Is the quality between soft and neutral bicubic worth the compression differance? [Archive]

DJ Bobo

17th July 2002, 19:44

@ Acaila
Please! 544 is too low?! In my opinion, everything starting from 384x*** is acceptable and everything starting from 480x*** can be considered as sharp. Did you know that 480x208 is already 73% sharper than PAL-VCD & 108% sharper than NTSC-VCD? ;) :D

Back to the question: I ask you a question: can you tell that a movie was done with soft or neutral bicubic on the fly without any comparison? NO! so stick to soft bicubic ;)

Acaila

17th July 2002, 20:18

Please! 544 is too low?! In my opinion, everything starting from 384x*** is acceptable and everything starting from 480x*** can be considered as sharp. Did you know that 480x208 is already 73% sharper than PAL-VCD & 108% sharper than NTSC-VCD?
A 108% increase on bad quality isn't neccesarily good quality :D Maybe 480x.. or 544x.. is good enough for anime (I hardly do those because they're not too much of those around here), but for normal movies no way.

I've never used anything under 608x... resolution because:
1) I haven't found the movie where it was nessecary to get high quality on 1 CD (but then I've almost always used 800MB CD's, so that might have something to do with it :D )
2) It definately looks less sharp than a higher resolution and I hate movies that aren't sharp anymore, might as well buy the vhs version.

Back to the question: I ask you a question: can you tell that a movie was done with soft or neutral bicubic on the fly without any comparison? NO! so stick to soft bicubicThen why doesn't everyone use a TemporalSmoother(1) on their rips? Because we like our movies sharp, even if it is only really noticable by comparing that there is a definate loss of detail.
But then I've always been a quality freak, so I don't like losing too much detail/sharpness even it's only barely noticable (at least not if I can help it) :).

BluDChyLD

17th July 2002, 22:22

i wouldn't consider 544 low, anything over 512 is acceptable to me...

I must admit though anything below 6xx can have a blocky effect in some scenes. Especially when it comes to bright lighting and stripy or checked clothing.

To be honest I dont want to be too critical about my rips, i'm redoing some of my old DivX 4 encodes at the moment. Im putting some of my favs onto two cds and re-encoding some low res ones.

Once I sit back and start watching a film it really doesnt bother me how good it looks (within acceptable limits)
Cheers for the help I think i'll just stick to neutral...
BluDChyLD

NeVeRLiFt

17th July 2002, 22:32

Precise Bilinear looks sharper and produces larger file size than Precise Bicubic.

Bilinear = resize to smaller res
Bicubic = resize to larger res

BluDChyLD

17th July 2002, 22:33

dj bobo

I've only done one soft vs neutral bicubic with "the others". To be honest i couldnt tell the differance between the two, even with still frames there wasnt much in it. I only go for neutral as its the "done" thing and most guides recommend it. I usually only go for soft when the movies a bit harder to compress.

acailia

what do you mean by "ringing" when you use sharp bicubic? I use sharp on all my 2 cd rips and they look great, is this effect only noticeable with low bitrates?

DJ Bobo

17th July 2002, 22:42

You know what Acaila, you make me remember a neighbour of mine, he had a Star Wars I DVD, the one that is THX digitally mastered. His objective was a HQ 2-CD rip, so I suggested 640x272. After encoding, he said to me "it's not sharp".

What I wanna say is: of course you'll loose sharpness, especially if you're encoding anamorphic digitally mastered DVDs, you won't ever be happy with the sharpness of your DivX if you compare it with the DVD!

So I don't compare! I encode to get the best possible quality at an appropriate resolution and basta!
I also wanna say that I always do 1-CD rips (700MB), I *hate* it to change discs!
And another thing: I use bilinearresize quite often! because I know that tomorrow I would have forgotten the DVD image and that the DivX picture will look fantastic! (no comparison, no pain ;))

And entre nous: what happens 5 minutes after you begin watching a film? do you look for the story or for the image quality? ;)

BluDChyLD

17th July 2002, 23:09

i agree, when i first got into DivX anything over 416 looked great to me. But over time as I got more into encoding movies the standard I aimed for got higher and higher. As I said above, anything over 512 is satisfactory, im re-encoding a few of my fav films at a higher res at the moment.

I know what you mean about changing cds in the middle of a film :rolleyes: I only make 2 cd rips if I have to or if I really like the film. Usually if I have a foreign title with a dubbed track aswell i'll keep both streams and split it onto two cds.

BluDChyLD

18th July 2002, 00:00

Originally posted by Acaila
I'm curious, what % would the movie end up with at 576x240 with Neutral Bicubic?

the test says 54.6%, thats a fair differance from soft bicubics 64.6%. But 544x224 at 62% with neutral is good enough for me so i'll stick to that.

BluDChyLD

18th July 2002, 00:10

Originally posted by Acaila

I've never used anything under 608x... resolution because:
1) I haven't found the movie where it was nessecary to get high quality on 1 CD (but then I've almost always used 800MB CD's, so that might have something to do with it :D )
2) It definately looks less sharp than a higher resolution and I hate movies that aren't sharp anymore, might as well buy the vhs version.

Just curious, what settings do you use to encode? I'm hardly a pro with DivX but i've done plenty of 1 cd which need more space to acheive good quality at 608, does the extra 100mb on a mode2 or 99min cd make that much differance?

I got to disagree with you on the vhs comment, the main reason I switch from vhs to dvd wasn't the sharpness but the fact that its a digital format. (no wear or tracking problems, quick search etc...) So DivX is good enough for me :)

smok3

18th July 2002, 00:15

do you look for the story or for the image quality?you can look for the story if there is enough of the image quality.
Precise Bilinear looks sharper and produces larger file size than Precise Bicubicfrom my tests the lack of sharpnes in the resized dvd image is kinda not so noticable as if your source is high-quality video feed, probably is even good to lose some of the original sharpnes to hide the original mpeg2 blocks. (actualy when doing 'video feed 2 divx' my filters were something like smartdeinterlace->sharpen->resize)

q1: is there a resizing filter that will take into account from_video_resolution + to_video_resolution in a way to preserve the original subjective sharpnes?

q2: to mods/admins: is it possible to tweak the forum rules to allow only maximum 3 lines of signature? (its really annoying to read all that imho) :D ,

with respect,

smok3

edit: deleted some of my nonsense...

brett

18th July 2002, 00:28

Blud:

Seeing as Swordfish is a 99-min movie, I assume you're doing a 1-CD rip with those resolutions, so we're talking about 845kbps if you use 160k audio and 200k credits. That means 576x256 is 0.24bpp, perfect for a soft bicubic rip with a movie that has some action. 544x224 is 0.29bpp, perfect for a neutral bicubic rip of a movie with action scenes.

Keep in mind that 576x240 is 2.40:1 and 544x224 is 2.43:1. Are you sure you want to crop the top and bottom to use an aspect that is wider than your source? DVD players crop a little off the sides of movies, and then a TV will crop even more off, and that's not a big deal. It's strange to crop the top and bottom of a movie that's already in Cinemascope.

First you should step through a couple frames in VirtualDub, and see if the picture crawls at all in spots that should be still. If it's a very clean DVD, the best thing would probably be a 544x240 neutral bicubic. Otherwise I'd go for 576x256 soft bicubic.

I think most people would agree that neutral bicubic is as good as it gets for 2-CD rips where you can always use resolutions over 544. 544 could go either way. At 512, you're better off with soft bicubic because the blocks get big enough that you can see stair-stepping. I guess it all depends on your equipment. If I'm up next to my 22" monitor, I'd swear soft bicubic looks better every time, but I'm generally going to watch things with a TV-out, and then it doesn't matter one way or the other. The important thing is to make sure you have enough bits per pixel for your resolution and resize method, because if you start getting compression artifacts it'll always look bad.

On a side note... What's the deal with Neverlift? Does he always say things that make no sense? Do people just ignore him completely?

NeVeRLiFt

18th July 2002, 00:34

I have tested 4 different DVD's and nothing changed but using Precise Bilinear and Precise Bicubic. In all the tests Precise Bilinear was sharper and made larger size file(always alittle bigger).
I have also read that Precise Bilinear is best when resizing to a smaller resolution ;)

One place that talks about this was the FAQ for Adobe Premiere... at Adobe's site.

NeVeRLiFt

18th July 2002, 00:41

@brett

Like I said brett you can kiss my ass boy!

manono

18th July 2002, 05:27

NeVeRLiFt says:
I only use smart-resize using precise bilinear.
Precise Bilinear looks sharper.
I have also read that Precise Bilinear is best when resizing to a smaller resolution.
However, in the DivX.com Help Guide (http://www.divx.com/support/divx/guide.php), they say:
From a mathematical viewpoint, it could be argued that the bicubic resize algorithm is best for enlarging the image while bilinear is more suited to size reduction. From our own experience, the opposite appears to be true - bicubic gives the best visual quality for reducing the video resolution.. Even Everwicked (http://www.everwicked.com/content/DivX_5_Guide/divx5-06.php) says in his guide:
Select Neutral Bicubic as your Resize filter. It gives the most 'Neutral' feel of image. For extreme cases, where you have to use very low bitrates, use Soft Bicubic.
I'm inclined to agree with them, and believe the NeutralBicubic with a 0.5 or 0.6 setting looks the best. But it's a matter of personal preference, I guess.

Acaila

18th July 2002, 06:33

geez I go to sleep and there's 12 new replies when I wake up :)

DJ Bobo wrote:
You know what Acaila, you make me remember a neighbour of mine, he had a Star Wars I DVD, the one that is THX digitally mastered. His objective was a HQ 2-CD rip, so I suggested 640x272. After encoding, he said to me "it's not sharp".That's funny, I actually am that paranoid. I'm currently in the process of ripping that very movie and I do think that 640 is too low for it. :D

And entre nous: what happens 5 minutes after you begin watching a film? do you look for the story or for the image quality?The first time I watch a movie I go for the story (which would be the original DVD). But during ripping I always try to get the best pictures possible. After watching the movie once it's more about the sport of ripping than about the movie itself for me.

Acaila

18th July 2002, 06:43

BluDChyLD wrote:
what do you mean by "ringing" when you use sharp bicubic? I use sharp on all my 2 cd rips and they look great, is this effect only noticeable with low bitrates?At least to me Sharp Bicubic (0,0.75) produces ringing much sooner than Neutral (0,0.5) or Soft (0.333,0.333), yes it's much easier to see with lower bitrates (<900) but I still don't like it for that.

the test says 54.6%, thats a fair differance from soft bicubics 64.6%. But 544x224 at 62% with neutral is good enough for me so i'll stick to that.Yeah, 54% is quite low indeed. So I agree that 544x224 would seem the best choice for you.

does the extra 100mb on a mode2 or 99min cd make that much differance?Actually the extra 100MB makes a lot of difference (I use 90 min CD's). You don't want to go back after you've tried it once :). Using XCD or 99min CD's I would get even more space, but I'm not sure if every computer can play 99mins (anybody know?) and I don't want everyone to install filters just to access the CD. Normal 90 min CD's can be played by everyone that I know, so there's not much sense in only using 700MB.

Acaila

18th July 2002, 06:48

@manono:

Couldn't agree more. For the theoretical standpoint NeVeRLiFt is correct, but I prefer Bicubic on downsizing because it still looks better to my eyes.

NeVeRLiFt

18th July 2002, 10:57

http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/bilinear-vs-bicubic.htm

"quote"
Everyone uses Bicubic resizing religiously when they make DivX movies or any time they resize pictures in photo editing software. I have suggested that it is best to use Bilinear to shrink images and Bicubic to enlarge them. In fact I believe it is a rule that shouldn't be broken. But then again there is mixed opinion even among experts on this matter. Digital photo experts JASC (makers of Paint Shop Pro) comment: "Use the Bilinear Resampling method for shrinking these images and Bicubic for enlarging them". Whereas the help file of Adobe Photoshop just mentions that Bicubic is more exact method for resizing. In actual fact Bicubic is more precise, but only when it comes to enlarging. When it comes to shrinking its exactness can actually produces pixelation, because to shrink an image pixels must be discarded anyway.

TO EACH HIS OWN...

DJ Bobo

18th July 2002, 11:10

Live BilinearResize! well, I must say that I mainly use it because it's faster and improves compressibility, sharpness isn't an issue anyway for me :D

@ Acaila
So I don't get misunderstood, the terms "quality" and "sharpness" are 2 different things for me. With "quality", I mean how clean a picture is. So for me, the main goal is to get as close as possible to an avg quantizer of 2 ;)
As for Anime, I see many groups releasing 512x384 encodings at a size of 70~80MB. So this is absolutely senseless, since the picture gets awfully blocky. In that particular case, I would rather take 320x240, get a lower sharpness but a cleaner (=higher quality) picture ;)

[EDIT]
A word about 90-min CDs: they have wide compatibility and precious 80MB more space, but they are too fragile (scratches are fatal) and require slow burning speed (4X on my TEAC 12X burner to get it 100% error free), that's why I don't use them that often

NeVeRLiFt

18th July 2002, 11:16

@DJ Bobo

Maybe I should upload a movie to you then you look at the quality.
See the crispness, sharpness and detail of my 1cd rips.

Shakes his head and shrugs shoulders...

DJ Bobo

18th July 2002, 11:20

@ neverlift
I never said your rips are looking bad ;)

NeVeRLiFt

18th July 2002, 11:24

Sorry

I did test 4 different DVD's and changed only bicubic and bilinear resize and the bilinear looked best and was slightly larger in size.
But there was a difference in the sharpness and detail of the movies.
Every since then I have used Precise Bilinear and been happy.

Originally posted by DJ Bobo
@ neverlift
I never said your rips are looking bad ;)

BluDChyLD

18th July 2002, 11:24

well my encodes done and the result is very good :) I think i'll stick to neutral unless the res is unsatisfactory and i want to increase compressibility...

Thanks for the help

Acaila

18th July 2002, 13:40

DJ Bobo wrote:
So I don't get misunderstood, the terms "quality" and "sharpness" are 2 different
things for me. With "quality", I mean how clean a picture is. So for me, the main goal is to get as close as possible to an avg quantizer of 2Macroblocks and other artifacts can be cleaned up by (a little) post-processing, but sharpness that is lost, is lost forever. I always try to stay within an average quantizer of 2.5-3.0 with as high a resolution as possible. It will be almost block-free which you won't see when you sit 2 meters from the screen and it will be as sharp as possible, rather than completely block-free with a blur even without using post-processing.

canadian_fbi

18th July 2002, 15:40

couldn't simpleresize be a compromise here? it's bilinear by nature, but is supposed to retain sharpness that's somewhere between soft and neutral bicubic, and it's fast too.

DJ Bobo

18th July 2002, 16:12

@ canadian_fbi
First, your name is scary! :D
Second, simpleresize is a low quality filter, it makes too much jaggies if resizing is done in 2 directions. So it's not between them, it's worse than both :D (no offence to trbarry, your filter is very useful if resizing in only one direction ;))

NeVeRLiFt

18th July 2002, 23:40

@canadian_fbi

Good to see someone else from Tennessee here, and I like watching that cooking show Live with Emeril Lagasse!

I noticed you like Iron Chef :D

canadian_fbi

19th July 2002, 04:01

Originally posted by DJ Bobo
@ canadian_fbi
First, your name is scary! :D

nah, the canadian fbi is much nicer than the american version. i'd tell you what our operations are, but then i'd have to kill you. actually, i'd probably only rough you up a bit - that's how nice we are :)

Originally posted by NeVeRLiFt
@canadian_fbi

Good to see someone else from Tennessee here, and I like watching that cooking show Live with Emeril Lagasse!

I noticed you like Iron Chef :D

yeah, i just moved down here from minnesota. and i've got something like 60 iron chef episodes encoded now, probably about 40 of them since i started visiting this forum and learned how to do them in better quality :) (though iron chefs are terribly tough to encode, with all the movement and handheld cameras, so the quality's not what you might be used to with dvd backups.)

smok3

19th July 2002, 18:21

just did a lil test of filters that are avaliable in gknot 0.26b via avs
(i scaled down the dvd rip of course, scaling up isnt interesting for me), scaling down to 640x352:

-sharpbicubic = sharpest, almost not noticable sharper than simple and neutral.
-simple = looks good, the same as neutralbicubic (bit soft).
-neutralbicubic= cool (bit soft).
-bilinear = very soft (maybe usefull for 1 dvd rip)
and resizing in vdub:
-precize bilinear = looks the same as bilinear avs.

smok3

(edit: added vdub filter)

NeVeRLiFt

19th July 2002, 23:18

You should have compared precise bicubic in virtualdub...
In all the testing I have done precise bilinear is better looking.

Originally posted by smok3

and resizing in vdub:
-precize bilinear = looks the same as bilinear avs.

smok3

(edit: added vdub filter)

smok3

19th July 2002, 23:24

actualy i started that test cos of the:
http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/bilinear-vs-bicubic.htm
where u can clearly see that bicubic is sharper, altho they talk about some antialiasing (weird) :D (iam sure tho that bilinear might be better for 1cd rips, but still i would choose some blocking over lose of detail)

manono

20th July 2002, 06:31

Hi-

I find the Shrinking Images portion of that Nicky page you linked to somewhat misleading. I suspect (although he doesn't say) that he used Sharp Bicubic or stronger (which, in my opinion, no one in his right mind should use) to make his point. So, he shrinks it, and it doesn't look very good (to be expected). And then, after a good deal of information has already been lost, he blows it up again, and it looks even worse (also to be expected).

So, why shouldn't Sharp Bicubic be used? It makes the movie less compressible. It adds noise or grain or pixelation, and it is liable to add "halos" or "ringing" or Edge Enhancement to a movie which, in all likelihood, has already been Edge Enhanced. So, what is Edge Enhancement, and why is it bad? I'll point you to a page that explains all about it:

Edge Enhancement Explained (http://home.t-online.de/home/bjoern.roy/Guide_EE/Html/Page_01.htm)

Using Sharp Bicubic does exactly that sort of thing. And in my mind, even worse than the ringing is the associated pixelation. Those "Dancing Pixels" drive me up a wall. People all the time talk about the "Film Effect" as if it's a good thing. When you look through your eyes do you see the grain or pixelation of the "Film Effect"? When you watch a movie in the movie theater, do you see the "Film Effect"? Ordinarily no, at least not to the degree that it's seen on DVDs, not unless it has been added on purpose (SPR or Tigerland) to add atmosphere or the "Old Timey Newsreel" type effect to the movie, or the Producers-Director didn't have enough money to buy some decent film stock (Kevin Smith movies such as Clerks). It's when the movie is mastered for DVD that it is added. You ordinarily won't notice it when watching the movie (either the DVD or the DivX .avi made from it) on a regular TV set. But if you watch on a monitor, or on an HDTV it becomes all to obvious.

If you find the ordinary Neutral Bicubic a bit soft, I might suggest changing the 0.5 to 0.6. Say what you (or I) will about NeVeRLiFt, he has ignited some interesting discussions. Athough BluDChyLD started this particular thread, NeVeRLiFt has contributed his 2 cents (and you and brett cut out the bickering or these threads will get closed, just as that other one was-shake hands and come out fighting ).:)

smok3

21st July 2002, 13:22

I find the Shrinking Images portion of that Nicky page you linked to somewhat misleading sorry i didnt qoute that (link was posted my neverlift), and i agree its missleading, they say one things while their own pics show a completely different story.

So, why shouldn't Sharp Bicubic be used? It makes the movie less compressible. It adds noise or grain or pixelation
everything depends on avaliable bitrate of course & its also very subjective, downscaling removes a lot of details and makes picture blurry.

So, what is Edge Enhancement, and why is it bad? thats a completely different story and has probably something to do with limited freq spectrum of pal/ntsc tvsets (altho iam guessing on this, can some1 confirm?)

Using Sharp Bicubic does exactly that sort of thing. And in my mind, even worse than the ringing is the associated pixelation. Those "Dancing Pixels" drive me up a wall. People all the time talk about the "Film Effect" as if it's a good thing. When you look through your eyes do you see the grain or pixelation of the "Film Effect"? When you watch a movie in the movie theater, do you see the "Film Effect"?

film effect in cinema is completely different and has something to do with the way film is projected - blanks are filling ur imagination with missing info, grain in general has nothing to do with that. grainy pic on dvd imho is a nice contrast to the sharp digital audio plus it nicely hides the macroblocks, but thats just my subjective view :)

But if you watch on a monitor, or on an HDTV it becomes all to obvious. dvd is a consumer format and was probably never meant for hiquality displays, i personaly got used to the picture and can tolerate it, mainly becouse of the really nice audio track tho.

these threads will get closed, just as that other one was-shake hands and come out fighting i can assure u my only intention here is to learn something new :)

manono

21st July 2002, 16:32

Hi-

Thanks for the reply smok3.

film effect in cinema is completely different

Yes it is, but I believe that people mistake the pixelation for the film effect, which is on the film stock originally, unless I'm mistaking the grain in the film stock with the film effect having something to do, as you said, with the way the movie is projected. I can't wait for movies filmed with digital cameras and digitally projected, although where I live, it may be many years. Attack Of The Clones came close (lousy movie, though). But pixelation, grain or film effect, they all look to me like maggots crawling all over the screen. That "Film Effect" in the DivX 5.02 Post Processor seems to be some sort of random noise generator. I admit to using it myself on overly smoothed 1 CD rips that should have been done for 2 CDs. At light settings it compensates for the low bit rate somewhat, and , as you said, hides the macroblocks. But it is kind of a "lesser of 2 evils" sort of thing for me.

dvd is a consumer format and was probably never meant for hiquality displays

Maybe, but high end televisions will continue to increase in percentages sold and in 5 years or so most TVs sold will be HDTV capable sets, and a new DVD standard allowing higher bit rates will be in place (either that or they'll switch to MPEG 4) along with higher capacity DVD disks, and I think then that the consumer will not stand for the ruining of our movies. The Superbits movies are examples of (in some cases) how the DVDs can be prepared properly.

i can assure u my only intention here is to learn something new

I was talking about NeVeRLiFt and his friend brett-nothing to do with your fine posts.:) Nice talking to you smok3.

DJ Bobo

21st July 2002, 16:44

you want some HQ DVDs, get some genuine japanese DVDs. Japanese studios encode usually at full bitrate! (I'm getting one the next days, I'll tell you how it looks like and may be I'll post a screenshot for you to wonder! :D)

manono

21st July 2002, 17:12

Hi D J Bobo-

I've got a grand total of 2 DVDs from Japan. My Neighbor Totoro was very nice, but they Edge Enhanced the heck out of Porco Rosso (maybe it was Disney-Buena Vista though, don't know for sure). But I should have Spirited Away coming in tomorrow-I hope they did a good job with it. Are you importing anime, or some "real" movies also? I want Battle Royale!!

DJ Bobo

21st July 2002, 21:48

@ manono
He He, I understand you when you say "I've a grand total of...", the japanese DVDs are indeed expensive like hell!
Well, the only thing I can tell you for the moment is that it is an Anime DVD and it should be a "once in a lifetime buy". In fact, I'm not planning to buy any other japanese DVD after this! (too expensive) You can consider it as a collector piece, as I don't have any japanese DVD (a shame for an Anime Otaku :D).
Once it comes, I'll be proud to post the specs & a screenshot here and then you'll see which Anime it is...
Until then it remains a big big secret :D

BTW, I said what I said in my last post, 'cause I read many reviews of japanese anime DVDs on the inet, and all of them were praised to have awesome video & audio quality. I also noticed, that they often use double-layered DVDs even for only 3 or 4 episodes! Considering that an episode has about 25 minutes, this means, the bitrate is maxed out!

NeVeRLiFt

22nd July 2002, 00:17

Originally posted by manono

I was talking about NeVeRLiFt and his friend brett-nothing to do with your fine posts.:) Nice talking to you smok3.

Whatever, you got issues if you think that guy is my friend! :angry:

manono

22nd July 2002, 00:59

NeVeRLiFt-2 posts up from the one you quoted I actually paid you a backhanded compliment. I wonder what I was thinking? It was a moment of weakness-won't happen again. Just playin' with ya, man-take it easy.:)

DJ Bobo-Wait-let me guess. You're getting the only copies ever made of NGE (Trigun?) with proper IVTC. Yep-you guessed it-only two (soon to be three) Japanese R2 DVDs because they're so expensive. However-many of the anime titles are licensed to Hong Kong and Taiwan distributers and can be had with the same quality at much cheaper prices. Not the bootlegs, but legal releases. I will probably be ordering those from now on.

NeVeRLiFt

22nd July 2002, 01:07

I'm sorry.

DJ Bobo

22nd July 2002, 13:07

@ manono
He he, no, not Evangelion & not Trigun, it's a newer Anime, well, you'll know it soon enough :D

DJ Bobo

29th July 2002, 14:53

@ manono
I got the japanese DVD today! it's the Vol.1 DVD of Inuyasha :D

Well, the sound is absolutely perfect, Dolby Digital 2.0 @384kbps, which is already DTS level! it's like hearing AudioCD: pure noise free sound & very nice treble & stereo effects, absolutely fantastic!

Now to the video, here I'm a little bit disappointed :D
The bitrate is very high, 8150kbps average (!), however it is 29,97fps interlaced encoding and by closer looking, one can see some mosquito noise sometimes on high action scenes. I think FILM encoding would have improved things here, but still this is the best picture I have ever seen for an Anime!

I've done a screenshot using PowerDVD XP, here you go: (lossless JPEG compressed - 220KB)