Jump to content

Welcome to AnimePassion
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

rip (encodes) vs original


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
25 replies to this topic

#1
Chaossaturn

Chaossaturn

    ローレンス

  • Moderators
  • 951 posts
  • 2 thanks
  • Local time: 06:53 AM
Is it possible to have encodes as good as the original source such as encodes as good as dvd or as good as blue ray or is a encode never as good as the original source. As I was having a talk with someone who thinks encodes can never be as good and I was thinking this can't be possible, can it? you must be able to get encodes now-a-days that are pretty much near in possible to tell the differences from the original?
vOEHoGZ.jpg

#2
13ack.Stab

13ack.Stab

    Assassin

  • Administrators
  • 1,719 posts
  • 16 thanks
  • Local time: 01:53 AM
  • LocationMichigan, USA

Is it possible to have encodes as good as the original source such as encodes as good as dvd or as good as blue ray or is a encode never as good as the original source. As I was having a talk with someone who thinks encodes can never be as good and I was thinking this can't be possible, can it? you must be able to get encodes now-a-days that are pretty much near in possible to tell the differences from the original?


Yes, you can encode losslessly from any source, though file size may fluctuate depending on format/container. You can also encode such that there is no visual difference to the human eye at a drastic reduction in filesize. Finally, filters may give the appearance of increased quality over the original source.

Posted Image


#3
Cman21

Cman21

    /)*(\ ^_^

  • Administrators
  • 2,431 posts
  • 255 thanks
  • Local time: 02:53 AM
http://screenshotcom...on.php?id=18514

that is one of my favorite on how filters can improve video quality and that filter in particular also reduces file size ;)

but what he said is correct in the fact that lossy compression, which is 99% or all video encodes, has lost quality over the source. granted this quality over lossy compression curve is very much like an S curve:
Posted Image
with %Percent axis in this example is "perceived" quality and the Time axis being the output file size. at some point in this curve you will stop being able to see any quality differences and yet you can still encoder larger to get that lossless quality. with x264 you can set your quality output directly using CRF. most groups use crf between 15-20 and these will give you very little loss in perceived quality over the source. (crf 0 is lossless)

i hope that isnt too technical for anyone to understand.... >.<

#4
lightningblade

lightningblade

    King of Lightning

  • Trusted Encoders
  • 1,345 posts
  • 157 thanks
  • Local time: 02:53 AM
I am pretty sure what you just posted would confuse people who are not affiliated with encoding

lightningblade.jpg
Anime-Planet.com - anime | manga | reviews
2588255.png

 


#5
Cman21

Cman21

    /)*(\ ^_^

  • Administrators
  • 2,431 posts
  • 255 thanks
  • Local time: 02:53 AM
i thought so... but if they try to understand it they might learn something.

#6
Megagold5

Megagold5

    Cardcaptor

  • Members
  • 325 posts
  • 24 thanks
  • Local time: 07:53 AM
  • LocationUK
Correct me if I am wrong, but CFR uses quantisation, right? Assuming that 18 is about as good as it is gonna get (psychovisual wise), how would that translate to the CQ scale for XVID? I have been wondering that for a while. (I have a player that will only play XVID, so, to save time, I just use constant bitrate at the moment because I can't be bothered to arse around with CQ).


On the original topic: I suppose, particularly with older material, like Cman showed, you can make images look better than the originals with filters, although that does depend on you definition of "better". I still remember the raging arguments about the removal of grain for DBZ a while back and as to whether or not the removal made the image "better" or not. When it comes to newer material, though, I think (except possibly a bit of sharpening) there is not much to be done from the source, particularly in the case of Blu-Ray. At least, that is what I tell myself when I spend loads of money on Blu-Rays - "This is the best, It doesn't get better, no the encodes are NOT better....Blu-Ray is all powerful."

megagold5.jpg

megagold5.png

 

 

 


#7
13ack.Stab

13ack.Stab

    Assassin

  • Administrators
  • 1,719 posts
  • 16 thanks
  • Local time: 01:53 AM
  • LocationMichigan, USA

At least, that is what I tell myself when I spend loads of money on Blu-Rays - "This is the best, It doesn't get better, no the encodes are NOT better....Blu-Ray is all powerful."


Sure, but I also like to have a reasonably-sized digital copy. ;)

Posted Image


#8
Koby

Koby

    Beyond the Grave

  • Trusted Encoders
  • 1,195 posts
  • 71 thanks
  • Local time: 01:53 AM

When it comes to newer material, though, I think (except possibly a bit of sharpening) there is not much to be done from the source, particularly in the case of Blu-Ray. At least, that is what I tell myself when I spend loads of money on Blu-Rays - "This is the best, It doesn't get better, no the encodes are NOT better....Blu-Ray is all powerful."

From what I've seen, 95% of blu-rays, at least R1 anime, suffer from banding at least.


Z0SZ1y4.jpg
Social Networks: [Facebook] [Twitter] [MyAnimeList] [MALgraph] [Steam] [Trakt.tv]
You bastards You stole my sisters horn and stole my reason to live, but that wasnt enough?

Now you have come here, and steal my reason to die, too?!


#9
Megagold5

Megagold5

    Cardcaptor

  • Members
  • 325 posts
  • 24 thanks
  • Local time: 07:53 AM
  • LocationUK

From what I've seen, 95% of blu-rays, at least R1 anime, suffer from banding at least.


Ah, that may be true actually. For some reason, I havnt noticed banding in much of anything I have seen as of late.

megagold5.jpg

megagold5.png

 

 

 


#10
Zalis

Zalis

    Mushi

  • Members
  • 122 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Local time: 06:53 AM
As Cman21 and his graph point out, there is a point where you'll get encodes that are "effectively transparent" to the source. Maybe you'll see a difference if you're pausing and squinting over random irrelevant details in screenshots, but not when watching at normal speeds from normal viewing distances. Cranking up bitrates higher than that point creates a diminishing returns situation where files get more and more bloated for less and less discernible quality increase, though that doesn't stop some encoders *cough*Tenshi*cough* from gleefully crossing that line.

Ah, that may be true actually. For some reason, I havnt noticed banding in much of anything I have seen as of late.

10-bit h264 is supposed to drastically cut down on banding.

#11
Megagold5

Megagold5

    Cardcaptor

  • Members
  • 325 posts
  • 24 thanks
  • Local time: 07:53 AM
  • LocationUK

10-bit h264 is supposed to drastically cut down on banding.


Indeed, although the viewing panel needs to be 10-bit as well to really eliminate banding.

megagold5.jpg

megagold5.png

 

 

 


#12
Cman21

Cman21

    /)*(\ ^_^

  • Administrators
  • 2,431 posts
  • 255 thanks
  • Local time: 02:53 AM

10-bit h264 is supposed to drastically cut down on banding.


but Blu-Ray does not support 10bit video and never will. we will have to wait for the next generation of video disc in order to see 10bit video from studios. now 10bit encodes "might" help if you use the proper debanding filters at the 10bit level and not 8bit filter which will not help.

Indeed, although the viewing panel needs to be 10-bit as well to really eliminate banding.


not true, your standard monitor right now will be able to see the differences from 8bit to 10bit source. as your monitors are not true 10bit but they have hardware that tries to simulate higher bitdepths. this way you can run windows in 32bit color and actually see a difference over 16 bit ;) granted it is not true 10bit thus it will not look as true 10bit would but you cant see the difference.

#13
Megagold5

Megagold5

    Cardcaptor

  • Members
  • 325 posts
  • 24 thanks
  • Local time: 07:53 AM
  • LocationUK

not true, your standard monitor right now will be able to see the differences from 8bit to 10bit source. as your monitors are not true 10bit but they have hardware that tries to simulate higher bitdepths. this way you can run windows in 32bit color and actually see a difference over 16 bit ;) granted it is not true 10bit thus it will not look as true 10bit would but you cant see the difference.


Posted Image

megagold5.jpg

megagold5.png

 

 

 


#14
lightningblade

lightningblade

    King of Lightning

  • Trusted Encoders
  • 1,345 posts
  • 157 thanks
  • Local time: 02:53 AM
ah interesting ... It will be a long time before I get a 10bit monitor as all my money is going to living expense, gas, and PG Gundam models

lightningblade.jpg
Anime-Planet.com - anime | manga | reviews
2588255.png

 


#15
Chaossaturn

Chaossaturn

    ローレンス

  • Moderators
  • 951 posts
  • 2 thanks
  • Local time: 06:53 AM
Are 10bit monitors even out? if so are there super expensive? Does this mean that 10bit encodes are pointless as you monitor cant display the difference? set from the smaller file size for 10bit over 8bit?
vOEHoGZ.jpg

#16
Cman21

Cman21

    /)*(\ ^_^

  • Administrators
  • 2,431 posts
  • 255 thanks
  • Local time: 02:53 AM
as my previous post said it isnt pointless as you can see a difference over 8bit but it wouldnt be as good as a pure 10bit monitor would be. and yes 10bit monitors do exists but they are not common in the general market but more aimed for the commercial market and are not cheap, like 2-3k for a 24".

#17
Chaossaturn

Chaossaturn

    ローレンス

  • Moderators
  • 951 posts
  • 2 thanks
  • Local time: 06:53 AM

as my previous post said it isnt pointless as you can see a difference over 8bit but it wouldnt be as good as a pure 10bit monitor would be. and yes 10bit monitors do exists but they are not common in the general market but more aimed for the commercial market and are not cheap, like 2-3k for a 24".


Ok, another question does a better rig make better encodes or can you make just as good encode on any rig but there will take longer to make?
vOEHoGZ.jpg

#18
13ack.Stab

13ack.Stab

    Assassin

  • Administrators
  • 1,719 posts
  • 16 thanks
  • Local time: 01:53 AM
  • LocationMichigan, USA

Ok, another question does a better rig make better encodes or can you make just as good encode on any rig but there will take longer to make?


No, a better rig will only influence speed, not visual quality. The processor is where bottlenecks occur. ;)

Posted Image


#19
Chaossaturn

Chaossaturn

    ローレンス

  • Moderators
  • 951 posts
  • 2 thanks
  • Local time: 06:53 AM
Ok then, I have no more questions thanks for the knowledge people.
vOEHoGZ.jpg

#20
Cman21

Cman21

    /)*(\ ^_^

  • Administrators
  • 2,431 posts
  • 255 thanks
  • Local time: 02:53 AM
well your rig can effect quality in the amount of compression your file size will be. cuz the speed, fast, slow, placebo, and so on are all levels of compression to keep the same quality/bitrate. the slower it is the more compressed the final output will be. for example using all the same settings and only changing speed from faster to slower you could see ~20-50MB decrees in file size with the exact same quality.

simple answer, no, complicated answer kinda.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users