Comparison of DVD and BD

[vlada]

Hi,

I'm looking for a sample (just a minute or so) from the same movie released on DVD-Video and Blu-ray. I would like to compare them. If anyone could send me the samples, please let me know.

[setarip_old]

Hi!

I'd suggest you look for some trailers online...

[vlada]

Well, I'm interested in comparing the quality of an officially released DVD-Video to an SD video created by downscaling a HD version of the same movie. I think that many DVDs have much worse quality then what it could be if created properly. I would like to show some samples to people who don't believe it. Unfortunately I don't have a Blu-ray drive, so I can't get a sample myself.

[setarip_old]

I may be wrong but, I don't think it's permissible to post clips of commercial videos (just like it's not permissible to post .IFOs) at the Doom9 Forums.

I think that many DVDs have much worse quality then what it could be if created properly. I would like to show some samples to people who don't believe it.In lieu of such samples, if you own a good upconverting standalone DVD player, play a standard DVD at both 480i or 480p and 720p or 1080i or 1080p...

[vlada]

Well I need to compare 2 samples - DVD-Video and Blu-ray. Upconverting an SD source is not a solution for me.

Anyway if it is against the rules to post a short sample for studying purposes, I'll try to get a sample elsewhere. I'll let you know the results of my test if I get the samples.

[j7n]

Some DVDs indeed suffer from bitrate starvation, either because they were made a long time ago with poor encoders or are filled with Extras and useless Audios. So even a person with 720*x monitor (if there is still such a thing) could enjoy Blu-ray over DVD.

A good example is the whole epic of Stargate SG-1, where the first seasons suffer from (1), and latest from (2). Unfortunately I'm still waiting for it to appear (http://www.amazon.com/Stargate-SG-1-Season-One-Blu-ray/dp/B000Y5JFMA) on Blu-Ray.

[Ranguvar]

Here's a fair quality comparison: http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

[j7n]

Unfortunately those screenshots are poor quality themselves and cannot be used to evaluate quality of the source. Without magnification I can see artifacts of improper resampling and JPEG compression. The DVD sourced graphics also look processed in the vertical direction.

Who the heck uses two different video players to grab frames? A player might not be configured to output the best possible quality and the author's players obviously also weren't.

This page features the HD image sampled down to the DVD's resolution of 852x480.
A(n american) DVD does not have resolution that high.

[Ranguvar]

A(n american) DVD does not have resolution that high.
Yes, it does. 720x480, which is then stretched because it is anamorphic.

[fibbingbear]

I may be wrong but, I don't think it's permissible to post clips of commercial videos (just like it's not permissible to post .IFOs) at the Doom9 Forums.


At least in the US (your miles may vary depending on what country you live in), a full minute of a video would be copyright infringement.

I think that, as a general rule, the clip must be 5 seconds or less, but please do not quote on that as I am not a lawyer and I'm trying to remember the number off the top of my head.

There are special provisions for education and research. For example, I found this guide online for educational presentations involving copyright material, which claims up to 3 minutes of video may be used (note that such a presentation must then be subject to extremely limited distribution, something a forum would not count as):
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter7/7-c.html

I guess you could always argue, "do the companies even care if you upload more?" I seriously doubt companies crawl through the Doom9 forums looking for 6+ second long clips, but keep in mind that they are very protective, and the longer the clip, the great probability they'll come after you.

[setarip_old]

@fibbingbear

Hi!

My statement was a reference to what I understand to be the Doom9 Forum policy and not a legal interpretation...

[vlada]

Yes, it is sad that the comparasion wasn't done better. But even from these pictures it seems to me absolutely clear that Blu-ray movie resized to SD has much better quality then DVD-Video. So the DVD-Video was obviously very poorly mastered.

[j7n]

Yes, it does. 720x480, which is then stretched because it is anamorphic.
By this logic we could have 128*480 pixels column, assign a widescreen tag to it and magically make it 852*480.

[QuadcoreHD]

Pardon my ignorance...but where did the person in the comparison get a high-def version of LOTR? Was this recorded with a DVR/PVR from a broadcast?

@Vlada, you indicated this was from a blu-ray disc, or was that just a general statement?

I'm very, very confused...

[Blue_MiSfit]

@ the OP:

The difference is astonishing. It's a fundamentally different experience watching a BluRay or HD-DVD than it is watching a DVD.

At least - to me it is. I'm a video encoder though, and I tend to obsess over details.

The downside is that regular DVDs don't look nearly as good anymore - though its still pleasing to watch them.

~MiSfit

[vlada]

QuadcoreHD> I'm don't know if it is from Blu-ray. I have no idea where did the person get a HD version of LOTR, I thought it was released on BD, but it wasn't. I'm now confused too. But the screens look like it is a HD source.

Blue_MiSfit> Right, but the point is, that even regular DVDs could look much better if they were mastered correctly.

[Ranguvar]

By this logic we could have 128*480 pixels column, assign a widescreen tag to it and magically make it 852*480.
When you watch a DVD, it is applying that same stretching (if it is widescreen). How else do you suppose to compare them? At 720x480, where it will not be at its true aspect ratio? At a lower resolution, where it will not look as it does in a normal viewing environment, and may introduce differences because of the resizing? Or at the resolution it plays back at by default on standalones and software players, which is stretching, because it is anamorphic?

[Blue_MiSfit]

@ Vlada -

Define correctly :)

In a perfect world, you would have uncompressed (or lossless) RGB / YUY2 masters from the NLE, gently processed with AviSynth and fed into HC for a multipass encode :) But that's just a dream... :)

I'm really impressed with BluRay - studios are really putting a lot of effort into these releases. BluRay sources generally look better than the mezzanine files I get from studios at work...

~MiSfit

[j7n]

I'm not saying it was wrong to compare them upsampled (if only it was done properly). But I could also choose to use 720*405. These are simply the conditions of my test; the dimensions of the source remain as they are [720*480, 720*576], independent on how I may choose to process them.

I pointed out Cornbread's statement that was incorrect in my opinion. But it's only the wording and not big deal at all.

[czerro]

By this logic we could have 128*480 pixels column, assign a widescreen tag to it and magically make it 852*480.

That's not how anamorphic DVD's work. Anamorphic DVD's actually enhance the number of horizontal lines on a display, while subtracting less than 20 vertical from the original product. It IS a give and take, but anamorphism is certainly better quality wise on a DVD for compliancy than strict resolution to aspect-ratio.

And honestly there is nothing magical about your hypothetical situation. This is essentially done with any form of digital media, most notoriously with widescreen DVD data burned to a 4:3 formated source. Talk about a waste of bitrate, quality and detail...