how much quality difference between True Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray rips

I can definitely tell the difference between a true Blu Ray and a Blu Ray rip any day.

True Blu Ray is miles better (obviously) - the differences are especially noticeable on big screens (24+ inches). The compression artifacts really show up in rips.

Also, the audio will be better on the Blu Ray disc. On a rip, you get DTS/Dolby, but on discs, you get Dolby True HD/DTS Master Audio.

If you are a audio/video quality freak, then Blu Ray discs are the way to go.
 
Depends on your display. On my computer monitor I don't see any difference. On my HDTV, the difference is quite obvious. The source also matters. The same bluray ripped played by XTreamer looks poorer than the BD played directly by the PS3.
 
Yes there is obviously a difference but i cannot notice that (two contradicting statements :p ) or may be it is just psychological for me.

But even if there, i can no way download a 45GB dump, instead i better go for smaller size rips.

I may sound dumb and most people will outright reject my claim but for me even 1CD DVD rips are perfectly watchable on my 46" Sony bravia TV. May be because of my viewing distance. :) Hence i never take the pain of procuring bigger rips, very much content with 1CD versions :D
 
Mephistopheles said:
What is the video bitrate of True Blu-Ray video?
Click to expand...

Rip:

FRAMERATE.....: 23.976

RESOLUTION....: 1920x1080

BiTRATE.......: x264 - 11.3 Mbps

AUDIO........: DTS 5.1 - 1.5 Mbps

Full:

Framerate.....: 23.976 fps

Resolution....: 1920x1080

Video.....: VC-1 - 32.7 Mbps

Audio.....: TrueHD 5.1 - 18 Mbps
hA1d3R said:
whats the aspect ratio of the films in blue ray ?. i guess it isnt 16:9 anymore
Click to expand...
It is 1920x1080 which is 16:9
 
viewing distance matters ,you can get good quality 720p x264 rips in 700MB . if the blueray has been properly encoded i dont think there is any difference
 
How does the quality differ if the BRRip itself is 1920X1080 resolution? I took a demo of 720P BRrip Avatar on a HD ready plasma and it looked absolutely stunning.
 
^enconding with proper settings is a art

Udit said:
Rip:

FRAMERATE.....: 23.976

RESOLUTION....: 1920x1080

BiTRATE.......: x264 - 11.3 Mbps

AUDIO........: DTS 5.1 - 1.5 Mbps

Full:

Framerate.....: 23.976 fps

Resolution....: 1920x1080

Video.....: VC-1 - 32.7 Mbps

Audio.....: TrueHD 5.1 - 18 Mbps

It is 1920x1080 which is 16:9
Click to expand...
Not at all , it varies from film to film thats the reason why u see black bars on 16:9 monitors

Technical Statistics Page - Blu-rayStats.com

just checked my original batman 2 rip , its 2.35:1
 
i saw avatar, casino royale, spiderman3,(nearly 45+GB(real movie was 37GB)) on my LCD monitor and I got stunned by the clarity of the picture quality especially of avatar. Now i may considering to buy a 32"/40" LCD in near future. I generally donot watch movies and TV(maybe 3-4hrs in a week) but i saw avatar 3 times not because of movie but because of crispy pic quality and crystal clear sound. :p
 
if you get a good rip from a reliable group, i think the difference in sound is greater than the difference in picture quality. i think most rippers tend to emphasize more on picture quality than audio. however, many groups are releasing their 1080p rips with dts-ma these days..
 
OK divide it into two parts

1) Audio

2) video

For audio, you can get an avchd file, and get dts-hd.

For video, Again if you have the eye for artifacts, you are better of with very high size rips~25gb or so. Else for all practical purposes, there is very less difference between an avchd of 12-15gb and a blueray. Even on a 42 inch for me, its hard to tell the difference.

@5gb a day it takes 3days to download a avchd movie-costs around 75rs. for the net. A blue ray~1200.

So for that 5-10%difference which will be hard to spot even if you ahve an eye for it, you'l shell out 10-15times more.

Even ig you are getting an mkv, of 10gb, the audio is dts core at 1500Kbps...I frankly couldnt spot the difference on an onkyo3300 between dtscore and HD.

Of course if you like a movie, you do purchase it. But with all the crap surrounding bluerays-region coding, quality difference among regions etc..its a bit cumbersome to buy and still go through all the crap.
 
@5gb a day it takes 3days to download a avchd movie-costs around 75rs. for the net.
Click to expand...

You seem to have forgotten to account for the power charges!( which should be included at the minimum, for calculating running cost)

@1mbps connxn ; 15gb would take ~40-45hours- thats atleast 12kwh. (assuming PC consumes 300W) & at a approx rate of 5rs/Unit: thats an additional 60rs for the power charges.

So, totally rs135/movie.

Maybe blu ray rentals makes more sense!!
 
RS4 said:
I feel the 10gb files have very good quality when compared to 2gb or 4gb blu ray rips.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with that trend of thought. I have several good quality rips (about 4GB/hour file size) and I find the quality indistinguishable on full HD displays and projectors. I have encoded many really high bitrate MKVs from original Blu-ray discs because many of the early Blu-rays I bought from Amazon.com were Region A. My player is Region C I think.

Anyway, I have a Blu-ray ROM and I use RipBot264 to encode Blu-rays to MKV. I trade for better video quality as opposed to audio. That's because a Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA audio track is itself 4-5GB in size for a 2 hour movie! So I usually settle for low complexity 5.1 AAC audio, which is about 500MB in size and leave the remain 8-9GB (average for a 2 hour movie) for the video. Sure, the rip doesn't have as much dynamic range in video as the original footage, but that's indistinguishable on all but the best displays in the business. If you own a Pioneer Kuro Pro telly or a 5000$+ HD projector, you may notice a lack of dynamic range, but I doubt you'll see any difference on all your Sonys, Samsungs, LGs or even Panasonics.
 
Back
Top