Can you tell the difference between a blu ray and a x264 copy? - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 02:34 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
cedivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The Dark Knight Rises.
The Blu Ray is about 50GB for about 30MB/s. The x264 copy is 17GB for about 12MB/s. Here are 2 pics of details of the movie. I don't think to be any visible difference.

BD:


RIP:


BD:


RIP:


So my question is, if you (we) can't tell the difference, why should i want a file that is 3x bigger? I guess i will not lose time doing 1:1 copies of Blu Rays :=)
cedivad is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 06:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pittsoccer33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Pittsburgh (East Liberty)
Posts: 1,827
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 192
It depends on more than just static images on a web forum.

When I got my first hdtv, a 37" 720p model - I thought my PC was great at upscaling. I couldn't tell much of a difference between my DVD discs and the 1.5gb xvid avi files I made from them with AutoGK.

Then I got a 50" 1080p display and that line of thinking went out the window. Even DVDs look relatively lousy on it.

I probably would compress some things now that I use bluray, especially comedies. But it takes over 18 hours to do a single movie in Handbrake so I don't bother.
bulls likes this.

My HTPC front end set up
Integration for whole home ATSC, CableCARD, FM radio, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, DVD, VHS control & capture, video games, and archived & streaming media playback
Mironto's Panasonic plasma black level restoration guide
Restore the initial MLL on a 2009 Panasonic plasma
pittsoccer33 is offline  
post #3 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 06:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 169
I ripped the Dark Knight Rises and it is h.264 at 30Mbps. Why did you compress it?

Sammy2 is offline  
post #4 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 06:42 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
cedivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 View Post

It depends on more than just static images on a web forum.
I'm sorry, but i don't think so. Movies are static images. The plane photogram is exactly the same, compressed and not. So the movie is exactly the same. I'm now running the two movies on fullscreen on the same time pressing cmd/tab to switch among the 2 versions, pause the movie and examine the single photogram. I found some differences on some IMAX night scenes of the city. However, it takes at least 20 seconds to see these differences. Really imperceptible.
This one is the most visible so far:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

I ripped the Dark Knight Rises and it is h.264 at 30Mbps. Why did you compress it?
Let's say that if you want to store everything in the cloud you also save bandwidth.
cedivad is offline  
post #5 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 07:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 View Post

It depends on more than just static images on a web forum.
When I got my first hdtv, a 37" 720p model - I thought my PC was great at upscaling. I couldn't tell much of a difference between my DVD discs and the 1.5gb xvid avi files I made from them with AutoGK.
Then I got a 50" 1080p display and that line of thinking went out the window. Even DVDs look relatively lousy on it.
I probably would compress some things now that I use bluray, especially comedies. But it takes over 18 hours to do a single movie in Handbrake so I don't bother.
And they are .jpg images to boot!
olyteddy is online now  
post #6 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 07:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,662
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedivad View Post

Let's say that if you want to store everything in the cloud you also save bandwidth.

Okay. You still need probably a 50Mbps internet connection for that and a the same up speed to get it there in a decent amount of time.

How much can you store in the cloud that you have and how do you access the cloud library quickly for playback?

Sammy2 is offline  
post #7 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 07:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Foxbat121's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: VA
Posts: 9,813
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 199
I can tell the differences posted in OP in the factor of obvious compression artifacts. Even if you re-compress it into 30mb/s H.264, you will still see those artifacts in most cases because compressing a video is more than just press a button.

Yes, compress it down to 12mbps is good choice between storage/bandwidth requirements and visual artifacts. But don't think for a minute that you can't tell a difference. It's a sacrifice you choose and live with it.

It you know where to look for the defects, it is easy to spot. On a bigger screen, these artifacts will be more obvious than your PC screen.
Foxbat121 is online now  
post #8 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 07:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sitlet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
I'm sorry, but i don't think so. Movies are static images.

Umm, not exactly. Movies are a SERIES of static images. You cannot tell based on one frame how compressed a movie is going to look. Motion plays a BIG factor in that. Try capping a frame with an explosion or fast moving objects, you will notice.
Quote:
The plane photogram is exactly the same, compressed and not. So the movie is exactly the same.

No it's not. No matter how little you compressed it, it's still compressed, meaning you did lose some bits of the original.
sitlet is offline  
post #9 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 07:37 AM
Advanced Member
 
Louquid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 37
I've always found the imperfections of compressed Blu Ray rips have always shown with movement in the scene. The fluidness is where you see the loss of quality. Pixelation, screen tearing, and washing out of dark images.

Though compressing down to 17gb you probably won't be able to notice these things as easily as if you compressed it down further.

Louquid is offline  
post #10 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 08:18 AM
Senior Member
 
jvarisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
There's a lot of reasons, many of which overlap.

First, more bitrate does not always equal better. There's a huge point of diminishing returns on encoding 1080p video. That breakpoint varies greatly depending on the original video and how much care you give the encode, but it is there. The first "Avatar" disc is a great example. The first version had nothing other than the movie, because it was claimed it would compromise the video quality to encode to a smaller file size. Then the special feature versions arrived and people couldn't see any difference with the lower bit rate discs.

Second, most people far overestimate their ability to perceive differences in media encoding. Some go so far as to invent things that aren't there. You see this most often with audiophiles' "golden ears", but I'm sure there's plenty of "golden eyes" on this forum. The only proper way to test would be a double-blind setup. However, for your purposes, if you can't see a practical difference, then rock on with your encoding. I might recommend testing it on a couple different movies just to confirm that you see consistent results in multiple cases.

I will concede that the encoding tools you and I have are probably not nearly as good as the professional mastering houses, and we also don't have access to the original source - which means joe average ripping a retail BR is going to have the potential for problems/reduced quality. But as you've shown that's not always the case.

With this in mind, why do huge encodes on Bluray? Well, because there' space for it on the disc! There's no harm or additional cost in doing a 50G encode vs. a 17G encode, so why not? If anything it's in the studio's interest. It's less work for them to get a good encode since they have more space than they really need. It's also is a great selling point for videophile review sites - they always mention bitrates in their reviews.
cedivad likes this.
jvarisco is offline  
post #11 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 10:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
pokekevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 5,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 101
On my calibrated plasma I was able to tell differences when it came to colors. I experimented with compressed my bd iso rips back when 2tb hard drives were the only thing around and were expensive.

No subwoofer I've heard has been able to produce the bass I've experienced in the Corps!

Must..stop...buying...every bluray release...
pokekevin is offline  
post #12 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 01:08 PM
Member
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I recently did a blind test by having a friend play a scene from a blu-ray playing on a PS3 and the same scene from a ripped and compressed version on my HTPC, I can't play Blu-Ray's on my HTPC. Original was 18 gigs, compressed it was 4 gigs. I did actually pick correctly but I was guessing, I couldn't tell the difference. While I am sure there is a difference, I can't see it or hear it.
Yunus is offline  
post #13 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrkazador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 248

If the encode was done well from a person who understand all the various settings then it would be difficult for me, even on a calibrated monitor. I could pick up the differences if I were to capture the images and compare them side by side but in motion, definitely not.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cedivad View Post

BD:

RIP:

So my question is, if you (we) can't tell the difference, why should i want a file that is 3x bigger? I guess i will not lose time doing 1:1 copies of Blu Rays :=)

 

This set of pictures are exactly the same, which is not possible.

Mrkazador is online now  
post #14 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 03:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 888
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 33

I'd like to add that in many cases, HD audio is also hard to tell apart from a DD/DTS track. Although this of course depends almost completely on your audio gear, I believe there were articles in the usual audio rags about how it was hard to distinguish. Same thing applies for music ripped to FLAC vs high bitrate mp3/wma/aac.

 

This is an age old debate. Ripping started because disk space was limited. Then the typical argument became - disk space is cheap, why not keep in the best format possible, you can always down-encode later. But now we've reached a point where the encoders are really good and space is again becoming costly.

 

I've spent a LOT of time ensuring perfect rips, 720p vs 1080p etc, and in the end realized I watched the movie only once and spent far more time on ripping it :)

cedivad likes this.
Defcon is offline  
post #15 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 03:57 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
cedivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrkazador View Post

This set of pictures are exactly the same, which is not possible.
Look at the shadows of the broken wings, they are different. These are really different encodings, it's just that the rip one is really well done! smile.gif
cedivad is offline  
post #16 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mrkazador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,828
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedivad View Post


Look at the shadows of the broken wings, they are different. These are really different encodings, it's just that the rip one is really well done! smile.gif


Either you changed the images or I was looking at the same picture lol.

Mrkazador is online now  
post #17 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 07:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,211
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Since most of the compression is accomplished by eliminating the common part(s) between frames or in other words recording just the differences I too am of the opinion that static images are useless as a means of comparison. Especially because those still shots are compromised by being further compressed by .jpg algorithms. To those who say they are identical, check the filesizes:
olyteddy is online now  
post #18 of 28 Old 12-31-2012, 10:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,465
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

To those who say they are identical, check the filesizes:
Which means absolutely nothing unless the pics are cropped exactly the same (which they aren't). It would have been better if the OP had posted uncropped (and non JPEG compressed) images (which still would not show frame transitions).

If you are saying they are not the same pic, then I agree but we would have to take the OP at his word that they are pics of different source encodes. As you said, these images are useless for comparisons.
vladd is offline  
post #19 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 12:11 AM
Member
 
jdastas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 View Post

It depends on more than just static images on a web forum.
When I got my first hdtv, a 37" 720p model - I thought my PC was great at upscaling. I couldn't tell much of a difference between my DVD discs and the 1.5gb xvid avi files I made from them with AutoGK.
Then I got a 50" 1080p display and that line of thinking went out the window. Even DVDs look relatively lousy on it.
I probably would compress some things now that I use bluray, especially comedies. But it takes over 18 hours to do a single movie in Handbrake so I don't bother.

18hrs sounds like a lot, what kind of hardware are you running?

I just ripped the first Pirates of the Caribbean. 30GB file down to 10, took about 1hr45min.
jdastas is offline  
post #20 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 01:48 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
cedivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mod's edit: Piracy talk removed.

About the storage space, i have 4U storage server i use for my work (and for several terabytes of backups or real data). It's not a space issue for me. I don't think to really have a canche to fill that storage server with BD rips. However, this is not the point of the thread. The point is, is there any visible difference among the 2 versions? The answer is that no, there is not. Its like finding the difference among pepsi and coca cola.
cedivad is offline  
post #21 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 02:06 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
cedivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

Since most of the compression is accomplished by eliminating the common part(s) between frames or in other words recording just the differences I too am of the opinion that static images are useless as a means of comparison.
Shouldn't static images in the middle of an "battle" or "run" scene be different from the original following your thinking? I think that since that i can't find any visible difference among the frames of the 2 versions, there shouldn't be any. Maybe i misunderstand what you are saying, my english is not that good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

Especially because those still shots are compromised by being further compressed by .jpg algorithms.
Low compression JPG, it's hard to tell from the original.
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

To those who say they are identical, check the filesizes:
This to me has the same meaning of doing a md5sum of the file. Also, yes, i cropped the screen by hand, they have a different size and filesize.
cedivad is offline  
post #22 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 02:23 AM
Senior Member
 
acejh1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedivad View Post

No, i've tried that one as a reference to know how people with more experience than me encode those movies. To learn. rolleyes.gif

Sure, the best way to learn how to encode is from torrents rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedivad View Post

The point is, is there any visible difference among the 2 versions? The answer is that no, there is not. Its like finding the difference among pepsi and coca cola.

No - There is a difference, you just are not able to see it like some others can, just like some people can tell between pepsi and coca cola.
Stop trying to convince people otherwise.
acejh1987 is offline  
post #23 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 02:42 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
cedivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by acejh1987 View Post

No - There is a difference, you just are not able to see it like some others can, just like some people can tell between pepsi and coca cola.
Stop trying to convince people otherwise.
original 2303k .png file
rip 2086k .png file

As you can see the original one is 0.3MB bigger.

Please point me out the visible differences you would see during the screening of the movie. I know that they are different. But you wan't be able to distinguish the original from the other one. If you are able to, please tell me how you could with that pics.
Attached Images
File Type: png vlcsnap-2013-01-01-11h35m42s235.png (2.04 MB, 4 views)
cedivad is offline  
post #24 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 02:54 AM
Senior Member
 
acejh1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
If the screenshots are from different sources then the argument is void anyway, your original is from the Italian BD, and the torrent rip as you have pointed out isn't.
I'm not saying I would even see a difference, but some people do and you can not convince them otherwise.
I know I have the best quality possible already, space is not an issue so I do not need to waste time encoding/downloading torrents, even if I couldn't tell the difference.
acejh1987 is offline  
post #25 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 03:01 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
cedivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Take your tdkr BD and you will see that it has an Italian audio track. We own the same BD and it has sense to think that whoever did the torrent rip own the same.
So, the source is the same, and the derivate is impossible to to tell from the original.
cedivad is offline  
post #26 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 03:15 AM
Senior Member
 
acejh1987's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedivad View Post

So, the source is the same, and the derivate is impossible to to tell from the original.

Its not impossible to tell the difference between an original rip and a 12Mbps x264 encode.
It is impossible to convince someone what they can and can not see.
acejh1987 is offline  
post #27 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 03:18 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
cedivad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by acejh1987 View Post

Its not impossible to tell the difference between an original rip and a 12Mbps x264 encode.
It is impossible to convince someone what they can and can not see.
To prove your thesis, show me a sensible difference among the 2 versions. Ask me to post x photogram. You are correct, it's not impossible, it's only humanly impossible.
Thank you @ forum for the conversation, anyway.
cedivad is offline  
post #28 of 28 Old 01-01-2013, 03:32 AM
Super Moderator
 
Bob Sorel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 8,454
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 106
This thread is pointless....time to close it.
Bob Sorel is offline  
Closed Thread Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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