dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
168
share rss forum feed

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL
kudos:1

.264 files

With good compression and video quality You can turn a 25GB blue-ray into a 9GB file. Not to shabby!

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
said by brianiscool:

With good compression and video quality You can turn a 25GB blue-ray into a 9GB file. Not to shabby!

Yep. Fit 111 pirated Hollywood movies on a 1TB disk.
Next step is Hollywood lobbies Congress to declare H.265 a "weapon of mass terror" and they make it illegal to possess a movie encoded with it, or even to possess the following characters - H.265 - any where, in any order, on your disk drive.


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to brianiscool
Technically yes, though you are severely downgrading the audio quality, normally from HD audio to DTS or AC3 and regardless of what people may say, it's no longer blu-ray quality. It's often not even HDTV quality.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to MaynardKrebs
They would never ever do that. It would not be profitable.

Instead they would lobby congress to require any media greater than 750gb have a fee attached per 100gb over the 750 limit be charged to cover piracy. Because in the eyes of Hollywood the only reason anybody needs a 4tb drive is piracy.(They forget that people who have Steam or do graphic arts can chew up terabytes.)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

reply to MovieLover76
There is no such thing as "blu-ray quality audio", nor is "HD audio" a codec. Blu-Ray supports a variety of codecs, including AC3 (AKA Dolby Digital). It's part of the spec, so AC3 is by definition "blu-ray quality".

What I think you probably mean is that the quality is not as high as the lossless codecs. Bluray supports three of those. LPCM, which is uncompressed, and Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD for compressed. Either of those three will provide identical quality, since they're all lossless.

To most consumers, the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable. For those with both a high-end home theatre system and a discerning ear, higher-end blu-ray rips often include lossless audio, although these rips are often not much smaller than the original blu-ray themselves. You'll sometimes find the audio transcoded to FLAC, another lossless codec which is more efficient than Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD.

The most typical scenario you find is the rip will simply include the regular DTS or DD+ stream. I'm not sure that anybody can actually tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD in practice. You'll get a much bigger difference in audio quality from the quality of your AV decoder's DACs than you will from the DTS/DTS-HD difference.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org

bn1221

join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY
reply to Kearnstd
My DPM server has a buttload of 2TB drives in it. And no pirated content I assure you.


PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:

They would never ever do that.

Come again?


Sammael1069

join:2011-06-20
united state
reply to MaynardKrebs
He he


MovieLover76

join:2009-09-11
kudos:1
reply to Guspaz
You got me I used the wrong terminology, however.

I can tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD, DTS is a slightly better than AC3, but it's nowhere near the Lossless audio formats.

And I know AC3 can technically be used on a blu-ray, but that's only used for older movies for which lossless audio is not available. Newer movies almost always include lossless audio.

To most consumers, doesn't concern me, most consumers are listening via the tinny speakers in their TV.

My post assumed based on the 9GB filesize comment, that AC3 audio was used, that's the only way to retain decent video and audio.

My point was that you can't get lossless audio into a 9GB file, and I watch HD files with AC3 or DTS audio as well as owning a lot of blu-rays with lossless audio. On my home theather setup, the difference is definitely noticeable.


AnonFTW

@reliablehosting.com
reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

To most consumers, the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable. For those with both a high-end home theatre system and a discerning ear, higher-end blu-ray rips often include lossless audio, although these rips are often not much smaller than the original blu-ray themselves.

All my rips have their audio transcoded to 640Kbps 5.1 AC3 in an H.264 MP4 container. Even though DTS-MA and TrueHD aren't supported in an MP4 container, I cannot tell a difference anyway.

Of course, I don't have a high-end surround sound system either, due to neighbors.


Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23
reply to MovieLover76
9GB rips from a place like HDBits would probably still use DTS; assuming a 2 hour movie, you've got a total bitrate of 10.2 Mbps, so going from 640 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps on the audio isn't going to impact the video that much.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org


John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:8

1 recommendation

reply to MaynardKrebs
said by MaynardKrebs:

Next step is Hollywood lobbies Congress to declare H.265 a "weapon of mass terror" and they make it illegal to possess a movie encoded with it, or even to possess the following characters - H.265 - any where, in any order, on your disk drive.

The law will make it legal to only have no more than 7 movies on them.

Oh, and you must click each time for a movie...no 'autoplay'.

One click = one movie.

Of course, there are people who want to ban movies altogether ("think of the childrens!!")...or make you change the hard drive after watching each movie, but they're extremists and Congress is not likely to sign on to that position.

Well, at least not until they see more money...
--
Nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they can't.


brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Miami, FL
kudos:1
reply to brianiscool
How big will a 25GB compressed blue-ray be on x265?

averagedude

join:2002-01-30
San Diego, CA
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
reply to John Galt
said by John Galt:

said by MaynardKrebs:

Next step is Hollywood lobbies Congress to declare H.265 a "weapon of mass terror" and they make it illegal to possess a movie encoded with it, or even to possess the following characters - H.265 - any where, in any order, on your disk drive.

The law will make it legal to only have no more than 7 movies on them.

Oh, and you must click each time for a movie...no 'autoplay'.

One click = one movie.

Of course, there are people who want to ban movies altogether ("think of the childrens!!")...or make you change the hard drive after watching each movie, but they're extremists and Congress is not likely to sign on to that position.

Well, at least not until they see more money...

^^ 2nd!!! ^^


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to MovieLover76
said by MovieLover76:

You got me I used the wrong terminology, however.

I can tell the difference between DTS and DTS-HD, DTS is a slightly better than AC3, but it's nowhere near the Lossless audio formats.

And I know AC3 can technically be used on a blu-ray, but that's only used for older movies for which lossless audio is not available. Newer movies almost always include lossless audio.

To most consumers, doesn't concern me, most consumers are listening via the tinny speakers in their TV.

My post assumed based on the 9GB filesize comment, that AC3 audio was used, that's the only way to retain decent video and audio.

My point was that you can't get lossless audio into a 9GB file, and I watch HD files with AC3 or DTS audio as well as owning a lot of blu-rays with lossless audio. On my home theather setup, the difference is definitely noticeable.

DTS being better than AC3 or the opposite was beat to death back in the 90's. AC3 is a more efficient codec than DTS since the DTS bitrate was usually much higher to achieve the same quality as AC3 at a lower bitrate.


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to brianiscool
Problem is a pair of discerning eyes such as mine can tell the difference in an instance in video quality.


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to Guspaz
Re: the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable.

Really huh? Buy a high end pair of speakers and the difference is like night and day.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
said by ChuckcZar :

Re: the difference in quality between even AC3 and lossless is indistinguishable.

Really huh? Buy a high end pair of speakers and the difference is like night and day.

For the vast majority of the population, they will not be able to tell the difference in a double blind test.