i know i'm crazy but i can't see any difference between recode 2 at 90% and a 5+ gb dvd-9
Since i'm crazy i should be seeing differences
Dvd shrink doesn't make me crazy because i can see the difference between dvd shrink at 95 % and
a 5gb dvd-9
I have glasses and expensive displays and there's nothing wrong with the gear used but
i just can't help feeling crazy because of recode 2.
So I DO NOT RECOMMEND YOU USE RECODE 2!!!
and even less i recommend dvd shrink because it destroys dvd structure and
chapters and picture
Bluewatr
Hmmmm...
I can see a difference between a DV AVI file (25 Mbps) and an MPEG-2 file made directly from it (8 Mbps)...
MPEG-2 is never perfect, so it should NEVER be re-encoded if at all possible. Even if you re-encode something at "100%" with a $2000 encoding program (which is surely not DVDShrink or Recode), it's still going to be lower quality than the original.
I spend enough time stressing over encoding files for the first time, so I just don't understand how people can re-encode stuff and not think twice about it. :smth011
:-D
Ok. :smth023. Neither do i like recode 2, anymore. :smth011
they´ve done research. and they use psychological make-up to hide the digital encoding artifacts. Trust me. i know. :evil:
Quote from: bluewater on January 09, 2007, 14:32:34
they´ve done research. and they use psychological make-up to hide the digital encoding artifacts. Trust me. i know. :evil:
Yeah, it's called "blur". You can hide a lot of stuff when you do that. :cry:
In a more extreme example, I can hide any flaw in any video by turning the brightness down enough. :lol:
Quote from: lostflower4 on January 10, 2007, 00:07:26
Quote from: bluewater on January 09, 2007, 14:32:34
they´ve done research. and they use psychological make-up to hide the digital encoding artifacts. Trust me. i know. :evil:
Yeah, it's called "blur". You can hide a lot of stuff when you do that. :cry:
In a more extreme example, I can hide any flaw in any video by turning the brightness down enough. :lol:
oh yes, how many times it's been seen on some video forums that someone asks tools/tips for reducing picture noise and some moron cheerfully suggests: "just add some gaussian blur, that's what i always do! it's great!"
my god...!
so yes, let's just turn the whole brightness down, it's just too sad to be watched sometimes.
and it's ranting but here's another recent lineage favorite:
it all started with
Lineage: DVB rip using standalone Pioneer DVD Recorder > DVDr > DIME > you
(Transfer: DVDr > DVD Shrink)
so it was already DVDshrinked (=DVDdestroyed) once before it was seeded on Dime... :cry:
and then after some time the same dvd sowed up on this other tracker but the file size was different - and it turned out that some other dude had took the dime version and re-encoded it once more in order to convert it from PAL to NTSC... :cry:
the original file size in PAL was 3.61 GBs, the NTSC re-encoded version was 2.41 GBs...
(and ok, i know it's annoying that we must have different systems like PAL and NTSC, it would be much better if there was just one. and i also must count myself lucky that NTSC discs play nicely on PAL players so i don't need to worry about it. people with NTSC players can't handle PAL that easily. but however, it's not some sort of freaking solution that people with NTSC players just go and re-encode every PAL dvd they get and thus put these maimed versions into circulation. because they could still go and buy a goddamn PAL compliant dvd player - if you want to play PAL then get the right equipment, that's it.
or otherwise just stop d.loading/trading anything that's not NTSC compliant. :!: )
Quote from: japanesebaby link=topic=3217.msg19779#msg19779they could still go and buy a goddamn PAL compliant dvd player. or otherwise just stop d.loading/trading anything that's not NTSC compliant. :!: )
I just got on of these goddamn multisystem players yesterday. :-D
One of the best things I ever purchased â€" sure beats watching everything on a computer! :rocker
And just to make another point about how I can't believe any re-encoding program does a good job...
Let's just say I have a typical 2 hour and 40 minute live Cure videotape and I want to make a DVD of it. I'm sorry, but it's impossible to make this look right on a single DVD. And I'm talking about starting with a raw AVI file and manually encoding it to MPEG-2 later. Yes, you can half the resolution and half the bitrate and see what you can squeeze out of it. That can look "ok" sometimes, but it's still clearly ruining the picture.
And I'm not using some monkey-retard encoding programs here either. I'm using one known for being the most artifact-free one out there, yet it's just impossible to "shrink" something beyond a certain point, even if you're encoding for the first time.
I was just encoding a video like this the other week. 2 hours and 39 minutes â€" a 2 DVD set. I wanted to keep the audio lossless, so I cut the video bitrate a little bit more than I normally would. I encoded it in 3-pass variable bitrate mode (note that this takes about 10 hours on a fast machine!), and there were still some macroblocks in the extreme high motion scenes. I reluncantly had to do it all over again, this time using a higher video bitrate and making the audio Dolby 448. :?
Some 10 hours later, I had a rather nice looking MPEG-2 file. 8)
All I can say is that if anyone re-encoded this video with DVD Shrink, it would look like a f*cking puzzle. So why do people use this? :smth011
Everyone can use Dvd decrypter and it´s free. So where does one need Dvd Shrink
or Recode 2 if one´s not crazy and needs a "shrink" to free some aggressions by
destroying dvd or something.
Here´s a link to dvd decrypter that does an identical rip without encoding
or anything.
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/DVD_Decrypter/1011845169/1
Press "R" in the program and select "iso" mode if you wish to rip a dvd,
press "W" in the program if you want to burn the iso - image, so you
don´t need Nero at all.
Happy ripping!
Quote from: japanesebaby on January 10, 2007, 09:41:40
and it's ranting but here's another recent lineage favorite:
it all started with
Lineage: DVB rip using standalone Pioneer DVD Recorder > DVDr > DIME > you
(Transfer: DVDr > DVD Shrink)
so it was already DVDshrinked (=DVDdestroyed) once before it was seeded on Dime... :cry:
DVD Decrypter is pretty cool, and I still use it... But it's becoming out of date. It's no longer made, as one of the major movie industry companies bought it out and made it illegal to distribute. :smth076
It doesn't handle the latest copy-protection schemes (such as new Sony releases). I think the most up-to-date program out there now is DVDFab. It's kind of slow, so I still use DVD Decrypter first, and if it doesn't work... DVDFab will do the trick. ;)
DVDFab Platinum can also do a nice job of splitting a dual-layer disc in two, and without screwing up the menu/chapter structure. So there's really no excuse for things like DVD Shrink or Recode. 8)
Quote from: lostflower4 on January 10, 2007, 20:06:56
So there's really no excuse for things like DVD Shrink or Recode. 8)
Exactly. The only excuse is if someone wants to be crazy or aggressive with dvd´s and
therefore use these "shrinks" as a help.
-bluewater
I don't understand what's wrong with DVD Shrink. I think it comes in pretty handy when you want to copy a movie and you don't want to buy dual layer discs. Plus, you can delete those annoying menues and all the languages that you won't need anyway. By doing so, you can achieve a 80-90 % shrink rate, which is good enough for me. I mean, I don't see any difference at all to the original.
Of course, if you want it lossless for collection purposes, you shouldn't shrink the original. You can copy DVDs with DVD Shrink without shrinking them at all.
But if I make myself a copy of some movie that I'm only gonna watch once or twice, I really don't care if it's lossless or not.
Quote from: Oso Blanco on March 03, 2007, 18:48:28
But if I make myself a copy of some movie that I'm only gonna watch once or twice, I really don't care if it's lossless or not.
yes is maybe not problem if used in personal copies like this you say, but people use all the time to make trade dvds and that is not good! it is just the same like some stupid people who use standalone dvd recorders to copy their dvds for trade - this is awful because it is not about making exact copy of your dvd but you reencoding it and make it worse and then send this worse version to someone as a trade dvd. same thing with torrent: on torrent people always use this unnecessary programs and then upload these worse quality copies and put them to circulating!
like example: there is some good quality 2 dvd version of some show, it is 2 dvds for reasons: reason is because quality is much better without compression. but people put this to DVDshrink and make it a nice version where the image is suddenly blocky and bad although it was good on 2 dvd version. they still say it's a good version because it is so nice to have on one disc only - why someone make trouble and make good 2 dvd version with clear image if someone else comes and destroyes this good work with DVDshrink? and then people start circulating this bad version and call it still the same as original 2 dvds version. this is complete hopeless and makes you depressed to receive dvd like this in trade or download it from torrent. it is disappointing for every one. so it would be much better if peple not use this shrink-program.
or ok if you make only a copy for yourself with such program but don't let this copy ever leave your house!!!
also, too many people don't know that it is complete possible to reauthoring a dvd without using such a silly program that everytime reencode and recompress all and they don't realize this and they use it everytime even when no compressioon is needed. so i agree this is real problem with some people who not know how to use this program. just like standalone copying.
thanks.
Just to make sure I understand you: You mean, that DVD Shrink re-encodes the DVD even if I chose not to compress anything at all? If I only drop the menues and some language tracks, the DVD will not be re-encoded or will it?
Quote from: Oso Blanco on March 04, 2007, 08:36:24
Just to make sure I understand you: You mean, that DVD Shrink re-encodes the DVD even if I chose not to compress anything at all? If I only drop the menues and some language tracks, the DVD will not be re-encoded or will it?
I'm not sure exactly how it works. I've never used it before, but I've seen first-hand the terror this program reigns on the trading community. There are much better programs to use for re-making a DVD without re-encoding things (VobBlanker or DVD Rebuilder, for example).
P.S. Dual/double-layer discs are finally starting to get cheaper. :D
Quote from: Oso Blanco on March 04, 2007, 08:36:24
Just to make sure I understand you: You mean, that DVD Shrink re-encodes the DVD even if I chose not to compress anything at all? If I only drop the menues and some language tracks, the DVD will not be re-encoded or will it?
i never use this program myself because i cannot think any way i need it (there are better program available for anything DVDshrink ever do). so i don't know what option list says. but i see how bad quality it can produce (because i have compare original and DVDshrink-made version). i have received too many of this kind of dvd in trade and it is so disappointing.
for instance, i know some people always use its re-encoding optiont to fixing aspect ratio which is complete insane choice of program!! you can fix ratio very easily with some other program and it not need eventhink about re-encode.
about to choose not to compress: like i say, it is sad that many people simply not know how to use any program like this, sorry to saying this but it is true.i know some other program too has option not to reencoding/not to compress but even with this option available some people not realize to choose this but always make everything thorugh compressing again. i know this because i have seen people not to care at all. and dvds this way produce are complete more bad than original. just like standalone copying like i say.
and to shrinking 2 dvd set to 1 dvd and then trading it or torrent it: this is always complete bad thing to do. i don't think there is no excuses for it that can be found. because you can not put 2 dvd on 1 dvd without re-encode with low bitrate no? or same with dual-disc: if you want putting it on 1 ordinary dvd (like if you not have dual-disc burning possible) then you always must reencode it, isn't it yes? so it does not matter if your shrink program has an option not-to-shrink, you cannot use this option anyway in this case. but still people using it (although they should using their brain). and this 2dvd>1dvd action it is always complete insane thing, it only destroyes some other people's work who tried to make a good quality 2 dvd show.
so, do it in your house if you want but don't infesting the worl with it.
thanks
I see what you mean. I spent hours and hours searching for torrents to download some DVDs that I need. But it's almost impossible to get them un-shrinked. Can be pretty annoying, I agree.
Quote from: Oso Blanco on March 04, 2007, 08:36:24
Just to make sure I understand you: You mean, that DVD Shrink re-encodes the DVD even if I chose not to compress anything at all? If I only drop the menues and some language tracks, the DVD will not be re-encoded or will it?
I don't believe these programs i mention (recode 2 and dvd shrink) re-encode, they
drop less significant frames or something else psychologically so one don't see
the difference very well. At least recode 2 doesn't add blocky artefacts, but
it drops too much frames in moving scenes so the movement is less fluent. So it looks
like it affects the framerate. Dvd shrink adds blocky artefacts. I have no scientific
proof so what i say is not scientific, only based on personal experience. And i think
what these programs do is very insufficiently documented, so it is not healthy to
use them in anything related to trading or collecting.
bluewater
What I understand is that some programs only re-encode certain frames. In other words, it drops the bitrate on some frames, while leaving others as-is. I don't think it's "legally" possible to change the framerate of a DVD. It must either be 25 (PAL) or 29.97 (NTSC).
So this "partial re-encoding" may hide some of the nastiness of full-borne re-encoding, but it's still bad stuff to me. :smth011
If you see less fluid of motion from this practice, I would guess it has to do with the awkward bitrate variation, or something along those lines â€" but I seriously doubt that the framerate itself is changed.
Quote from: lostflower4 on March 04, 2007, 15:08:50
What I understand is that some programs only re-encode certain frames. In other words, it drops the bitrate on some frames, while leaving others as-is. I don't think it's "legally" possible to change the framerate of a DVD. It must either be 25 (PAL) or 29.97 (NTSC).
So this "partial re-encoding" may hide some of the nastiness of full-borne re-encoding, but it's still bad stuff to me. :smth011
If you see less fluid of motion from this practice, I would guess it has to do with the awkward bitrate variation, or something along those lines â€" but I seriously doubt that the framerate itself is changed.
Yes, the framerate is not changed, of course. It only looks like it would drop because human eye sees the drop in information rate in the same way as a drop in framerate.
And that partial re-encoding theory probably holds as well.
bluewater
i must agree to what's been said here.
the problems that all this shrinked stuff causes especially on torrents these days are massive. :smth011
many times i've even seen dvds re-seeded after someone's first felt the strange urge to shrink them first - and these in situations where not even re-authoring would have been required. so unless people wanted to make it look worse and also get rid of the original menu and proper chaptering in the process.... ok, i really don't get what the benefits were supposed to be.
and yes it's very common on many torrented dvds that the aspect ratio especially is flagged all wrong, this happens all the time. almost every other dvd one downloads is like this sometimes: people look freaking thin and squeezed. but there's IFOedit that can handle this problem literally in one second, still one sees people posting instructions saying "hey you can easily reconstruct this with DVdshrink!" - and judging from the instructions i've seen, that would include re-encoding (=completely useless).
trying to change the framerate is a different thing, of course.
and "partial re-encoding" - sounds like someone trying to hide their filthy hazy tracks.... which is all that it is in the end. :(
(ja heipä vaan oulun suuntaan, pitkästä aikaa :smth001 )
Another argument against DVD shrinking and the like... I don't think everyone realizes that all DVD videos are lossy to begin with. MPEG-2, the standard that DVD video is based upon, is a lossy format. On a mathematical level, one could say that it's extremely lossy.
As I've stated previously, the bitrate of uncompressed standard definition video is over 100 Mbps. A "good" DVD bitrate usually varies between 5-8 Mbps. To put that in perspective, the bitrate of an audio CD is about 1.4 Mbps. FLAC can usually get this down below 1. And then you've got mp3 which is just a small fraction of this.
In other words, lossless video is HUGE and generally unpractical to use as an end format. Maybe in a few years the storage requirements won't seem so daunting. But then again, we're already in the age of high definition, which requires a lot more bitrate â€" so lossy video is likely something we'll be seeing for many years to come. :?
MPEG-2 isn't a perfect format, but it looks very good when properly encoded. And just that alone takes a little work. So when someone just goes in to blindly DVD Shrink something (which makes everything double-lossy, as I've explained), it almost makes me sick to think about. :(
Just a side note. The reason why more efficient standard than mpeg-2 is needed is the need for a higher resolution. The resolution limits the quality in the same way as the sampling rate affects the quality
of lossless audio. So even if a video stream is lossless, the resolution limits
it causing blur or lack of detail. I think everyone would want mpeg-2 full dvd resolution
vs. "lossless" low resolution (352x288). The reason why more efficient
standard than mpeg-2 is already coming is hdtv that uses higher resolution than dvd.
Many professionals would claim that mpeg-2 is getting old if compared to high-resolution
(hdtv) mpeg-4. I think dvd- resolution is where mpeg-2 reaches it's limits, going
to higher detail (higher resolution) demands higher standard (mpeg-4)?
A good measure for the limits of encoding or even "blockiness measure" is the so called Bits/pixel*frame ratio. This ratio can be lower with mpeg-4 (meaning more detail or higher resolution) than with mpeg-2.
bluewater
edit: so one has to be sacrificed,
- resolution
- framerate
- bitrate
- color depth
if bitrate must be lowered or be kept in certain limits (for higher resolution but reasonable sizes), then what must be changed is
- standard (tendency being towards mpeg-4 from mpeg-2, i think)
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 04, 2007, 16:46:20
so unless people wanted to make it look worse and also get rid of the original menu and proper chaptering in the process.... ok, i really don't get what the benefits were supposed to be.
Personally, I find those animated menues annoying. And I'm trying to get rid of them whenever I copy a DVD. The chaptering is not being changed with DVD Shrink at all.
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 04, 2007, 16:46:20
people look freaking thin and squeezed.
That's called "anamorphic widescreen".
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 04, 2007, 16:46:20
"hey you can easily reconstruct this with DVdshrink!"
DVD Shrink cannot reconstruct anything.
____________________________________________
Again: It all depends on what you are going to do with your DVD. If you want an exact copy of the original movie which you want to keep as a part of your collection, it should be unshrinked and kept as original as possible. But if you are just making a copy to watch the movie once or perhaps twice, I don't see why one shouldn't shrink the movie so that it fits onto a single layer DVD.
Quote from: bluewater on April 11, 2007, 15:34:04
Just a side note. The reason why more efficient standard than mpeg-2 is needed is the need for a higher resolution. The resolution limits the quality in the same way as the sampling rate affects the quality
of lossless audio. So even if a video stream is lossless, the resolution limits
it causing blur or lack of detail. I think everyone would want mpeg-2 full dvd resolution
vs. "lossless" low resolution (352x288). The reason why more efficient
standard than mpeg-2 is already coming is hdtv that uses higher resolution than dvd.
Many professionals would claim that mpeg-2 is getting old if compared to high-resolution
(hdtv) mpeg-4. I think dvd- resolution is where mpeg-2 reaches it's limits, going
to higher detail (higher resolution) demands higher standard (mpeg-4)?
A good measure for the limits of encoding or even "blockiness measure" is the so called Bits/pixel*frame ratio. This ratio can be lower with mpeg-4 (meaning more detail or higher resolution) than with mpeg-2.
I have an HD file on my hard drive that is MPEG2, so I don't think that you would necessarily need MPEG4 to achieve an HD resolution.
By the way, do you happen to now a free program which I can use to convert the resolution of this file from HD to PAL?
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 16, 2007, 14:37:14By the way, do you happen to now a free program which I can use to convert the resolution of this file from HD to PAL?
Convert from HD to PAL? That doesn't make any sense.
And: Why not keep it in HD? Why is it always necessary for people to alter things and make them worse?
Quote from: lostflower4 on April 16, 2007, 14:39:41
Convert from HD to PAL? That doesn't make any sense.
Yes, it does. Because I don't have an HD-DVD-Player. And I'm not sure if there are HD-DVD-Rs available yet ...
Quote from: lostflower4 on April 16, 2007, 14:39:41
And: Why not keep it in HD? Why is it always necessary for people to alter things and make them worse?
I don't want to make it worse, I just want to be able to watch that movie on my TV!
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 16, 2007, 14:47:25
Quote from: lostflower4 on April 16, 2007, 14:39:41
Convert from HD to PAL? That doesn't make any sense.
Yes, it does. Because I don't have an HD-DVD-Player. And I'm not sure if there are HD-DVD-Rs available yet ...
No, it doesn't make any sense. There are these formats:
High definition NTSC
High definition PAL
Standard definition NTSC
Standard definition PAL
And so forth...
So saying "convert from HD to PAL" is kind of like saying "convert blue to banana". :lol:
But to answer your question, I don't have a clue â€" other than to buy a Blu-Ray or HD DVD player/burner.
Yes, it's HD NTSC ... but the conversion from NTSC to PAL shouldn't be that tough, so what I meant to say is that I'm looking for something that can convert HD to Standard ... in this case PAL.
I have already found one program that can do it, but my computer is not powerful enough to handle it. I wonder if there might be an easier way to do it.
Well, it's the same old thing for me. High definition broadcasts are lossy, so any further conversions is just going to make them worse. I wouldn't mess with it.
Converting region standards is also messy when you're dealing with files that are already lossy, not something for me.
Plus, I don't have a clue about working with high def stuff. I personally would just watch it on my computer and wait for the price of HD hardware and media to come down a bit more.
Quote from: lostflower4 on April 16, 2007, 15:18:39
Well, it's the same old thing for me. High definition broadcasts are lossy, so any further conversions is just going to make them worse. I wouldn't mess with it.
I have no idea how lossy the broadcast is, the file is about 8 GB, Video: 1920x1080, 29.97fps, 19400Kbps; Audio: Dolby AC3, 48000Hz, 6ch, 448Kbps. Seems pretty good to me, but I'm no expert in DVDs, let alone HD-DVDs.
Quote from: lostflower4 on April 16, 2007, 15:18:39
Converting region standards is also messy when you're dealing with files that are already lossy, not something for me.
I know ... I'm not yet sure wheather or not just to keep it NTSC. I can watch both PAL and NTSC on my DVD/TV. But the NTSC version seems to be a little slow.
Quote from: lostflower4 on April 16, 2007, 15:18:39
I personally would just watch it on my computer and wait for the price of HD hardware and media to come down a bit more.
My computer ist too weak to handle even normal DVDs! And I think it will be a few years until I can afford any of this HD equipment.
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 16, 2007, 14:33:27
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 04, 2007, 16:46:20
so unless people wanted to make it look worse and also get rid of the original menu and proper chaptering in the process.... ok, i really don't get what the benefits were supposed to be.
Personally, I find those animated menues annoying. And I'm trying to get rid of them whenever I copy a DVD. The chaptering is not being changed with DVD Shrink at all.
i'm not sure but maybe you're talking about copying some commercial stuff, like movies etc. for your own purposes? i mean, those have annoying aminated menus for sure, i hate those too. i on the other hand have been talking about trade dvds, music dvds that people author themselves. there're rarely any especially annoying animated menus there.
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 16, 2007, 14:33:27
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 04, 2007, 16:46:20
people look freaking thin and squeezed.
That's called "anamorphic widescreen".
yeah, i kinda know that...
anyway, i dont' think i changes anything what we called it, that was not my point. i've gotten unofficial music DVDs especially from torrents where this has been fixed with programs similar to DVDshrink and it ended up destroying the whole thing. so i was just tyirng to make a point that it's amazingly easy to fix aspect ratio with other software that's designed for that. yet people choose to use just about everything - a lot of people go and re-encode, believe me. the same with PAL / NTSC.
and again, not a problem if someone does it for him/herself, but i don't enjoy it receiving these "altered" productions in trades labeled as real things.
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 04, 2007, 16:46:20
"hey you can easily reconstruct this with DVdshrink!"
DVD Shrink cannot reconstruct anything. [/quote]
i was just quoting someone else, an advice i've seen on the torrent sites. don't know what he meant then since i don't have this program and i'm not keen on trying it simply since i have no use for anything like it. :smth001
Quote from: japanesebaby on March 04, 2007, 16:46:20
Again: It all depends on what you are going to do with your DVD. If you want an exact copy of the original movie which you want to keep as a part of your collection, it should be unshrinked and kept as original as possible. But if you are just making a copy to watch the movie once or perhaps twice, I don't see why one shouldn't shrink the movie so that it fits onto a single layer DVD.
so you are talking about copying (official) movies then? i think there's the difference: most people here have been referring to traded/torrented unofficial dvds as far as i understand. thus the advice "do it in your house but don't infest the world with it" makes sense. if you're talking about copying movies for yourself, to watch at home, then by all means, do what you will.
but for trading/sharing purposes - i see no similar benefits. unless someone fixes a wrongly flagged aspect ratio without re-encoding. there's no point in ripping some very small (non aminated) menus from some trade dvd and then circulate it like that.
yet i've received unofficial music dvds from trade/torrents that have indeed been "processed" this way: and sometimes even the chapters have been ripped away too. hard to see a point in that.
Quote from: japanesebaby on April 16, 2007, 16:03:20
so you are talking about copying (official) movies then? i think there's the difference: most people here have been referring to traded/torrented unofficial dvds as far as i understand. thus the advice "do it in your house but don't infest the world with it" makes sense. if you're talking about copying movies for yourself, to watch at home, then by all means, do what you will.
but for trading/sharing purposes - i see no similar benefits. unless someone fixes a wrongly flagged aspect ratio without re-encoding. there's no point in ripping some very small (non aminated) menus from some trade dvd and then circulate it like that.
yet i've received unofficial music dvds from trade/torrents that have indeed been "processed" this way: and sometimes even the chapters have been ripped away too. hard to see a point in that.
You are right, I was thinking about copying commercial DVDs when I said that shrinking wouldn't hurt. Fanmade concert DVDs should be kept as lossless as possible, I absolutely agree with you on that.
Quote from: Oso Blanco on April 16, 2007, 15:28:43
I have no idea how lossy the broadcast is, the file is about 8 GB, Video: 1920x1080, 29.97fps, 19400Kbps; Audio: Dolby AC3, 48000Hz, 6ch, 448Kbps. Seems pretty good to me, but I'm no expert in DVDs, let alone HD-DVDs.
Neither am I an expert but it seems just as lossy or even more "lossy" than a normal dvd if you compare the ratio between resolution and bitrate. In general Hd could mean even more compression (per pixel) but higher perceived image quality due to higher resolution...
bluewater
Quote from: bluewater on April 24, 2007, 13:41:27
Neither am I an expert but it seems just as lossy or even more "lossy" than a normal dvd if you compare the ratio between resolution and bitrate. In general Hd could mean even more compression (per pixel) but higher perceived image quality due to higher resolution...
bluewater
You're right. On a mathematical level, "high definition" can be pretty lossy. I know the bitrate can vary widely depeding on the station broadcasting it and other factors. I'm sure some of it is very fine-tuned to make it still look acceptable at lower bitrates, but some of it is flat out poorly encoded.
I'm not sure if the higher resolution gives a perceived better image quality at a lower bitrate or not. Like I said, I'm not expert on HD stuff. :?
Lossy or not, that particular movie has never been released on DVD, and probably never will. It's only available on VHS. And I'll take a lossy digital broadcast over a VHS tape ANYtime.
Someone else has converted it to standard DVD already, so it's really not that important for me to do it again. I was just curious about how to do it, and I would have known how my DVD was being made if I had done it myself. But I guess the guy who did it before me has way more knowledge and resources anyway, so I'd better leave it at that.