dvd-9 for hd in h264

[fenomeno83]

I want ask you: why does society use blueray or hd-dvd for high definition film?
I don't know if I tell a wrong thing, but for me using h264 a dvd-9 is sufficient to store a sufficient bitrate for get a very nice quality al 1920x1080 (film and extras as mpeg2 dvd films)..
what do you think about this?

[Egladil]

DVD9 and 1080p? HAHA, go buy a pair of glasses

[Wishbringer]

DVD9 and 1080p? HAHA, go buy a pair of glasses

If you get some HDTV DVB-S2 streams, a 1920x1088p movie at 105 minutes is around 11 GB.
And this is including grain!
If you recode it with x264 and some denoiser/degrainer (I use FFT3Dfilter and DeGrainMedian) you can get even with --crf 18 (and AQ) some filesize around 8 GB at bitrate around 9000 kb/s.

There is no need for glasses.

Today 25GB Blu-Ray commercial movie disks are not fully used (not seen more than 20GB used). They have tons of bonus material, several audiostreams (around 6 languages), so that you get a average bitrate of 20000 kb/s for videostream.
Compare it to reencoding a DVD-9 to a DVD-5 movie with tools like CCE (NOT transcoding!). Is there such a visible quality loss? You will loose some details in texture and fine structures, thats all.

But they WANT to establish new media! NEW (better) encryption! New consumer player! They want your money, thats all!

[ricardo.santos]

They have tons of bonus material, several audiostreams (around 6 languages), so that you get a average bitrate of 20000 kb/s for videostream.
Compare it to reencoding a DVD-9 to a DVD-5 movie with tools like CCE (NOT transcoding!). Is there such a visible quality loss? You will loose some details in texture and fine structures, thats all.

But they WANT to establish new media! NEW (better) encryption! New consumer player! They want your money, thats all!

thats what i think aswell

[Dark Shikari]

DVD9 and 1080p? HAHA, go buy a pair of glassesMost near-transparent HD rips fit in a DVD9.

[Egladil]

most 720p rips - yes, 1080p - no

[ricardo.santos]

you're saying a 2 hour movie, english audio trackand and subs wont fit/look good on a 8 gig dvd?

you must have a giant Super sized TV

[Dark Shikari]

most 720p rips - yes, 1080p - noI just did a quick search of a well-known HD rip archive, and there are loads of <9GB 1080p rips.

[Sharktooth]

most 1080p movies can be stored in DVD-9 almost with transparent quality.
sure it depends on the source compressibility and on the movie lenght, but still, most of my backups look like the original.
HD-DVD had a safe margin (15GB) though. even the longest movies could be fit in 15GB... assuming you're using h.264 and not some other crappy or old codecs...

[fenomeno83]

I think as Wishbringer...this is only a commercial choose,becuase with new advanced codecs (as h264) it's possibile have a HD film in a dvd-9 in trasparent quality!!!
Egladid,it's different from MPEG2!!!Use your brain before to post,please!
For Mpeg2 it's necessary more space of a dvd-9,but for a H264 NO!
So,used H264 in a blueray it's vain!!

[DigitalDeviant]

But they WANT to establish new media! NEW (better) encryption! New consumer player! They want your money, thats all!

Considering that you would still need a new consumer player to play back HD, especialy AVC encoded material, regardless of what media they put it on and they could certainly add whatever encryption formats they wanted from there.

Don't blame the discs, they're just plastic. If you can't find a good use of the extra space (more and better audio tracks, more and better extras, etc.) then that's on you. I'd rather find a good use for all that extra room.

Edit: For anime and other episodic video, there is also the benefit of fitting a whole series to 1 disc. Not that any studio would ever go that consumer friendly route.

[Sagittaire]

DVD9 and 1080p? HAHA, go buy a pair of glasses

Well you don't make (certainely) encoding with good H264 encoder.

Make transparent encoding at 6-8 Mbps with 1080p24 is not really possible (HDDVD30 and BD50 use really high quality by pixel, really better quality by pixel than DVD) but you can target the same quality by pixel (in most case) than ~4 Mbps MPEG2 at 480p.

If you want direct quality example you can download the HD Apple trailer. With DVD9 1080p H264 you can even target (little) better quality.

I make personnaly HDDVD9 with Menu, Multiaudio, Subtitles, Chapters and Bonus with extra high quality.

http://www.drfoster.f2s.com/

[CruNcher]

Sagittaire but you can't really compare Apples D5,HDCAM SR uncompressed master encodes with consumer transcodes. The Entropy of the stuff they use is way better then what most users use here and so they need very low settings to make it look almost transparent (you dont know how the master looked @ 300-500 mbit) compared to what a normal transcode would need and even then it wouldn't really hit that quality (higher compression settings more detail lose). But yeah with such a uncompressed source as base DVD-9 would fit for alot of stuff even extras (and that near transparency to the original source tough grain would still be a problem, and FGT needed).

[Sagittaire]

Sagittaire but you can't really compare Apples D5,HDCAM SR uncompressed master encodes with consumer transcodes. The Entropy of the stuff they use is way better then what most users use here and so they need very low settings to make it look almost transparent (you dont know how the master looked @ 300-500 mbit) compared to what a normal transcode would need and even then it wouldn't really hit that quality (higher compression settings more detail lose). But yeah with such a uncompressed source as base DVD-9 would fit for alot of stuff even extras (and that near transparency to the original source tough grain would still be a problem, and FGT needed).

I use real yuv uncompressed movie master for make this comparison (movie industry use yuv master for make encoding with PEP, cinevision or cinevision_PSE ...). Anyway you can really compare BD AVC source at 35 Mbps like a quasi master. For example Casino Royal encoding quality is really incredible.

For make 1080p encoding at 6-8 Mbps you must use really agressive and slow pre-process with high quality AVC encoder. I make test for professional with some AVC encoder and I obtain really good grain conservation in 6-8 Mbps interval. x264 is a very bad H264 codec for grain retention. Ateme/Elecard implementation are really better for that.

[Egladil]

I do encoding with a high quality h264 encoder, x264 that is. And I surely agree that if the movie is short, or/and it is heavily preprocessed, it will fit on a DVD9 with a 1080p resolution.

The thing is: many movies aren't short, and heavy preprocessing means altering the experience the director wants you to have. And then there's certainly no room for extras and/or additional audio tracks (audio being a different topic).

@DarkShikari: yes there are many 1080p rips with a DVD9 size, but most recent rips are larger. This is due to several reasons. One of the reasons is that the sources are getting better. The old MPEG2 captures would almost certainly fit on a dvd9 (when encoded that is), since there is not much detail on them. Even the first HDDVD/blurays had poor detail and would fit on a DVD9(i'm talking about encodes here too). The other factor is the changing attitude. In the past the thinking was still dominated by this stupid "must fit on a CD/DVD" and efforts were made to make it work. Degraining was common. Now the attitude is "transparency" and degraining is uncommon. The idea here is, when you get a 1080p movie, why make compromises?

@Sagittaire: I believe you that for some material good or very good quality is possible with low bitrates, but for movie encoding the quest is now not "look good" but "look the same as the source" (it was different in the past when "sources" like MPEG2 caps looked like shit)

I'm not saying it is impossible to fit a movie on a dvd9. I'm saying that for most movies, you either have to compress more(bad), or degrain(bad), and maybe even that won't help. And you can absolutely forget 2 or more audio tracks. But if you still do fit a movie on a dvd9 it will not be transparent for many many movies.

DVD9 has definately not enough capacity for a quality 1080p transfer with multiple audio tracks. That is what the OP was talking about, isn't it?

[Dark Shikari]

I do encoding with a high quality h264 encoder, x264 that is. And I surely agree that if the movie is short, or/and it is heavily preprocessed, it will fit on a DVD9 with a 1080p resolution.Have you tried using Prestige with the correct settings?

You can get 300 in 9GB without much loss of detail, and that is a hell of a difficult source.

You don't need to "preprocess" the video, and it doesn't have to be "short." I'm looking at an 8 gigabyte rip of LOTR:ROTK 1080p right now, and it looks almost perfect. And that's a long movie.

[Irakli]

Have you tried using Prestige with the correct settings?

You can get 300 in 9GB without much loss of detail, and that is a hell of a difficult source.

You don't need to "preprocess" the video, and it doesn't have to be "short." I'm looking at an 8 gigabyte rip of LOTR:ROTK 1080p right now, and it looks almost perfect. And that's a long movie.

I thought Prestige matrix was "bad". IIRC, many people on the forum recommended against using this matrix as it negatively affects x264 efficiency. Or did something change in recent past that I am not aware of (like new test with Prestige, etc.)?

Regards,
Irakli

[Dark Shikari]

I thought Prestige matrix was "bad". IIRC, many people on the forum recommended against using this matrix as it negatively affects x264 efficiency. Or did something change in recent past that I am not aware of (like new test with Prestige, etc.)?

Regards,
IrakliIts bad for many reasons, especially at low bitrates, but in grainy movies its effect seems to be shockingly good. Some of the major sites that specialize in high quality HD ripping have found Prestige to to be the best matrix for grain retention at high bitrates for HD sources.

The matrix itself is... interesting... to say the least. But it seems to work, oddly enough.

[lexor]

You don't need to "preprocess" the video, and it doesn't have to be "short." I'm looking at an 8 gigabyte rip of LOTR:ROTK 1080p right now, and it looks almost perfect. And that's a long movie.

There is 1080p version of LOTR? You mean a broadcast cap or did I miss the Blu-ray release somehow?

[Snowknight26]

Broadcast.

[Dark Shikari]

There is 1080p version of LOTR? You mean a broadcast cap or did I miss the Blu-ray release somehow?Its one of the best broadcast films I've seen in terms of quality; it has some very slight quality breakups but only in extremely short spurts of high motion where the source is a blurry mess anyways.

[Sagittaire]

I do encoding with a high quality h264 encoder, x264 that is. And I surely agree that if the movie is short, or/and it is heavily preprocessed, it will fit on a DVD9 with a 1080p resolution.

The thing is: many movies aren't short, and heavy preprocessing means altering the experience the director wants you to have. And then there's certainly no room for extras and/or additional audio tracks (audio being a different topic).

@DarkShikari: yes there are many 1080p rips with a DVD9 size, but most recent rips are larger. This is due to several reasons. One of the reasons is that the sources are getting better. The old MPEG2 captures would almost certainly fit on a dvd9 (when encoded that is), since there is not much detail on them. Even the first HDDVD/blurays had poor detail and would fit on a DVD9(i'm talking about encodes here too). The other factor is the changing attitude. In the past the thinking was still dominated by this stupid "must fit on a CD/DVD" and efforts were made to make it work. Degraining was common. Now the attitude is "transparency" and degraining is uncommon. The idea here is, when you get a 1080p movie, why make compromises?

@Sagittaire: I believe you that for some material good or very good quality is possible with low bitrates, but for movie encoding the quest is now not "look good" but "look the same as the source" (it was different in the past when "sources" like MPEG2 caps looked like shit)

I'm not saying it is impossible to fit a movie on a dvd9. I'm saying that for most movies, you either have to compress more(bad), or degrain(bad), and maybe even that won't help. And you can absolutely forget 2 or more audio tracks. But if you still do fit a movie on a dvd9 it will not be transparent for many many movies.

DVD9 has definately not enough capacity for a quality 1080p transfer with multiple audio tracks. That is what the OP was talking about, isn't it?


Well "Shinobi" HDDVD is HDDVD9 and this source is really noisy movie.
http://www.filmsactu.com/test-hd-dvd-shinobi-hd-dvd-1314.htm

video: 105 min with MPEG4 AVC
audio: VO trueHD 5.1 and VF DD+ 5.1


x264 is not a good H264 codec for grain retention. You must use very particular profil with x264 for a good grain retention even at really high bitrate.

[Wishbringer]

The initial question was, why not put 1080p on DVD9, and first answer was: "you need glasses!"

Now we talk about transparency and grain retention.

I would on the opposite say, that, if you don't look at the source at same time and only watch an x264 DVD9 encode, you wouldn't say: "It's a bad encode, it's crap, lot of artifacts and so on"

If we talk now about transparency, then we could start a thread if a 20Mbit/s mainconcept encode is as transparent as a 18Mbit/s ateme encode, or if a specified cqm is better than another.

[Sagittaire]

In fact with really clean source like CGI use 18 or 20 Mbps is simply useless. You have in practice really transparent encoding at 8 Mbps with H264. IMO with really clean source like LOTR or SW second trilogy too.

[bmnot]

Bahahaha. HD/BD movies encodes can look good at DVD9 sizes with x264, but never, ever will they be transparent. Even 12 gig encodes don't look transparent. You ALWAYS look a touch a of grain, which means you lose other high frequency detail. Let's not forget the added banding.

[Sharktooth]

grain is not hard to encode coz it's high-frequency... x264 can retain high frequencies pretty well even at low bitrates.
the problem is grain keeps moving and that's consumes a lot of bits.
so you can analyze the grain/noise, remove it with a temporal filter and keep the hight frequency details intact, then re-add noise/grain using FGM (it needs to be supported by both encoder and decoder).
for example, the ateme encoder can do that and i can assure you can transparently store even grainy 1080p stuff in DVD-9s.

[nurbs]

Is grain actually considered to be detail? I thought it was just an artifact of the filmstock used. While I see that sometimes it serves a purpose there is way to much of it on most high-definition movies for my taste.

[Dark Shikari]

grain is not hard to encode coz it's high-frequency... x264 can retain high frequencies pretty well even at low bitrates.Grain is usually low frequency, not high frequency, especially in HD.
so you can analyze the grain/noise, remove it with a temporal filter and keep the hight frequency details intact, then re-add noise/grain using FGM (it needs to be supported by both encoder and decoder).
for example, the elecard encoder can do that and i can assure you can transparently store even grainy 1080p stuff in DVD-9s.No encoder or decoder in existence supports FGM.

[Sharktooth]

sorry i meant ateme, not elecard...
and btw the "grain" he meant is usually fine grain or noise... that's high freq.

[fenomeno83]

thanks for reply...I understood that my ideas were right!!!
The only thing that I supposed wrong maybe was use x264 encoder as H264 encoder...
Now, I understood that the similar bitrate used for mpeg2 film in dvd it's good for get trasparence in a High Definition film using H264,but there are 2 important things:
1-original uncompressed source to encode must be very good
2-h264 encoder must be very efficient (much better than free x264)

Now,I think: for a society that produce films, the two points aren't a problem and they can get trasparence in their HD film in a DVD-9!!So,HD DVD and BUERAY are only commercial found!!!

Are right my ideas?

[Sharktooth]

x264 efficiency is ok. it just doesnt (still?) support FGM but if you dont care about the added noise (there is plenty on HD-DVDs and BDs movies) you can just partly or completely filter it out and still keep the bigger grain that's low freq and doesnt kill the encoder efficiency.
however, the 50gigz war was only commercial, coz as i sad 15gigz is enough for every 1080p movie, even the longest one (i dont think you can fit the LOTR:EE in one DVD-9 without sacrificing some quality) but a new media storage was needed for several reasons.
The DVD was just becoming too small.

[Dark Shikari]

x264 efficiency is ok. it just doesnt (still?) support FGM.No encoder or decoder supports FGM.

x264 actually has a patch to support FGM parameters, but since no decoders use it, what's the point...

[Sharktooth]

... ateme has it ...
the point is if the encoders will start to support it, there will be a reason to implement it in the decoders...

[Dark Shikari]

... ateme has it ...Really?

[citation needed]

[Sharktooth]

.....
* film grain modeling options are :

-fgm : enable film grain modeling
-fgboost <factor> : set film grain boost factor

[Dark Shikari]

.....And I have pink fairies in my basement.

A non-public encoder that nobody else can see containing FGM? At least x264's FGM patch is available :p

[Sharktooth]

they sell their encoder softwares...

[fenomeno83]

x264 efficiency is ok. it just doesnt (still?) support FGM but if you dont care about the added noise (there is plenty on HD-DVDs and BDs movies) you can just partly or completely filter it out and still keep the bigger grain that's low freq and doesnt kill the encoder efficiency.
however, the 50gigz war was only commercial, coz as i sad 15gigz is enough for every 1080p movie, even the longest one (i dont think you can fit the LOTR:EE in one DVD-9 without sacrificing some quality) but a new media storage was needed for several reasons.
The DVD was just becoming too small.

ok..but I don't see the problem for long film..
in dvd when there is a long film use 2 dvd-9...
but these long films are a very little percentual of all films..
I don't think that society had this problem: how we do if in 100 films there is 1 film of 2h30m?
it is right create a new disk storage format only for a few films (that can be storage in 2 dvd-9,similar to mpeg2 dvd long film)?

I think: if bitrate necessary to have a good quality in a 720x576 mpeg2 film is similat to bitrate to have a good quality in a 1920x1080 h264 film,why change all?
For me remains only a commercial found

[Sharktooth]

nope. more storage was needed for multiple audio tracks (different languages for example) and usual additional contents.
The movie itselft would fit in a DVD-9 but more space for other stuff is needed.

[DigitalDeviant]

ok..but I don't see the problem for long film..
in dvd when there is a long film use 2 dvd-9...
but these long films are a very little percentual of all films..
I don't think that society had this problem: how we do if in 100 films there is 1 film of 2h30m?
it is right create a new disk storage format only for a few films (that can be storage in 2 dvd-9,similar to mpeg2 dvd long film)?

I think: if bitrate necessary to have a good quality in a 720x576 mpeg2 film is similat to bitrate to have a good quality in a 1920x1080 h264 film,why change all?
For me remains only a commercial found

Well then, who needs those annoying DVDs. Can't you just split most movies to 10-12 CD's?

[Blue_MiSfit]

Exactly. 1080p on DVD9 is "good enough" - lets be honest here, we're really splitting hairs. Most people wouldn't notice a bit of difference.

But, there isn't space left over for 5 tracks of audio :) Especially when you start talking about 1.5mbps DD+, and all the other high bitrate / lossless formats. Plus the menus and all that jazz.

Let's be honest though, in most cases, given the sources WE have access to (HD-DVD or Blu Ray), we can do a pretty damned good job of taking one audio track, converting to AC3, and keeping the 1080p video looking good. Maybe with the exception of old grainy movies.

I'm working on Deer Hunter right now... unfiltered at CRF 22 it was bigger than the source :|

I've currently got my machine chugging away with a pretty strong application of fft3dgpu with sigma - sigma4 ranging from 1 to 4. It definitely killed the grain very nicely, and didn't kill much detail.

fft3dgpu with an 8800gt is wicked fast, almost real-time with 1080p! Even 4 threads on my q6600 to fft3dfilter can't manage half that.

~MiSfit

[Sagittaire]

"Shinobi" HDDVD9 use trueHD at 2.5 Mbps and DD+ at 640 Kbps. Make HDDVD9 with multiple audio stream at 640 Kbps (DD+ at 640 Kbps is really good for me) is not impossible.

Here authoring scenario for 120 min movie on HDDVD9/BD9.

~ 500 Mo for Menu and Bonus
3x DD+ 5.1 audio at 640 Kbps
1080p video stream at 7 Mbps

Here little example with high quality elecard encoder at 7 Mbps ...
http://jfl1974.free.fr/upload/Elecard1-001.mkv

... and like you can see there are lot of grain for this source.

[Sharktooth]

20k/s... zZz... no way.

[fenomeno83]

Well then, who needs those annoying DVDs. Can't you just split most movies to 10-12 CD's?

no,it's better in 100000000000000000000000 floppy disk :)

my think is different:
if since today wasn't problem to have a mpeg2 film in a dvd 9 (bitrate 8000/9000) with audio tracks and extras,and if film was very long (are few)split it in 2 dvd(or better,make a dvd for film and another for extras),
why now for HD films in which isn't problem to have 8000/9000 bitrate in H264 (bitrate X it's good for mpeg2 and 720x576 resolution as the same bitrate X it's good for h264 1920x1080 resolution)don't work in the same manner of mpeg2 720x576 film?
do you understand what want I tell?

ps: many mpeg2 films have a dvd for film and another for extras!why now is a problem do the same for hd films?
maybe are there commercial reasons? :)

[CruNcher]

"Shinobi" HDDVD9 use trueHD at 2.5 Mbps and DD+ at 640 Kbps. Make HDDVD9 with multiple audio stream at 640 Kbps (DD+ at 640 Kbps is really good for me) is not impossible.

Here authoring scenario for 120 min movie on HDDVD9/BD9.

~ 500 Mo for Menu and Bonus
3x DD+ 5.1 audio at 640 Kbps
1080p video stream at 7 Mbps

Here little example with high quality elecard encoder at 7 Mbps ...
http://jfl1974.free.fr/upload/Elecard1-001.mkv

... and like you can see there are lot of grain for this source.

Sagittaire was RD enabled @ encoding?
and is this a 1-pass or 2-pass result?

tough in this example you can clearly see that the B-frames are loosing the grain information a little and the i and p frames keep them so it's like I = full grain P =full grain B = less grain in motion the b frames are so fast that you only realize this as a small change tough. And indeed X264 throws the grain away allready after the first frames (crf) practicly only I frames keep the Grain information completly.

[Blue_MiSfit]

I see that, but my god man it looks good!!!
Very impressive, Sagittaire!

I wouldn't call that a lot of grain though.

What prefiltering (if any) did you apply? Also, what was the source?

~MiSfit

[Sharktooth]

well, the matrix... there's some artificial noise AND fine grain.
however the sample looks really good to me and that proves a high quality encoding can be obtained at 7mbps provided you use a good encoder...

@sagittaire: exactly, what elecard encoder/software did you use? converter studio?

[CruNcher]

X264 and Grain (High Bitrate) no problem :)

http://mirror05.x264.nl/CruNcher/force.php?file=./casino-grain-x264.mkv 10 Mbit
http://mirror05.x264.nl/CruNcher/force.php?file=./casino-6Mbit.mkv 6 Mbit
http://mirror05.x264.nl/CruNcher/force.php?file=./casino-3Mbit.mkv 3 Mbit
http://mirror05.x264.nl/CruNcher/force.php?file=./casino-1.5Mbit.mkv 1.5 Mbit
http://mirror05.x264.nl/CruNcher/force.php?file=./casino-1Mbit.mkv 1 Mbit

[Sagittaire]

Sagittaire was RD enabled @ encoding?
and is this a 1-pass or 2-pass result?

It's complete 2 pass encoding with all RDO enabled



tough in this example you can clearly see that the B-frames are loosing the grain information a little and the i and p frames keep them so it's like I = full grain P =full grain B = less grain in motion the b frames are so fast that you only realize this as a small change tough. And indeed X264 throws the grain away allready after the first frames (crf) practicly only I frames keep the Grain information completly.

In fact bframe losing grain simply because quantizer is higher. I can't set the bframe ratio with Elecard and IMO visual quality will be really better at high bitrate with really low ratio quantizer for I,P & BFrame ...


What prefiltering (if any) did you apply? Also, what was the source?

Well I use a differential denoising on the dark area with better quantizer on Dark area.
- It's really difficult to see grain/noise in dark area
- Complexity AQ with flat block in dark area mean really better quality in dark area (AQ will use low quantizer)
- MS use this really particular filtering to obtain really good quality in dark area (quality in dark area are really important for TFT screen)

source=DirectShowSource("D:\Mes dossiers\Unzipped\PEVOB_1_MERGED.VC-1.stream.0.mpv", framecount=196119)
source=crop(source,2,142,-2,-142)
source=LanczosResize(source,1920,800)
source=killaudio(source)
source=AssumeFPS(source,24000,1001)
source=addborders(source,4,4,4,4)

sourceA=source.FFT3dfilter(sigma=0.75,plane=4)
sourceB=source.FFT3dfilter(sigma=2.75,plane=4)

th_low = 0
th_high = 40

dmask = sourceA.levels(th_low,1.0,th_high,255,0,false)

result = sourceA.mt_merge(sourceB,dmask,U=3,V=3,luma=true)

result=crop(source,4,4,-4,-4)
result=addborders(result1,0,140,0,140)
return result


exactly, what elecard encoder/software did you use? converter studio?

It's an old but really good CLI version of the Elecard/Mainconcept core. Converter don't have all the fonction enabled on the Elecard/Mainconcept core. If you want a complete and recent Gui you must use Sonic Cinevision 2.5.

[Furiousflea]

OMG, you're so out of touch its not even funny. Your comments sound like the ramblings of a retarted school boy who has got above his station.

Bolded the total nonsense for emphasis...

I do encoding with a high quality h264 encoder, x264 that is. And I surely agree(You basically insulted the op for asking if this was true, now you say it is?) that if the movie is short, or/and it is heavily preprocessed, it will fit on a DVD9 with a 1080p resolution. (I doubt you know how to do any processing - AVC front ends all the way for you)

The thing is: many movies aren't short, and heavy preprocessing means altering the experience the director wants you to have. <- You REALLY don't have a clue what your even discussing do you? And then there's certainly no room for extras and/or additional audio tracks (audio being a different topic).

@DarkShikari: yes there are many 1080p rips with a DVD9 size, but most recent rips are larger. <- bolox. This is due to several reasons. One of the reasons is that the sources are getting better.<- more bolox. The old MPEG2 captures would almost certainly fit on a dvd9 (when encoded that is), since there is not much detail on them. Even the first HDDVD/blurays had poor detail and would fit on a DVD9(i'm talking about encodes here too). The other factor is the changing attitude. In the past the thinking was still dominated by this stupid "must fit on a CD/DVD" and efforts were made to make it work. Degraining was common. Now the attitude is "transparency" and degraining is uncommon. The idea here is, when you get a 1080p movie, why make compromises?

@Sagittaire: I believe you that for some material good or very good quality is possible with low bitrates, but for movie encoding the quest is now not "look good" but "look the same as the source" (it was different in the past when "sources" like MPEG2 caps looked like shit)

I'm not saying it is impossible to fit a movie on a dvd9. I'm saying that for most movies, you either have to compress more(bad), or degrain(bad), and maybe even that won't help. And you can absolutely forget 2 or more audio tracks. But if you still do fit a movie on a dvd9 it will not be transparent for many many movies.

DVD9 has definately not enough capacity for a quality 1080p transfer with multiple audio tracks. That is what the OP was talking about, isn't it?

I gave up half way through, you shouldn't be allowed to post because you're talking about things as if they are fact, when they are opinion, and WRONG.

Get out.