I am not advocating piracy, but there are some movies out there that are encoded in Divx/Xvid and are in HD. Now with the new dashboard update for the Xbox 360 with Divx support the question has come is HD-DVD/Blu-ray in its 1080p/720p in its 15GB/25GB better than the 6GB movies found online. Also, when watching is it better to watch at 720p/1080i/1080p or whatever the movie's resolution or the TV's native resolution?
HD-DVD/Blu-ray vs. DIVX encoded movies
- Thread starter ChAoTiCpInOy
- Start date
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
first, of course a movie, let's say around 25gb, is going to be better quality than an even more compressed file around 6gb. Also, audio quality is going to suffer tremendously, if something such as 640kbps AC3 audio is included (the norm of compressed video files if they have surround sound). You won't find many, if any, files that include the high-definition audio codecs, which range from Dolby Digital Plus, DD-TrueHD, DTS HD, and DTS HD-MA (master audio).
as far as resolution, you really should play at whatever the default resolution of your tv is. if not, you are going to be forcing re-scaling somewhere along the line, or specifically re-scaling more than once. That is not a good idea. Also, playing at anything higher than the native res is essentially pointless, not to mention impossible.
But is it such a noticable different that the price you pay for an HD-DVD is considered more of a rip off?
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
depends on the individual.
me? I can instantly notice block-artifacts from compression in high-definition video files, especially in action-packed scenes.
that decision is a personal one. to me, the difference, including the key audio difference, is enough to justify BD purchases.
Divx/xvid are so yesterday. It's all about the h.264/x.264 now.
But seriously, even with x.264 I can still see slight compression artifacts on fast moving and dark scenes.
But seriously, even with x.264 I can still see slight compression artifacts on fast moving and dark scenes.
I actually found I liked 1080i to the Samsung HP-S5053. It has a native resolution of 1366 x 768. So maybe its because its slightly above 720p resolution and does a good job scaling the signal to take advantage of it.
Or it could just be me
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
I actually found I liked 1080i to the Samsung HP-S5053. It has a native resolution of 1366 x 768. So maybe its because its slightly above 720p resolution and does a good job scaling the signal to take advantage of it.
Or it could just be me
could be a host of factors if it truly is the hardware. the scaler on the tv might be better or better able to cope with interlacing or.. yea now i'm just talking out of my ass.
but seriously, who knows. could be just you. I know on my 768p display, I prefer 720p incoming signal and letting the tv take care of filling it out across its weird ass resolution. seriously, who the hell created 768p? WHY?
How is a response like this *not* advocating piracy? What do you mean the HD DVD is a rip off? Rip off compared to what? Pirated movies obtained for nothing. In other words, you are content downloading movies and will continue to do so as long as you don't perceive enough of an advantage to paying for it.
First of all, before you start accussing people of doing stuff like that, why don't you get all your facts straight? Second of all, I own an HD-DVD player, I got a job and bought my own 360 with the HD-DVD player. I own 10 HD-DVD movies, not the free ones, I got my HD-DVD player before it carried over to the 360. I am only asking because of the new Divx/Xvid support and how you can currently download HD quality movies.
Seems to me like you should know what HDDVD looks like then...and an xVid isn't hard to download...
So....compare them
Okay, then if the facts are straight now, you're saying you are tired of paying for HD DVD movies and hoping piracy is a good quality alternative? You're the one who straight up asked if paying for HD movies is a rip off compared to piracy.
In my opine, a standard MPEG-4 ASP (DivX/Xvid) re-encode of an MPEG-2 SD source at 1400MB with full resolution and original audio track is better than a likewise novice but non-compliant and really awful downsampled x264 re-encode from a high-bitrate pro HD source at 6GB. Why? Because it's a waste of space which comes nowhere near the original, unlike the former which actually saves space while mostly maintaining quality. Typical x264 re-encodes cannot really be considered HD, except in the strictest sense of minimal resolution. The important thing is the bitrate for the resolution and ultimately the quality. Such re-encodes are 6-10 Mbps at best, versus 20-40 Mbps for broadcast and disc formats.
If DivX encodes are in so-called HD using ASP then they are certainly inferior. If they are AVC (thanks to Mainconcept aquisition) then they have a chance of doing similarly for HD as DivX did for SD -that is, mostly maintaining quality at a smaller size although in such case most of the savings would come from eliminating the junk rather than a superior codec as the compression of original AVC and VC-1 obviously cannot be improved upon by re-encoding to AVC again. MPEG-2 HD will be increasingly rare and so too potential benefit from re-encoding to AVC.
Bottom line: don't waste time with typical x264 as the flaws are glaringly obvious and you would be kidding yourself thinking it is "HD".
If DivX encodes are in so-called HD using ASP then they are certainly inferior. If they are AVC (thanks to Mainconcept aquisition) then they have a chance of doing similarly for HD as DivX did for SD -that is, mostly maintaining quality at a smaller size although in such case most of the savings would come from eliminating the junk rather than a superior codec as the compression of original AVC and VC-1 obviously cannot be improved upon by re-encoding to AVC again. MPEG-2 HD will be increasingly rare and so too potential benefit from re-encoding to AVC.
Bottom line: don't waste time with typical x264 as the flaws are glaringly obvious and you would be kidding yourself thinking it is "HD".
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter