Return to Level1Techs.com

Does anyone here still buy DVDs/Blu-rays?


#41

Most movies are only 25is gb not that bad


#42

Still a lot, Especially if you want to take your movie with you (phone, tablet, laptop).
As I mentioned, I haven’t noticed any loss in video quality yet, so I opt for encoding and more movies per TB.


#43

1080p or 4k 4:4:4 lossless is 120 mbit/sec, (or 480 on 4k) so i guarantee a lossless encode isn’t gonna be 3gb for even short feature length

you’re right that you can get the size down without loss of quality though


#44

I buy blurays and dvds and I am just waiting for money to build a nas to dump them all to


#45

Since our family has hundreds of physical copies of movies that we’ve collected over time, yes. I only buy movies that I either adore or consider to be classics.


#46

hes just watching them fam not fine tooth comb every frame zooming in at 800%

so if we have like 95% of the quality or something can be 3gb and look better than any legal source online prolly

edit:
although he can always pop the disc back in if he wants it ‘perfect’ later


#47

I don’t understand the point of buying a blu-ray and then compressing it. :thinking:
Save some money and buy the DVD instead.


#48

Pretty much all video is 4:2:0 anyway so there really is no lossless compression for consumer video. 3gb is a little small, I guess you’d be compressing the audio too given that a lossless audio track is around 2gb. But if it looks good to you then that’s all that matters. I guess how much video quality matters depends a lot on the (relative) size of the screen you want to view it on.

As long as you’re not getting artefacts high compression can look surprisingly good. I’ve seen 4k hdr rips with atmos that are only 10gb and they look fine so 3gb for a bluray rip could look fine too.


#49

even if you hedge expectations from lossless to proxy you’re still looking at around 36Mb/s for 4:2:0

that’s around 20 gigs for a feature length film, you can maybe cheat that down to 13-15gb with HEVC but past that it’s not in the range of source quality any more.

All the new weird fake hdr mastering stuff also complicates things somewhat, but that’s another discussion.

that’s not to say a rip smaller than that can’t look ‘fine’ though. there’s definitely inflection points.


#50

Yeah, I just mean it’s surprising how much you can compress stuff before it starts to look really bad.


#51

people get hung up on artefacts more than they do color quality in my experience, which isn’t my personal case. I’d take an SD rip of x files from the master before a streaming quality 720/1080i rip from the digital release any day (to cite a real world example)

and custom screen referenced HDR is nonsense.


#52

I used to, but then again online resources is available so I don’t invest on DVD copies anymore.


#53

There are some garbage quality digital streams of older (90s) TV. I was watching a stream of 3rd rock from the sun and they did the worst deinterlacing job and hard coded it.


#54

oh yeah man some of those are the worst

weird thing is though, a lot of tv broadcast masters just don’t exist any more (or were never made in the first place) so whatever random ultra-ultra-ultra long play vhs joe had in his attic is the new master now


#55

Yeah it’s shocking how little attention was payed to preserving this stuff for the future. I know there are a few digital archiving groups out there but whatever quality rip they have is probably the best it will ever be on some stuff.

I mean even for purely profit motivated reasons it makes sense to hang on to the original master because re-releasing your back catalog on a new format is an easy way to make some cash.


#56

for daily news and live shows it made less sense because you’d have to run a film camera in parallel back in the tube camera and analog broadcast days


#57

Yeah that’s true. Even a lot of modern movies are filmed or edited in ways that mean 1080p is the best they’ll ever be. Which doesn’t seem to stop them releasing awful up-scaled and over sharpened/noise reduced 4k blu-rays of them.


#58

I mean I’m fine with that, we started hitting diminishing returns on resolution at around 720p

If only a company would just drive higher bit depth on a standards compliant SWOP gamut and make real HDR a thing


#59

Totally agree


#60

Ackchually

I’m going to have to disagree with you, there

Film is still king of image quality.
Remember that film scanning hardware is digital, so whenever sensor tech improves, the latitude of film theoretically extends.
As far as resolution, 35mm film is roughly 4000 x 4000px equivalent, so any old films on 35 can always be scanned at 4k for re-release, though of course that does not change the original film stock used. Old film be old.

As far as modern digital cinema, a big push a few years back was Netflix requiring every new submission be 4K minimum res. 4k has been ubiquitous in the production side for at least 6-8 years now for reasons beyond wow factor (vfx plates, etc).

The thing is… the reigning champion in digital film/tv cameras is still (barely) the Arri Alexa. A 2k camera. There are newer iterations, but there are still a lot of Alexa’s out there that will keep getting used.

So, yes, and no. Consumer-facing, it’s subjective.