Running non compressed BD media in XBMC
#16
clubwerks Wrote:I disagree. Please don't presume to tell me what I'll see. I've tested it out many times with many different movies. I simply can't see a difference. Maybe some people can, but I doubt it.

Plus, I still believe that video cards are the limiting factor in this equation.

I can, however, see the difference between the stock XBMC DVDPlayer and MPC HC using madVR. Quite a difference IMO.
you'll need to use the same video card, hdtv and media player to test the same bd movie at the original file size and a lot lower transcoded file size for the comparison to be valid!
>Alienware X51- do it all HTPC
>Simplify XBMC configurations
>HOW-TO Bitstreaming using XBMC
I refused to watch movie without bitstreaming HD audio!
Reply
#17
bluray Wrote:you'll need to use the same video card, hdtv and media player to test the same bd movie at the original file size and a lot lower transcoded file size for the comparison to be valid!

Well of course. As I've stated previously, I've done just that many times.

My second statement was that MPC HC looks better to my eyes (and my family's) than the standard XBMC DVDPlayer. So, saying that full resolution BDs are better than compressed when you're not even using the best possible player is somewhat of a fool's errand IMO.
Reply
#18
What is a LOT lower transcoded size? Now were splitting hairs. I said what my specs were. I posted exactly what I did and what file size I could expect. Avatar, for example, I ended up with a 15.7 GB file size with all the audio stripped out except the DTSHDMA track. I would not expect that a 8GB file with DTS audio would look as good, which is why I rip them down myself to my own specs.
Reply
#19
clubwerks Wrote:What is a LOT lower transcoded size? Now were splitting hairs. I said what my specs were. I posted exactly what I did and what file size I could expect. Avatar, for example, I ended up with a 15.7 GB file size with all the audio stripped out except the DTSHDMA track. I would not expect that a 8GB file with DTS audio would look as good, which is why I rip them down myself to my own specs.

I'd say 15.7GB is a lot lower transcoded size if the 1:1 avatar file is 45GB. Smile

It really is too bad it's not possible for the average guy to do a side by side comparison.

Again, I don't doubt you when you say you can't see a difference and in fact, maybe there truly is no difference to be seen. But unless there are drastic differences, I wonder how easily one would pick them up by viewing one after the other.

Then again, whether there are differences or not, all that matters is that you are happy with what you see.
Reply
#20
clubwerks Wrote:So, saying that full resolution BDs are better than compressed when you're not even using the best possible player is somewhat of a fool's errand IMO.
you're missing the point. it's very true that some media player is better than another. but for comparison original file and transcoded file, everything has to be same. The only thing different are the original file and transcoded file.
>Alienware X51- do it all HTPC
>Simplify XBMC configurations
>HOW-TO Bitstreaming using XBMC
I refused to watch movie without bitstreaming HD audio!
Reply
#21
clubwerks Wrote:What is a LOT lower transcoded size? Now were splitting hairs. I said what my specs were. I posted exactly what I did and what file size I could expect. Avatar, for example, I ended up with a 15.7 GB file size with all the audio stripped out except the DTSHDMA track. I would not expect that a 8GB file with DTS audio would look as good, which is why I rip them down myself to my own specs.
if you cannot see any different on your 73" dlp, i'm happy for you.

foghat- It really is too bad it's not possible for the average guy to do a side by side comparison.

i tested the original m2ts avatar file against the transcoded avatar (14gb .mkv). it took roughly 10hrs to trancode it with my intel e7200 htpc. i have the luxury to test it on my wife aunt 73" dlp. the media player and hdtv are the same and two different avatar files. at 6.5' seating distance, i like the original video quality than the transcoded video.
>Alienware X51- do it all HTPC
>Simplify XBMC configurations
>HOW-TO Bitstreaming using XBMC
I refused to watch movie without bitstreaming HD audio!
Reply
#22
Well as I said in the opening, hard drive space was not an issue. Thank you everyone who has replied. The wealth of information you all bring is staggering. I think for me at this time, I will stick with the uncompressed rips. Thank you everyone for your help. It is greatly appreciated. Big Grin
Reply
#23
bluray Wrote:you're missing the point. it's very true that some media player is better than another. but for comparison original file and transcoded file, everything has to be same. The only thing different are the original file and transcoded file.

As I stated many, many times, I did that. I also made ANOTHER statement telling you that if you're using the stock DVDPlayer that you're not getting the best quality anyway, so it doesn't really matter that much. You're talking about an almost imperceptible difference in quality.

We have gone back in forth in several different threads and I'm going to tell you this again. Your reading comprehension is simply terrible. Either that or you're intentional acting thick to avoid answering the real questions or confronting the original statements.

In any case, I'm done with this discussion with you, it looks like the gentleman that started this thread no longer has any questions. This is exactly the same experience I've had with you in the past. I could say the sun is a sphere and you would tell me that the box in your garage is square.
Reply
#24
clubwerks Wrote:We have gone back in forth in several different threads and I'm going to tell you this again. Your reading comprehension is simply terrible. Either that or you're intentional acting thick to avoid answering the real questions or confronting the original statements.
in this case, i don't think that it is my reading comprehension bud. you're all over the places in this comparison theory. you introduced too many variations to this comparison. if you want to compare the un-compressed file pq vs compressed file pq, you need to stick with the same hardware (htpc>avr>hdtv) and the same media player (since we're in xbmc forum, it's appropriate to use xbmc dharma 10.1 for this test). the only different in the comparison are the un-compressed and compressed files from the same bluray.

the readers of this thread can judge my reading skill for themselves!
>Alienware X51- do it all HTPC
>Simplify XBMC configurations
>HOW-TO Bitstreaming using XBMC
I refused to watch movie without bitstreaming HD audio!
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Running non compressed BD media in XBMC0