Compress BD50 to BD25 quality vs normal dvd upscaled

[lilewis]

I have an Onkyo BD DV507 Blu Ray player which (supposedly) up-scales SD DVDs to 1080p.

I assume there is *some* quality loss in DVDFab compression, so I'm wondering if any studies have been done comparing the quality of up-scaled SD movies to the quality of a typical 30GB movie compressed to 23gb on a BD25 using DVDFab.

In other words, If an upscaled SD reaches 1080p, then would it appear just as good on a high quality HDTV as the BD25 that was compressed?

[W&B]

This is a very subjective question and some would answer no and some yes, try this yourself and use your own personal judgement.

moving thread to general questions.

[Complication]

This is going to vary subjectively from person to person, as W&B said, and vary from title to title based on the disc author. The quality of the encode on the original disc varies greatly, even for BD. For example, I've heard there is a very poor encode on The Fifth Element .

You would also need to make sure that you can even tell on your setup. There are recommended seating distances versus screen size/resolution that you would need to be within (google for the THX specifications). For example, the mobile guru GregiBoy has a ~52in 1080p TV and sits about ~15ft away while I have a similar TV and sit ~10ft away. Him and I always disagree on how much bitrate is required to get a reasonable picture.

[lilewis]

Thanks for your replies.

I thought the picture quality of the original up-scaled SD movie was pretty good. I'm sitting about 10 ft away from a brand new Toshiba REGZA 46XV645U.

I started to run DVDfab on a BR25 to see if the 30 to 25 gb compression would make any significant difference, but the program projected 6 hrs just to read/compress, so I shut it down.

Considering the cost of a blank SD DVD vs a blank BR, along with the length of time to process if compression is required, I suspect the effort isn't worth the reward - except to the perfectionist.

So if a BR movie is 90-110 min in length , making a backup on BD25 is fine, but if it's longer than that, I think I'll just buy the SD version.

[dmeerpa]

I compressed "Inglourious Basterds" to a BD 25Gb.

The result is still far beter than any upscaled DVD on my system.

used Sony PS3 and a Pioneer BDP-51FD for playing the BD 25Gb rip.
For upscaled DVDs I used a Marantz DV7001, Sony PS3 and a Pioneer BDP-51FD.
I have a Pioneer 60inch full HD plasma and I'm seeded about 3,8meters from the screen.

[lilewis]

What was the original dvd size?

[dmeerpa]

What was the original dvd size?

No matter what DVD size. Even original DVD's aren't comparable with the quality I got from compressing a 29.3 GB (31,553,945,600 bytes) BD-iso to a Single Layer BD-R.

It's even logic, compressing a movie with a resolution of 1920x1080 keeps having a resolution of 1920x1080. So I lot of information is still stored on the media.

When upscaling a Single Definition DVD, the player have to add pixels to achieve a 1920x1080 resolution. That information is the result of complex calculation, but can never achieve the information that's present in a compressed 1920x1080 media file.

Ok you can compress to much what will result in a bad image quality. But that was not the case with my example. {post edited} There where some minor errors present in the movie.

[signals]

A good size compromise that produces small size but with video quality superior to SD DVD is the BD->BD-9 compression in DVDFab, where the files are written to a DL DVD and played on a BD player. A high-end CPU and GPU are a must if you don't want it to take hours and hours.

Thanks for your replies.

I thought the picture quality of the original up-scaled SD movie was pretty good. I'm sitting about 10 ft away from a brand new Toshiba REGZA 46XV645U.

I started to run DVDfab on a BR25 to see if the 30 to 25 gb compression would make any significant difference, but the program projected 6 hrs just to read/compress, so I shut it down.

Considering the cost of a blank SD DVD vs a blank BR, along with the length of time to process if compression is required, I suspect the effort isn't worth the reward - except to the perfectionist.

So if a BR movie is 90-110 min in length , making a backup on BD25 is fine, but if it's longer than that, I think I'll just buy the SD version.

[lilewis]

Signals,
I'm a bit confused~~
To make sure I understand you correctly - are you suggesting taking a (large file) original BR movie and set the backup compression to DV9 then back it up to a regular blank DVD-DL (non Blu Ray)? A regular DVD DL = 17gb. A Single layer BR = 25gb. Wouldn't their be less compression needed for a singe layer BR?

Or are you suggesting just backing up the original movie to a BR-DL?

My only concern about the blank BR-DL is the cost. I can't find anything even near reasonable in cost.

[Johan]

I agree with signals on this one. I backup the majority of my Bluray to BDDVD9 8.5 G and the quality is still better than an upscaled DVD. The difference in compression time is negligible and the burn is faster.

[lilewis]

Johan,
I just fired up DVfab to see exactly what you're saying and it looks like
you're backing up a BR movie to BR9 720p onto a non blu-ray dual layer 8 gb dvd.

Why wouldn't you back up to BD25 on a BR single layer blank for only $2 each?
Are you saying the difference between the compressions is insignificant enough that it doesn't warrant spending even $2 for a BR25 blank?

[dmeerpa]

I pay only 1,49€ for one empty 25GB Blu-Ray disc. As I have a really good 7.1 Surround system that is able to decode the latest surround formats. HD audio is a must.

[Johan]

For me my BR blanks are close to $4 and DVDDL are about $.60. These are only backups and I feel the quality is quite good. For very large files(30+gigs) I do use BD25s but most movies are around 20 gigs. It may be my eyes just can't see much of a difference but I'm also cheap. Shelling out $20 plus for a movie I don't see the need to spend that extra $4.
@lilewis
I use the BDDVD9 1080p option.