything and with no restrictions (i.e. no HDCP crap to deal with).
benjamin.r is offline  
post #17 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 11:08 AM
Member
 
dryars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKANET View Post

MKV IMO is a horrible choice for a container. Most of the time, people have to end up remuxing it to TS for a movie/video to be playable on a hardware player since there's so many ways for people to screw up MKV.

You know this isn't a problem if you handle your own encodes of your own media and going by proper spec to ensure that it works on hardware players and HA etc... Why be concerned with how other people handle the format?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKANET View Post

MKV has great specs, but it will be a while before its legitamate as far as industry standards are concerned.

You mean legitimate like Divx 7 supporting MKV's? Considering how Divx made an impact to DVD players in the last 3-4years i'd say that this is a significant jump into MKV legitimacy.
dryars is offline  
post #18 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 11:26 AM
Senior Member
 
tlmaclennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Garden Grove, CA
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I prefer to have an ISO of the original Blu-ray disc, minus all the extras. Just the movie and HD audio. Then it's one easy to use file and I can use MediaBrowser to search my collection, select a movie, and it will mount my ISO with VCD and automatically load PowerDVD. I don't want to spend the extra time converting the audio and video files to FLAC and MKV.
tlmaclennan is offline  
post #19 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 02:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Valnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 1,808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKANET View Post

MKV IMO is a horrible choice for a container. Most of the time, people have to end up remuxing it to TS for a movie/video to be playable on a hardware player since there's so many ways for people to screw up MKV. MKV has great specs, but it will be a while before its legitamate as far as industry standards are concerned.

I beg to differ. MKV is the best container format developed so far. If people don't know how to use it, or if the industry hasn't embraced it yet, speaks nothing to its quality.
Valnar is offline  
post #20 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 02:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lifespeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmaclennan View Post

I prefer to have an ISO of the original Blu-ray disc, minus all the extras. Just the movie and HD audio. Then it's one easy to use file and I can use MediaBrowser to search my collection, select a movie, and it will mount my ISO with VCD and automatically load PowerDVD. I don't want to spend the extra time converting the audio and video files to FLAC and MKV.

If you keep the full-res video, there is no conversion. There is also no extra time, as ripping to MKV can be done directly from the Blu-Ray disc. Takes no longer than ripping to ISO.

Lifespeed
lifespeed is offline  
post #21 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 02:47 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Iteki's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifespeed View Post

If you keep the full-res video, there is no conversion. There is also no extra time, as ripping to MKV can be done directly from the Blu-Ray disc. Takes no longer than ripping to ISO.

But you do convert the audio from DTSHD/TRUHD to FLAC? That doesn't add time to the rip?

I'm no expert....so your mileage may vary
XboxLiveID: archie68
Iteki is offline  
post #22 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
oliverjg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,760
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iteki View Post

But you do convert the audio from DTSHD/TRUHD to FLAC? That doesn't add time to the rip?

reading a bd drive is slow. most of the time the cpu is just sitting around waiting for data to come off the disc. it has plenty of free time to convert audio and write to hdd.
oliverjg is offline  
post #23 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 03:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Iteki's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 3,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by oliverjg View Post

reading a bd drive is slow. most of the time the cpu is just sitting around waiting for data to come off the disc. it has plenty of free time to convert audio and write to hdd.

Cool. This is probably the route I'll take...bitperfect video and lossless audio without being constrained by the player or copyprotection/having to buy special hardware, etc.

Slyplayer may change that...but until it's released I have to consider other options.

I'm no expert....so your mileage may vary
XboxLiveID: archie68
Iteki is offline  
post #24 of 24 Old 05-27-2009, 04:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Tong Chia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKANET View Post

However, I'm sure there are many people out there who dont care about any of this and archive their personally-made MKV files that work on their own setup; and, dont give a sh** if it works on another person's setup or not.

Quite correct. I convert almost everything I have to MKV and it is played
on the PC where it is authored, my Macs and the hardware players
(HDX-1000 NMT and TVix 6500)

I don't use MKV for BD as the specs for TrueHD and DTS-HDMA is not fully
supported across the board.

MKVs are good because of the flexible subtitle support. I watch foreign
films and Anime. Using soft subtitles avoids the ugly jaggies, all my
player platforms are configured to render subtitles as the last item in the
processing chain.

Hard subtities render the text onto the original video and therefore
a reencode is necessary and MKV allows this to be avoided.

I combine the RAW video from my DVDs , the original language AC3
soundrack and srt or ssa subtitles I get off the web for a custom track.

MKVs also support chapters which are very useful for when converting
Concert DVDs , I find the VOB format clumsy and not well supported
on the hardware players and thus forces the use of ISOs which waste a
lot of space.

I use MKVtoolnix which wraps MKVmerge and it avoids the gross errors
when making an MKV like incorrect timing CUE sheets.
Tong Chia is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off