or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › 720p/1080p mkv quality vs. blu-ray quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

720p/1080p mkv quality vs. blu-ray quality - Page 3

post #61 of 107
CUE should be. Their other tests all seem to be about pulldown removal which wouldn't apply to any progressive content, and "enhancements" like noise filtering and compression block smoothing which I would hope you have set to 0.
post #62 of 107
My question is a little different but somewhat related with this subject. I am not a video expert and so I ask you (in case anyone responds) to use simple terms and not be super super technical.

If I have a BlueRay and wanna re-encode it into a format compatible with quicktime, which settings and format should I use? I am not interested in decreasing file size; my interest is maintaining most of the video quality while being able to play the video in quicktime. I know that there many formats out there, many bit rates, but which one is less lossy?

I do appreciate you answer.
Many thanks,
Rimi
post #63 of 107
Compatible with QuickTime? But, why?

If the Blu-ray is already AVC (H.264) then the video should be compatible, it would be a matter of changing the container to something QuickTime can play (.MP4) and possibly the audio.
post #64 of 107
if I rip my own blu ray.. I can't seem to tell much difference from the original or not.

As a certain point my eyesight lacks... and at 1080p resolutions everything looks great.
post #65 of 107
I always liked mkv's but i never would have guessed how much better they are to DVDs. I know its almost night and day. Do you think at a really high bit rate a mkv could match a real 1080p blu ray? I mean it comes really close, but in a lab test do you everything it could match it or beat it if not what could? just curious.
post #66 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by anime301 View Post

I always liked mkv's but i never would have guessed how much better they are to DVDs. I know its almost night and day. Do you think at a really high bit rate a mkv could match a real 1080p blu ray? I mean it comes really close, but in a lab test do you everything it could match it or beat it if not what could? just curious.

All of my MKV files match my bluray disks perfectly. Bit for bit. I rip the video and audio to MKV with zero compression.

I'm actually kindof surprised that this thread is still going.

MKV is just a container file, like a ZIP or RAR. The parts of the video that you watch, when you double-click the MKV, are contained therein. There is a video track, an audio track, chapter files, subtitle files, etc etc. You can add and remove portions, and add or remove multiple video and audio tracks.

When you download (or rip) an MKV, it's usually compressed because of storage or bandwidth constraints. No one wants to download a 38gb TRON:Legacy MKV file when for most people a ~10gb rip will do just fine.

Personally, I prefer reference quality video and audio, so I rip my own bluray discs.
post #67 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veeper View Post

All of my MKV files match my bluray disks perfectly. Bit for bit. I rip the video and audio to MKV with zero compression.

I'm actually kindof surprised that this thread is still going.

MKV is just a container file, like a ZIP or RAR. The parts of the video that you watch, when you double-click the MKV, are contained therein. There is a video track, an audio track, chapter files, subtitle files, etc etc. You can add and remove portions, and add or remove multiple video and audio tracks.

When you download (or rip) an MKV, it's usually compressed because of storage or bandwidth constraints. No one wants to download a 38gb TRON:Legacy MKV file when for most people a ~10gb rip will do just fine.

Personally, I prefer reference quality video and audio, so I rip my own bluray discs.

Thank you. Many people in this thread were assuming that MKV implies compression. All my movies are MKV's and virtually all of them are untouched blu-ray rips. I didn't do any compression at all, and I also preserved the subtitles, HD audio, etc.

I still just don't understand why people compress their movies. Even with the Thailand floods, hard drive prices are pretty cheap. Some people say they can't tell the difference, but what if you upgrade your TV? And if you want to watch your movies on a mobile device, there are other options like transcoding through Plex. Making uncompressed MKV's also takes a heck of lot less time an energy to do than re-encoding everything.
post #68 of 107
Just for clarity sake, as most of you already know this, but blu-ray video already comes compressed/encoded. Using either h264 or vc-1 encoders with very high bit-rates but never-the-less they are compressed. The idea is NOT to re-compress at lower bit-rates for the sake of saving space.
post #69 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zagor View Post

Just for clarity sake, as most of you already know this, but blu-ray video already comes compressed/encoded. Using either h264 or vc-1 encoders with very high bit-rates but never-the-less they are compressed. The idea is NOT to re-compress at lower bit-rates for the sake of saving space.

True, although I have never seen a blu-ray with any visible compression artifacts, and I doubt they can be seen on any blu-ray unless the studio did a really poor job with the transfer/compression.
post #70 of 107
I think it comes down to quality versus portability. If I only watched movies/tv shows on my HTPC then full bit-rate blu-ray remuxed to .mkv is the way to go. But if I want to bring something to watch on a tablet/phone I don't want have it take up 30gb of space.

Depending on the quality of the source I either do 720p re-encodes and keep it for both uses or keep seperate iTunes and HTPC files for something that a full bitrate .mkv really is worth it on the big screen.
post #71 of 107
Or just use Plex and transcode on-the-fly (which now works on all 3 major mobile platforms, Android/iOS and Windows Phone 7) without wasting hours to re-encode stuff. Even if you compress a movie down to 4GB, you waste half of your tablets storage (at an average of 32GB per tablet) with 4 movies. With Plex or any other real-time transcoding/streaming client/serve rapp, you can have all your 500 movies available to you.
post #72 of 107
My WHS only has a 2Ghz Celeron so isn't up to the transcoding task but in any case I"m most likely to watch something on mobile when I don't have any connectivity (plane, subway) or limited connectivity (very slow wifi or 3G while travelling). Plex isn't really an option for me until the world is wired better.
post #73 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockdown571 View Post

I still just don't understand why people compress their movies. Even with the Thailand floods, hard drive prices are pretty cheap. Some people say they can't tell the difference, but what if you upgrade your TV? And if you want to watch your movies on a mobile device, there are other options like transcoding through Plex. Making uncompressed MKV's also takes a heck of lot less time an energy to do than re-encoding everything.

x264 is an amazing encoder. If you play around with the advanced settings and know what you are doing you can get the video to look 99% the same, and at most cases 100% the same from a typical couch to tv viewing position. If you can compress a 20GB file to 10GB with no perceivable quality loss why wouldn't you? When H.265 is released next year you will be able to take that same file down from 20GB to 5GB at the same quality as it is twice as efficient as H.264. Blu-ray is already compressed. x264 is just really good at compressing even more. If you use crf encoding x264 analyzes the video and applies bitrate as it is needed. crf=17 or 18 will generally give you transparent quality. Movies that have a lot of grain or motion will use more bitrate while movies that are clean and highly compressible will use less. That is the beauty of constant quality encoding. Some studios actually use x264 for their professional Blu-ray copies (Warner Bros I believe is one of them?) and ESPN uses x264 for their website videos.
post #74 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post

x264 is an amazing encoder. If you play around with the advanced settings and know what you are doing you can get the video to look 99% the same, and at most cases 100% the same from a typical couch to tv viewing position. If you can compress a 20GB file to 10GB with no perceivable quality loss why wouldn't you?

If you can compress music to 128k mp3 with no perceivable quality loss, why wouldn't you?

Right. Same rules from that discussion would also apply to video compression, IMO.

Some people just prefer uncompressed (as it's presented to the consumer) media. Besides, at some point they'll probably be giving away 4tb drives in happy-meals. Why not get the best possible picture/sound available?
post #75 of 107
Because if I can't see the difference with my own eyes then I'd rather save 10+ GB of space per movie. There is no right or wrong answer to the question. It's a preference. I was just giving an answer to the side of those who do encode.

In your example I don't think 128k audio is transparent to the source though. I would agree that 192-320k VBR is. I don't compress my movies just for the hell of it to save space. I compress with a quality parameter in mind and won't go lower on bitrate then what is needed to stay transparent.

I do prefer to watch the movie the first time though at original Blu-ray quality even if I can't tell the difference. Just the "feeling" that I'm watching the original presentation is fun. But then to archive I compress because I'll never get that "first watch" feeling back and I don't care anymore. To each their own.
post #76 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post

To each their own.

Exactly! It's all pizza toppings. What's good for one person isn't necessarily good for another. My parents would probably be fine with 64kbps mp3 files for ever and ever amen. Personally I prefer 320kbps or better yet, uncompressed. If you like pepperoni and VBR or ham and 10gb 1080p compressed MKV's, so be it.

Anyway. Everyone can go back to their regularly scheduled arguments.
post #77 of 107
Wow..This thread has been going awhile. Since I last posted I've aquired a projector in basement and a 60" 1080p Panny plasma. I must say I still am fully impressed with mkv files.720p as well as 1080p looks awesome!!! And I still use mostly 720p because it is just that good.I most definitely don't think they're as good as true bluray,but the average consumer(80-90%) would never know the difference!

I always laugh at these discussions though because not to long ago we were all satisfied blowing up our reference dvds to ungodly sizes.Even though to this day I have a buddy that says he can't tell the difference really between bluray and dvd. So he still buys dvds !!! And smallest set in his house is 55". Go figure.

brickie
post #78 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickie View Post

Wow..This thread has been going awhile. Since I last posted I've aquired a projector in basement and a 60" 1080p Panny plasma. I must say I still am fully impressed with mkv files.720p as well as 1080p looks awesome!!! And I still use mostly 720p because it is just that good.I most definitely don't think they're as good as true bluray,but the average consumer(80-90%) would never know the difference!

I always laugh at these discussions though because not to long ago we were all satisfied blowing up our reference dvds to ungodly sizes.Even though to this day I have a buddy that says he can't tell the difference really between bluray and dvd. So he still buys dvds !!! And smallest set in his house is 55". Go figure.

brickie

Fun times with the projector and 60".
post #79 of 107
Ill tell you where I see quality differences, mind you, im relatively new to all of this ... but I have a 46 inch Plasma Panasonsic 1080p TV and a 42 inch SAMSUNG 1080p LED Both, are great sets .. the tv that plays my movies the best with the best colors, blacks and clarity is the Panasonic. Ive seen compessed videos on both sets and where I notice artifacts is when the compression has been done which you both speak of and I notice it significantly on the LED set. My Plasma seems to hide most of it although here and there in various scenes it is discernible. Some movies look spectactular when compressed properly as you said, at 720. amazing tech, im loving learning about it. 8) Thx for reading.
smile.gif
post #80 of 107
strong thread bump
post #81 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastishe View Post

Batman Begins, DVD.


Batman Begins, 8GB 720p mkv.


I know jpg kills the quality but for the purposes of direct comparison I don't think it matters. Oh and the DVD appears to be a slight bit darker by default.



DVD




MKV




-


DVD




MKV




-


DVD




MKV




-

Great post. My question is, I had a 720p plasma for 6 years and always streamed 720p mkv's to it using xbox. I just got an 80" 1080P tv and I've downloaded a few of the same movies in 720p and 1080P mkv. It's kinda hard to tell the differnce. It this difference supposedly as great as the dvd/720p pics above?
post #82 of 107
IMO, absolutely not. To this day I still deal mostly with 720p mkvs. They simply are just that good.
post #83 of 107
1) Ok cool, because these 720p mkv's look incredible. So what's going on here. The 720p mkvs on this new tv destroy the 720p mkvs from my old 720p tv. I guess that may be because of better video processing on the new tv? and maybe it's upscaling to 1080 on the new tv since it's 1080p?

All in all, I'm starting to think it's not worth the space to download 1080P mkvs. A friend of mine was telling me "since you now have a 1080p tv, you definitely should be downloading the1080p mkvs. I didn't realize it, but they are sometimes double the size and eats of space quick. I thought I'd be missing out on something, so I started downloading the 1080p's of the same movies that i had in 720p and it's very hard to tell.
post #84 of 107
Some movies don't have any 1080p details. If you resize to 720p and then back to 1080p again there won't be any difference.
post #85 of 107
so basically everyone will agree, you can't tell the difference between a 720 rip and a 1080 rip of the highest quality download of the same movie etc etc?

if no one can tell the difference, and certain posters are using 80" lcd's 60" plasmas, 120" 1080 front end projectors, etc etc

if someone is comparing the same 720/1080 rip, on his 50" plasma to his 120" projector and not seeing any difference..
then why on earth are we downloading 1080 rips which are like 10-30gigs in size??
when we can just get the 720 version and save space.
post #86 of 107
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. given that this is the av science forum many members want the best quality they can get their hands on. whether they can tell a difference or not isn't even relevant as long as what they have makes them happy. likewise if someone cant play surround sound or has limited space and is happy with an 8gb 1080p file I don't see any reason to browbeat them for creating those files.

i tend to think i can see a difference between blurays and handbrake files. that's not even why i don't use it - it just takes too long. ill compress/detelecine/deinterlace dvr recordings i want to keep while im cutting commercials. on those i believe i can see a difference but not a quality one. one just looks different. given the relatively low quality of cable tv, the space taken up by telecined blank frames, the greater efficiency of h264, and even the type of programs i record i think compressing some makes sense to me. not everyone thinks that way. im happy with my set up and hopefully theyre happy with theirs.
post #87 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 View Post

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. given that this is the av science forum many members want the best quality they can get their hands on. whether they can tell a difference or not isn't even relevant as long as what they have makes them happy. likewise if someone cant play surround sound or has limited space and is happy with an 8gb 1080p file I don't see any reason to browbeat them for creating those files.

i tend to think i can see a difference between blurays and handbrake files. that's not even why i don't use it - it just takes too long. ill compress/detelecine/deinterlace dvr recordings i want to keep while im cutting commercials. on those i believe i can see a difference but not a quality one. one just looks different. given the relatively low quality of cable tv, the space taken up by telecined blank frames, the greater efficiency of h264, and even the type of programs i record i think compressing some makes sense to me. not everyone thinks that way. im happy with my set up and hopefully theyre happy with theirs.

what would you say is the best size file to download then, I mean there are so many different sizes out there 6gig-8 gig 12 gig, 22 gig, 32gig
I mean how much difference in quality are we talking with a great 8gig rip to a 32 gig rip?
post #88 of 107
there are a lot of reasons a file could be smaller. the #1 reason is that all bluray movies are encoded at 16x9. even if that's not the aspect ratio of the movie they encode the blank black space. so Lawrence of Arabia has the black letter box bars hardcoded and Its a Wonderful Life has the side pillar bars hard coded. the image always has 2,073,600 pixels on a bluray disc.

the people that upload that stuff don't encode for the black bars. so for a 2.39:1 film they're only creating something like 1,536,000 pixels - that would cut the size of the video by a quarter all other things being equal.

i cant tell you what looks good. i ripped my dvds to xvid avi files that turned out to be 1.5gb or so 10 years ago when hard drives really were expensive. they looked great on a 24" sd tv. they looked pretty good on my first hdtv (low end 37" 768p lcd set). they looked like garbage and needed to be redone when I bought a larger 1080p plasma. all the flaws were exposed. i remuxed all of them to wtv files without compressing. and dozens of those have been replaced by blurays and hd-dvds.
Edited by pittsoccer33 - 12/27/13 at 6:57pm
post #89 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsoccer33 
the people that upload that stuff don't encode for the black bars. so for a 2.39:1 film they're only creating something like 1,536,000 pixels - that would cut the size of the video by a quarter all other things being equal.
Well all other things aren't equal. The black bars aren't encoded as thousands of individual pixels. Most encoding algorithms have some form of Run Length Encoding so a 30,000 pixel black (or white or purple...) area gets encoded as (30,000*black) and not as 30,000 pixels.
post #90 of 107
I won't profess to being an encoding guru, but the point I was trying to make is that you can save a bit of space by cutting out the letterbox or pillar bars. You aren't accounting for that area any more.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › 720p/1080p mkv quality vs. blu-ray quality