.iso or .avi?

[EricB]

Whatever hardware you may use, the differences, even on a mediocre home-cinema setup, are absolutely huge. If you are watching on a computer monitor still visible. And that's about the end of the story, however you may want to put it. Just as the differences between MP3 and audio CD are very noticeable even on a humble 500 bucks separates hi-fi system. DivX and MP3 are not called "lossy" compression without a reason, and both are very lossy formats indeed. Personally, the only time that I would use either is for filling my laptop with stuff when I take long working trips abroad. At least for me I haven't spent this much money on my setup to "lose" anything out of my media just because I save on storage that is as low as 10 cents per Gb, and the convenience of having it stored in perfect quality on a media server is part of the whole point.

show me where I said that the quality was the same as the dvd

I know that more than anybody here. read my first post. i said that quality was great. I was explaining to oreo that you can acheaive great result for a small size using a hardware encoder

most of you guys doen't even know what a true hardware encoder is

http://www.digital-rapids.com/Products_DemoRoom.html
http://www.enseo.com/PDFs/QuartetGLi.pdf

 

[Oreo]

I make better use on my hdd space considering that each movie will be 5-10 gigs long. If i need the highest quality and all of my movies at the same time then I will buy a 300 disc dvd player and link it to my computer and run it with linux Mce which index movies. I now use my hdd space for movies that I don't have in dvd format

I use to rip all of my whole movie to my hard drive and store them, that I then realize that i was wasting hdd space and stopped the stupid practice. mind you I have over 6 tyrabytes of hdd space in my home

also you probably never use hardware to compress your movie. hardware kill software for compression especially if you are using a hardware encoder card which are super expensive. you will be hard pressed to tell differences with hardware compression

I've never heard of hardware compression. Sounds interesting. Any idea of where to get video material on the internet that has been compressed using this so called hardware compression ?

@everyone

I'd shut up about aXXo, or you'll get this thread locked

 

[S0ULphIRE]

I use AutoGK and DvdDecrypter for my rips, but I usually rip them to 890Mb instead of the usual 700. The only reason 700 was so popular was because you could then fit a movie onto a CD.
I don't know about everyone else, but I haven't used a cd for that EVER. I think 890 is close to 1/5 of a DVD's capacity. You'll notice a pretty big difference in quality, as compared to a normal 700mb rip, especially if you grey out the credits at the end of the film (or c ut them, but I usually like to keep them).

 

[snowsurfer]

show me where I said that the quality was the same as the dvd

I know that more than anybody here. read my first post. i said that quality was great. I was explaining to oreo that you can acheaive great result for a small size using a hardware encoder

most of you guys doen't even know what a true hardware encoder is

http://www.digital-rapids.com/Products_DemoRoom.html
http://www.enseo.com/PDFs/QuartetGLi.pdf

Thanks for the links, but I am very familiar with what you were talking about. One of the links is broken, by the way. I also understood your post perfectly, what I am disagreeing with is that you can achieve a "great" result on a 700 Mb DiVX, and I do happen to know what I am talking about. That a proper hardware encoder will yield better results? Of course, no one is denying that. Those better results will still be noticeably poorer than the original DVD.

OP, if you really want true quality, don't compress your DVDs! Especially if what you want is to archive them.

 

[zythyl]

Whatever hardware you may use, the differences, even on a mediocre home-cinema setup, are absolutely huge. If you are watching on a computer monitor still visible. And that's about the end of the story, however you may want to put it. Just as the differences between MP3 and audio CD are very noticeable even on a humble 500 bucks separates hi-fi system. DivX and MP3 are not called "lossy" compression without a reason, and both are very lossy formats indeed. Personally, the only time that I would use either is for filling my laptop with stuff when I take long working trips abroad. At least for me I haven't spent this much money on my setup to "lose" anything out of my media just because I save on storage that is as low as 10 cents per Gb, and the convenience of having it stored in perfect quality on a media server is part of the whole point.

It is all subjective.

The chances of him watching a movie on a 100+" HDTV are smaller than watching the compressed video on an iPod; which in this case would be less noticeable, if at all.

However I do agree that uncompressed FLAC / .iso formats are unmatched in quality.

EDIT: Yes I know FLAC atually IS compressed but you get the point.

 

[snowsurfer]

It is all subjective.

The chances of him watching a movie on a 100+" HDTV are smaller than watching the compressed video on an iPod; which in this case would be less noticeable, if at all.

However I do agree that uncompressed FLAC / .iso formats are unmatched in quality.

EDIT: Yes I know FLAC atually IS compressed but you get the point.

Well his post sounded like he wanted to rip the DVDs for storing or regular watching. The degradation is noticeable even on a laptop monitor, no need to talk about 100" TVs. Of course if it's for something like watching an episode of South Park on your iPod while commuting he can just about compress the heck out of it. Oh and FLAC is actually a true lossless format, although the size of the files is indeed smaller than that of other lossless formats. That's the true genius behind it!

 

[EricB]

Well his post sounded like

noticed you said sounded, which could mean anything. you are critiquing everybody words on this post to fit to your ideas not his. I'm telling him to compress it so he won't be wasting space. I use to do what he's thinking of doing and I was just wasting hard drive space.

it's great quality no matter what you think. if it ain't great to you keep it to yourself, because last time that I checked nobody asked you about it. I'm now starting to remember why I don't post here much these days

because everybody want to turn everything into a peeing match

 

[Oreo]

Sorry eric if my first post seemed like an attack, i was just wondering how you managed to get your 700mb to look good, because i can't.

Lets just put it this way and compromise between differing opinions, because this is most correct using logic alone.

If you don't have much HD space or lots of DVD's, use Eric's compression method.
If you have lots and lots of HD space, or very few DVD's, and want the absolute best quality may aswell rip them as full uncompressed films.

I hate how everyone, me included, perceives others posts as attacks when they simply are not. I think we all just need to calm down sometimes - me included. It is all to easy to fight when it comes to Audio/Visual because it is a 100percent subjective subject.

There is only one thing that is never subjective in audio, Interconnects make no difference most of you except eric won't have any idea why i just said that hehe.

 

[EricB]

Sorry eric if my first post seemed like an attack, i was just wondering how you managed to get your 700mb to look good, because i can't.

Lets just put it this way and compromise between differing opinions, because this is most correct using logic alone.

If you don't have much HD space or lots of DVD's, use Eric's compression method.
If you have lots and lots of HD space, or very few DVD's, and want the absolute best quality may aswell rip them as full uncompressed films.

I hate how everyone, me included, perceives others posts as attacks when they simply are not. I think we all just need to calm down sometimes - me included. It is all to easy to fight when it comes to Audio/Visual because it is a 100percent subjective subject.

There is only one thing that is never subjective in audio, Interconnects make no difference most of you except eric won't have any idea why i just said that hehe.

I wantn't ranting at you. but the whole thing should have been droppped when I explained myself. I said great with a small footprint. that could have meant anything. snowsurfer want to still claim that it's garbage

S0ULphIRE had the right idea. I never really thought about using autogk like that. I never really burnt them to cd so why should I burn it to that 700 mb level. i wish that the old link still worked. it showed the difference between hardware and software encoding with actual footage.

if snowsurfer really knew what he claims about hardware encoding he wouldn't said what he did. most computer people know about software encoding. they are just now coming out with apps that can gpu encode (video card). while their quality is an improvement over software it still can't touch a true hardware encoder

hollywood uses hardware encoding

I use to encode with a card like this. mine was an oprey 500 or something like that. I posted of it on here about 4-5 years ago when I first got it. I sold it on ebay when i got over the phase of having it and got bored with video encoding

Video Media Solutions - Osprey 530

 

[snowsurfer]

noticed you said sounded, which could mean anything. you are critiquing everybody words on this post to fit to your ideas not his. I'm telling him to compress it so he won't be wasting space. I use to do what he's thinking of doing and I was just wasting hard drive space.

it's great quality no matter what you think. if it ain't great to you keep it to yourself, because last time that I checked nobody asked you about it. I'm now starting to remember why I don't post here much these days

because everybody want to turn everything into a peeing match

First of all, the one turning this into a peeing match with obvious hostility is you in this post, I have been very civil all around, and I will stay that way, since my only intention is helping the OP. You even imply that this whole thing "should have been dropped" when you replied!

If you read the OP's post, he is talking about "immortalising" his collection. If your suggestion for "immortalising" is using a highly lossy codec that was brought upon us in the times of the humble modem and 10Gb hard drives, then I think I am not the one that should refrain from giving my opinion, since what you are proposing is antiquated and absurd.

EDIT: Would you please be so kind to share your wisdom with me and tell me what the heck do hardware encoders have to do with this whole post and the OP's questions? I have already agreed with you that hardware encoding obviously gives better quality results in a previous post.