70% compression graphically ok?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by falcon241073, Feb 7, 2007.

  1. falcon241073

    falcon241073 Member

    I am using single layer disks to burn to, using CloneDVD2.:D On larger movies with extras I try to get them all on one disk and if it drops below 70% I put the extras on a second disk.

    The one question I have is: Should I go get a DL capable burner and use the DL disks?

    I have a Hitachi 42" plasma TV and an upconverting Onkyo DVD player. I do not really see a bad picture when viewing disks burned at 70% to 90% compression. My player is pushing out an upconverted 1080i signal and my TV is capable of 1080i and 720p. The picture is still very nice on the compressed disked. It does not look grainy or distorted. The sound is still noce on my Onkyo surround system.

    I just can not see much difference between the original disk and the burned one. Am I just in need of some new glasses or is my player making the difference?

    The way some people on the forums talk, it would seem that I should have a horrible picture here.

    Just looking for some helpful info. If I do go get a DL player, is it better to get one and replace my CD player in my machine and have both burners in the machine or should I just get an external DVD burner? What brands should I look at? And currently like and use -R media (current brand Imation, since it had a really good sale at the time of purchase), should I switch to +R DL or will -R DL be fine? My player playes both fine. (prefer -R because that is all I have ever used, no other reason).

    Sorry for the long post

    Falcon
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2007
  2. DetroitBaseball

    DetroitBaseball Well-Known Member

    I compress DL disks to fit on SL disks all the time. If you have enough money, consider it. If you don't have a lot of money, don't consider it. The difference isn't significant.
     
  3. babeflover

    babeflover Member

    right! if money isn't an issue, then go ahead and get DL, otherwise don't waste your money, nowdays compressors are very go, you hardly see a diffence between the original and the copy, i would stick to the following:
    1-rebuilder with a encoder. nothing better.
    2- nero recode2, as a transcoder, the very best.
    3-shrink, as good as recode2, only slower.
    there are many other good applications, but when it comes to picture quality, there is nothing better than those i suggested.
     
  4. MMM

    MMM Well-Known Member


    What type of TV do you have? Is it a 720p or 1080p? And what brand/model? Just wondering because I'm looking into getting one soon, and I'm worried that the 480p DVDs won't look very good even with the upconversion.

    I once played a regular DVD on a 42" 720p HD TV once and the picture looked really soft. I don't know if the player had upconverted to 1080i, but the same movie looked better, sharper, and brighter on my 32" Sony CRT.:( The future isn't looking to very good for our DVD backups that only produce 480p at the most.

    I think 70% for compression still produces a really good picture, but that's when I play it on my 32 inch CRT. when I get around 65 or lower, then you can start to see imperfections in the picture, especially during dark scenes of a movie.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2007
  5. TM2-Megatron

    TM2-Megatron Well-Known Member

    Although your TV may say it's capable of 1080i... what it probably really means is that it's capable of accepting a video signal at 1080i and scaling it down to fit its 1366x768 pixel display... a far cry from actual 1080.

    But if the compressed DVDs look allright to you, then it's probably better not to waste the money on DL discs at this point. When they become cheaper in the future, it will make more sense, but for now I'd just keep backing up to SL discs.
     
  6. redc22

    redc22 Member

    My experience is that anything under 75 to 80 compression will be noticible on a 1080 with a upconverting dvd player. You can compare this more if you zoom. I try to keep it above 80 and take out extras if needed.
     
  7. MMM

    MMM Well-Known Member

    I haven't seen one HD television that plays regular DVD movies well even if the there is no compression and the DVD player provides upconversion to 720p/1080i. All the movies look soft and would be better off being played in a non-HD CRT TVs! The movie looks clearer, sharper, and the color is brighter.

    :disagree: DVDs just don't have enough data to fill a HD television.

    P.S. I hope someone will disagree with me. :doh:
     
  8. TM2-Megatron

    TM2-Megatron Well-Known Member

    The best choice would probably be watching them on a HD CRT... at least these aren't stuck on a single native resolution, and can freely change between 480i/480p/720p/1080i; the fact any HD CRT supports ED sets them ahead of DVD viewing on a regular CRT. The fixed native resolution is one of current flat-panel technology's biggest failings, IMO... and one of the reasons I don't own one, personally. Also, the image quality on the majority of them just seem to be generally poorer than their CRT equivalents.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2007
  9. MMM

    MMM Well-Known Member

    REEALLY!! I was hoping someone would say that as I haven't had the opportunity to view a HD CRT TV set yet. I have viewed a plasma HD set, though. DVD and regular TV had a better picture quality than the the HD LCD flat panels, but was still not what I'd expect from a $1300 HD TV, meaning a regular TV had better picture quality.

    I always knew there was something off with those flat panel HD TVs, I just didn't know why. So, it's from only having a single native resolution. I would always be thinking in the back of my head, why would anyone buy these tvs when, IMO, the images look worse than on a regular TV, except of course from HD media. I always knew something was up; I just didn't know what.

    Thanks for making a bit more sense out of that for me. This gives hope for all my backup DVDs and hope for buying a HD TV that actually impresses me with its playback of both DVD and HD media.:agree:

    I'll check those HD CRTs out soon. *crossing fingers* The Sony SXRD TVs are calling my name!

    EDIT: I just realized after reading below that rear projection isn't the same as CRTs. Woops. Maybe not a SXRD, then.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2007
  10. TM2-Megatron

    TM2-Megatron Well-Known Member

    The only problem with CRT HDTVs is that there aren't a whole lot of models to choose from, and they usually need to be special ordered from a store which specializes in A/V electronics. Plus, there isn't a consumer-level capable of 1080p... only 1080i. I've seen a couple 1080p-capable CRT displays in professional use, and I have to say it really makes me regret the industry decided to push flat-panel technology onto consumers before it was more mature. However, that said, I'd rather watch a CRT at 1080i than most flat-panels at 1080p. In every way other than power consumption and the space they take up, CRTs are still superior to flat-panel screens in every way... they're also a heck of a lot cheaper. Rear projection doesn't even come into it, IMO; they're awful... end of story.

    That's one of their main drawbacks, yes; and in my opinion the worst aspect. Why anyone would build a TV capable of only a single resolution is quite beyond me, though plainly pretty much every company is willing to do it, lol. Also, the majority "HD"TVs have a native resolution of only 1366x768... though I have no idea why, as it would make much more sense to just make it 1280x720. At least then the television wouldn't need to scale a 720p signal to fit its weird pixels (scaling is yet another factor which degrades overall image quality; and most TVs seem to have poor scalers). Since the TV is capable of only one resolution, whenever it receives a signal that isn't that exact resolution it needs to either scale it up or down to fit, causing quite noticeable (at least to me) degredation and artifact. When a 1366x768 TV says it's 1080i-capable, all it really means is that it can accept a 1080i signal and shrink it down to fit the screen.

    Of course, there's also the (relative to CRT) poor contrast, brightness, colour reproduction and (most noticeably) the god-awful response times and the ghosting it incurs... this is why any serious gamer still uses a CRT for high-paced graphics, and why many professional image editors are still best on CRTs. An LCD monitor with a 12-bit panel would be better than average, I suppose, but its price would be many times that of a nice CRT, and it still wouldn't be as versatile.

    And finally, there's the fact that as impressive as "HD" might sound, it really isn't that high a resolution when you're talking about screens in the 40"+ range. I mean, I have an LCD monitor as my secondary computer display... a 24" samsung with a native resolution of 1920x1200 (primary is a 22" Viewsonic CRT at 2048x1536; a resolution I've never seen available on any LCD). In my experience with it, a 24" screen is perfectly fine with that number of pixels... but it hurts my eyes even thinking about a 40"-60" screen with 1366x768, or even 1920x1080... the pixels are just too damn big, IMO.

    Nonetheless, it doesn't stop most people from purchasing inferior flat-panel displays. And why not? The average "HD" consumers are generally bored suburbanites who want to brag to their friends about just how MASSIVE their TV is, and to prove just how much money they can afford to blow on something they use so infrequently while society is crumbling around their walled-in neighbourhood, lol. These people are not interested in (nor are they even capable of discerning, I'd say) good image quality. You can pick up a 1080i HD CRT for under $1000, but they'd rather pay 4-6K for something which has an inferior picture, and will be obsolete in 4 or 5 years yet last as long as 20. Smart move.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2007
  11. Clams

    Clams Well-Known Member

    If you have to back up a whole DVD (as opposed to the main movie) to a DVD5, the best thing to do is to set the compression of the main movie to "automatic" and then set the compression of everything else to manual and compress it the max allowed. If that won't get a DVD9 onto a DVD5 - do the same thing again to the output file.

    That way there, the real feature can "be all it can be" and the extra crap gets the brunt of the compression.

    -W
     
  12. MMM

    MMM Well-Known Member

    Very intersting stuff!:agree:
    I agree for the most part, but I think rear-projection TVs have a nicer picture quality and brightness to them their LCD counterparts. At this point, from what I've seen, I would actually rather have a rear-projection HD TV than a flat-panel one. I'll definately be keeping an eye out for a HD CRT.
    Aloha
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2007
  13. falcon241073

    falcon241073 Member


    Sorry have not been around a computer latlyto answer this one. To answer
    your question... I have a Hitachi 42" plasma (42hds69) It is the only 42" plasma to actually use 1080i resolution and also handles 720p just fine. Excellent pictures in both resolutions. My DVD's look great, even my backups. I use an Onkyo DV-SP404 upconverting DVD player. Good with almost all formats. The quality of the player and if your usuing a HDMI cable or not will play into how good the upconvert looks on the TV. Also, just because it cost 1200 and is a HDTV does not meen it is good. Get Hitachi, Toshiba, or Sony (in that order, my opinion on the order). The DVD players I would go with Onkyo, Denon, Toshiba.

    There is definatly better, but you would probably have to go to a high end A/V store to get it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2007
  14. falcon241073

    falcon241073 Member

    Actually the 42" plasma from Hitachi is a 1080i picture. The resolution is kind of wierd though. ""Its unusual 1,024x1,080 resolution is new for this year and exactly matches the vertical resolution of 1,920x1,080 (1080i) signals. "" to quote a review site.
    So it does scale some, but not much. And it all depends on the quality of the up convert from my Onkyo DVD player. (Which is supposed to be good)