Quality of BD9 vs BD5

fab_admin

I would like to compress some Blu-ray rips to save hard drive space. I compressed a 21 GB Blu-ray to BD5, and then tried to compare the original and the BD5 version on a 42-inch TV screen. I couldn't compare side-by-side of course, but the BD5 looked pretty good to me. The advantage of BD5 to me is that I can burn to a single layer DVD if necessary, plus half the drive space of BD9. I eventually want to get a projector and a big screen, and I was wondering if I will see the difference there.

My question is: is there any considerable quality difference between BD9 vs BD5, so that I should go ahead and compress my Blu-rays to BD9 in order to get a lot better quality when I get the projector and screen? Like I said, BD5 seems pretty good on a 42 inch screen.

sehson

the difference would depend on how much money you are putting into the projector.

I have one it only does actual 1280x 1024 or 720p I see little difference between blu-ray played on PS3 and Upscaled DVD rip/ DVD.

My screen is 84" diag.

Now if you were to spend the money on a 1080p or 1900x1200 projector you might see a difference, but for me the quality for price between what I have Viewsonic < $700 and the 1080p good ones in the $$$$$$ range.

But me I don't have to be able to see every pore on Keira Knightly's face when watching her burn all the rum. :P and not a single person has ever complained about it during movie nights.

fab_admin

[QUOTE=sehson;56972]the difference would depend on how much money you are putting into the projector.

I have one it only does actual 1280x 1024 or 720p I see little difference between blu-ray played on PS3 and Upscaled DVD rip/ DVD.

My screen is 84" diag.

Now if you were to spend the money on a 1080p or 1900x1200 projector you might see a difference, but for me the quality for price between what I have Viewsonic < $700 and the 1080p good ones in the $$$$$$ range.

But me I don't have to be able to see every pore on Keira Knightly's face when watching her burn all the rum. :P and not a single person has ever complained about it during movie nights.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the comments.

I would like to go ahead and spend the money on a 1080p projector, which may be psychological since I know Blu-ray is 1080p, and I want the "max". I also believe that "size does matter", so I'll probably get a 120" screen. Having said that, however, I'm not going to complain about slightly lower quality. I'm definitely going to compress from BD-50 or BD-25 to either BD-9 or BD-5 because I just don't want to use that much hard drive space. To make an analogy, I don't have any FLAC (lossless) in my music collection, but I do have MP3 V0 (variable bit rate, highest quality).

Is there anybody out there who has seen BD-5 vs BD-9 vs original Blu-ray on a 120" or larger screen from a 1080p projector?

IPopov50

DVDjunky,
I understand your dilemma, and I would suggest to take a slightly different approach. With all conveniences of BD9 and BD5 formats, they are still have BD format, required BD player and quite limiting in size/quality. The reality is that there are no exactly same content, and each video content requires "individual" attention and "personal" approach. By going away from BD9/BD5 fixed size you will gain flexibility in reaching quality/size optimum. I would say, in your case it's a must, because 120" screen comes not only with advantages, but challenges as well.
Lets start with a container. BD isn't the best one, but more pain in ..... well different parts of your body. Best container out there, by far is MKV, and I would suggest you to move that direction. You can convert all your content and pack it into MKV container, place it on HDD and play it with mediaplayer. This concept, by the way is most economical yet.
DVDFab have an outstanding profile in Blu-ray Ripper - "mkv.h264.audiocopy". Use this profile, adjust setting as desired and be happy.

Now, about quality. In general, if you playing your content on large screens, keep your bits/pix ratio in .20-.25 range, and you will be OK. Bits/pix ratio is a pretty good indicator of what you going to get quality-wise. You can make these adjustments in "edit" window. Use higher ratio for action and fast-moving content (concerts, sport events, etc.).

Tweaking ratio (resolution and bitrate), you will reach a "golden middle" between quality and file size.

Please let me know if you need further explanation.

husak

iÂ´m on plasma Panasonic 65" and i recode to BD9 1080p or BD25 , depends of movie i like too much or normal .

if movie BD50 looks graining or bad mastered ,nothing save it ; i do a large test of bitrate and you need to have above 8000 kbps or more to get decent results .

always I notice the difference with orignal,respect to causes that are a little more diffuse the image, but it is very,very subtle......... only if you customize your definition of your TV at maximum quality.

i see macroblocks if you recode at BD5 from 2 or more Hrs Movie source

BD5 is not the way ,try BD9 like i do, into ----->DVD+R DL 8,5 GB Prodye 8x Speed Double Layer Cakebox 100 disk at 39 euros only in "nierle"

fab_admin

[QUOTE=IPopov50;57088]DVDjunky,
I understand your dilemma, and I would suggest to take a slightly different approach. With all conveniences of BD9 and BD5 formats, they are still have BD format, required BD player and quite limiting in size/quality. The reality is that there are no exactly same content, and each video content requires "individual" attention and "personal" approach. By going away from BD9/BD5 fixed size you will gain flexibility in reaching quality/size optimum. I would say, in your case it's a must, because 120" screen comes not only with advantages, but challenges as well.
Lets start with a container. BD isn't the best one, but more pain in ..... well different parts of your body. Best container out there, by far is MKV, and I would suggest you to move that direction. You can convert all your content and pack it into MKV container, place it on HDD and play it with mediaplayer. This concept, by the way is most economical yet.
DVDFab have an outstanding profile in Blu-ray Ripper - "mkv.h264.audiocopy". Use this profile, adjust setting as desired and be happy.

Now, about quality. In general, if you playing your content on large screens, keep your bits/pix ratio in .20-.25 range, and you will be OK. Bits/pix ratio is a pretty good indicator of what you going to get quality-wise. You can make these adjustments in "edit" window. Use higher ratio for action and fast-moving content (concerts, sport events, etc.).

Tweaking ratio (resolution and bitrate), you will reach a "golden middle" between quality and file size.

Please let me know if you need further explanation.[/QUOTE]

Thank you so much for your insights.

One problem I have is that I have already purchased a lifetime subscription to Blu-ray copy (BD) in DVDFab. If I go the MKV route, I would have to buy another lifetime subscription to Blu-ray (MKV). Do you think it is worth it for the advantages of MKV over BD?

Another question is: how do I get to the "golden middle" you are talking about? Assume that I have decided to stick with the BD5/BD9 option. Is there a way to decide, depending on how long a movie is, on whether I should compress to BD5 or BD9 to reach the "golden middle"?

Hajo

You get BR-Discs already already for about 1,20 â¬.

Is that too expensive for you for the advantage that you don't need to re-encode in most cases at all?

I don't know how many hours your re-encoding needs, but also think about the energy your PC uses while you wait for your copy.

And as it has turned out, you never know if the re-encoding will be free of errors.

Nobody can afford BR-50 for a 1:1 backup - but please consider BR-25 for a 1:1 movie backup.

Blu-Ray is here. I know that a h.264 movie compressed to a DVD still looks better than the DVD - but reducing the size from about 20 GB to 5 GB will always have an affect - and in fast scenes you will see it.

fab_admin

[QUOTE=Hajo;57302]You get BR-Discs already already for about 1,20 â¬.

Is that too expensive for you for the advantage that you don't need to re-encode in most cases at all?

I don't know how many hours your re-encoding needs, but also think about the energy your PC uses while you wait for your copy.

And as it has turned out, you never know if the re-encoding will be free of errors.

Nobody can afford BR-50 for a 1:1 backup - but please consider BR-25 for a 1:1 movie backup.

Blu-Ray is here. I know that a h.264 movie compressed to a DVD still looks better than the DVD - but reducing the size from about 20 GB to 5 GB will always have an affect - and in fast scenes you will see it.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the suggestion.

Actually, my main concern is hard drive space, and another responder suggested BD-9 for higher quality. However, I never thought about the processing-time angle till you mentioned it, and that's a good point. It does take my PC 5 hours to compress the main movie from 21 GB to 5 GB (AMD Athlon 64 dual core 5600+, 4GB RAM). So now I need to choose between ripping the main movie to BD-25 vs. compressing to BD-9 vs. buying Blu-ray to mobile and using MKV. Choices, choices, choices...

husak

i rip BD50 to BD9 in 1 hour aprox on my MAC PRO 8 Cores at 3 Ghz

but i do this : only whith movies that ,they are not my favorites, favorites movies i do MOVIE ONLY BD25