YouTube To Start Movie Rentals Tomorrow!

[N!ck]

I think ill stick with my blurays from a certain source. Compressed streams look kinda sucky on my 110" PJ screen (Especially if not 1080p)

If you get a properly encoded 1080p release I guarantee you will not tell the difference between it and the source .

[Tomm]

Yes I can tell the difference from a 1080p MKV ~14GB and a 40GB source, especially with the larger screen size. Although the difference is not massive and is mostly bought out with the post-processing I do on it to improve detail so typically I stick with the smaller MKV versions to save time and space. Unless it is a good movie ofc

Although I was more getting at the compression is likely to be high on the YouTube streams and therefore would actually be sucky since I doubt they would stream it decent bitrates.

If you get a properly encoded 1080p release I guarantee you will not tell the difference between it and the source .

[N!ck]

Yes I can tell the difference from a 1080p MKV ~14GB and a 40GB source, especially with the larger screen size. Although the difference is not massive and is mostly bought out with the post-processing I do on it to improve detail so typically I stick with the smaller MKV versions to save time and space. Unless it is a good movie ofc

Are you downloading scene releases? That's probably the reason why. Internal encodes are where it's at.

Compare these screen shots. There is an extremely slight difference but would be unnoticeable while moving/playing. This is an 8GB 1080p release of Zombieland

Source: http://www.imagebam.com/image/5d1fdc64198832/
Release: http://www.imagebam.com/image/3c41ef64199014/

Source: http://www.imagebam.com/image/4a27f964198870/
Release: http://www.imagebam.com/image/c5c20c64199050/

Source: http://www.imagebam.com/image/e734bd64198908/
Release http://www.imagebam.com/image/32cdef64199105/

[Black_Apalachi]

Might just be my laptop of whatever but the quality of YouTube videos for me isn't something I'd pay to watch especially when there are free films on my TV.

[Tomm]

Since its obviously hard for me to show you what its like on a much larger screen, here is some screenshots from a mkv and a bluray source before and after my post-processing to sharpen it.

Since I can't be bothered to fire up my projector just to get some 1080p screenshots they are just from my normal 1680x1050 monitor. The gfx card shaders are designed to sharpen the image but also have a side effect of bringing out the artifacts in the image. I don't have both a bluray and mkv copy of a film so they are from two different films but it gives you an idea.

MKV Release - Pixel Shaders OFF



MKV Release - Pixel Shaders ON



Bluray Original - Pixel Shaders OFF



Bluray Original - Pixel Shaders ON

Are you downloading scene releases? That's probably the reason why. Internal encodes are where it's at.

Compare these screen shots. There is an extremely slight difference but would be unnoticeable while moving/playing. This is an 8GB 1080p release of Zombieland

Source: http://www.imagebam.com/image/5d1fdc64198832/
Release: http://www.imagebam.com/image/3c41ef64199014/

Source: http://www.imagebam.com/image/4a27f964198870/
Release: http://www.imagebam.com/image/c5c20c64199050/

Source: http://www.imagebam.com/image/e734bd64198908/
Release http://www.imagebam.com/image/32cdef64199105/

[N!ck]

All four of them look horrific to me?

This is much more crisp to me? As far as I'm concerned you should always play things untouched. No post processing etc - so that it looks exactly as the director meant it to look.



Another example of source Blu-Ray vs internal encoding release group:

Source: http://upload-file.org/slike/200910530115317338.png
Encode: http://upload-file.org/slike/200910530132311189.png

I link these rather than embedding so you can open them in different tabs easier for flicking between.

[Tomm]

Looks a hell of alot sharper and detailed than:



Despite not even being at 1080p resolution.

Another example:

Off


On

All four of them look horrific to me?

This is much more crisp to me? As far as I'm concerned you should always play things untouched. No post processing etc - so that it looks exactly as the director meant it to look.



Another example of source Blu-Ray vs internal encoding release group:

Source: http://upload-file.org/slike/200910530115317338.png
Encode: http://upload-file.org/slike/200910530132311189.png

I link these rather than embedding so you can open them in different tabs easier for flicking between.

[Blinger1]

on todays average internet connection I don't see loading it being a problem. I can load a 1080p youtube video without waiting before watching it on a 10mbps connection.

I have to wait to watch most youtube videos. I guess that is what happens when the government won't do anything about internet over here -.-'

[N!ck]

Well I actually prefer the untouched one.



The other looks like when you turn the contrast too high on the TV.

Anyway, my argument is about a properly encoded x264 being indistinguishable from the source. If you took that Wiki encode of Harry Potter for instance and played it on your screen with your fancy post processing thing and compare it to the source Blu-Ray I doubt you'd see the difference. If you like it with the shader thing it's whatever looks best/is most enjoyable for your viewing . Anyways I must go too bed as I have an exam tomorrow .

[Black_Apalachi]

That's probably why I don't give a crap about all this HD and Blu-ray business, cos I really wouldn't argue about the differences between the pics above. I can notice the difference but they're both fine, I wouldn't be able to say which is "better".