2 CDs or 3 CDs?

[yosemite]

hi,

this is my old problem ;)

I dont know what I should take maybe u can help me ;)

I've the choice:

to make a 2 CD rip of Rain Man -> 58,4 % Compressibility Test, but just 928kbps (format 16:9)
or
to make a 3 CD rip of Rain Man -> 73,8% Comp-Test, and 1688kpbs (format 1:1)

what do u think and why?

[DJ Bobo]

Rain Man huh? 66 minutes per CD is absolutely perfect, 3 CDs is a way too much for my taste (for any film!)
Even with AC3 sound, this won't cause a problem, just lower the resolution a bit: 512x288 to 576x320 is OK. This will give you almost LaserDisc quality, which is very nice ;)

[grug2k]

Originally posted by bobotns
Rain Man huh? 66 minutes per CD is absolutely perfect, 3 CDs is a way too much for my taste (for any film!)

What if the movie is 198 minutes long? :p

[theReal]

With Divx5 and b-frames on, 58% looks so good, you really don't need 3 CDs for it (given you got the 58% on a resolution equal to or higher than 576x320).

[DJ Bobo]

@ grug2k
I got movies like Mission Impossible 2 and Matrix on one CD in very nice quality, and those movies are longer than 2 hours ;)
So what if I have 2 CD!? this will allow over 4 hours video in the same quality as those rips!

3 CDs and more are for freaks, wanting full resolution & double AC3 at any cost.

Life is a compromiss my friend!

[neo_sapien]

Heh, I have at least 20 3-CD rips at 640x272 with both Dolby 5.1 and Dolby 2.0. That's why I paid $450 for my dolby digital sound system :) I don't like the inconvenience of 3 CDs, but it's a necessary evil for my archive. Plus I'm anal retentive about quality, so...:p

So you have the movie with widescreen and fullscreen versions? Always make an encode out of the widescreen versions, they're more compressible.

[DJ Bobo]

@ neo_sapien
Well, you belong to the category of freaks I mentionned above :D
And saying that the widescreen edition is more compressible is bullshit. It is the same movie, so it will have the same compressibilty!
The only advantadge of widescreen editions, is that they have higher resolution, as long as we're talking about the DVD itself. This have no impact on the targeted DivX, since in both cases (widescreen or letterbox), the resolution of the DivX-Video will be the same, in this case probably between 512x288 and 576x320.

[Mac Sidewinder]

Just 928 bitrate? Most of my rips average in the 700 to 800 bitrate range and come out looking great using the mpeg4 options. Go with the 2 cds.

Mac

[neo_sapien]

Well it's far easier to compress a movie to 640x272 than to 640x464. I mean, it's 175,000 pixels vs. 300,000. Extrapolate from that, and it's 71.4% more bitrate-intensive to go full-screen. His comp tests support that.

[jonny]

With 2 CD i, very often, use something like 704x432, i use to do a compress. test to see if i'm able to do this (i correct the aspect ratio with BSPlayer), how may ac3 tracks you keep???

[DJ Bobo]

@ neo_sapien
You don't get it, don't you?
I'll try to clarify things for you!
Talking about 16:9 movies:
1) widescreen edition: movie is encoded in 16:9 anamorph, that means here 704x480 => full vertical resolution. So this is very nice, if you have a 16:9 TV, you get full quality. Displayed on a 4:3 TV, the DVD Player will reduce the resolution down to 704x352 and add black bars so the movie look right.
2) letterbox edition: movie is encoded already in 4:3 format, that means the black bars are already existent in the DVD, and the movie has only 704x352 resolution (plus 128 pixel black bars).

In BOTH cases, if you wanna make a DivX out of it, you will have to choose a resolution that is 16:9 non anamorph, so you will choose between 640x352, 576x320, 512x288 etc ANYWAY and *NOT* 640x480 or something like this, 'cause nobody is an idiot, to encode a 16:9 movie in 640x480 with black bars!

[SpEeDaMiGo]

@bobotns & neo_sapiens
Maybe I can clarify your argument. I know what neo_sapiens means. You got some DVDs, same film. One 4:3 the other 16:9 (I'm speaking of the actual video content, fully cropped). If you wan't to encode both at the same horizontal resolution fully cropped (not at the sides), there will of course be much more pixels at the 4:3 encode; 16:9: narrow video stripe, 4:3: fullscreen content to be encoded. As a result the 16:9 version will look better, but you get a smaller video image. If you pan-scan it to 4:3 you'll get more or less the same like the 4:3 encode (difference because of the "intelligent" pan-scan of the 4:3 version not to be considered).
This is what you wanted to say, neo_sapiens, isn't it ?

[neo_sapien]

yep