Blue Ray vs MKV Quality

[COYS]

The difference between full 1080p MKV files and Blueray is roughly ZERO. All MKV does is strip out all the shit from the Blueray disc such as extra scenes etc etc. I have seen Avatar and Casino royale on both formats and there is NO VISIBLE difference.

 

 

This is an insane statement and totally wrong! Zero quality difference?

 

Matroska (.mkv) is exactly the same quality as AVI. It is considered a better container format for movies because it can hold multiple subtitle and audio tracks but the video quality is exactly the same.

 

Saying that there is no loss in quality and that .mkv simply strips scenes is completely not true. When you re-encode a movie in .mkv you are compressing a large file into a much smaller one which inevitably will result in loss of quality. Whether that is visible to the naked eye depends on how much the movie is compressed, what you are watching it on and how hard you are looking.

 

A properly made blu-ray rip to .mkv will look much better than DVD, but not as good as Blu-Ray.

 

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with .mkv but to make a statement like that please know what you are talking about first.

 

COYS

 

Edit be Moderator: This was split from another thread so the OP may not quite make sense.

[PepeLePew]

This is an insane statement and totally wrong! Zero quality difference?

 

Matroska (.mkv) is exactly the same quality as AVI. It is considered a better container format for movies because it can hold multiple subtitle and audio tracks but the video quality is exactly the same.

 

Saying that there is no loss in quality and that .mkv simply strips scenes is completely not true. When you re-encode a movie in .mkv you are compressing a large file into a much smaller one which inevitably will result in loss of quality. Whether that is visible to the naked eye depends on how much the movie is compressed, what you are watching it on and how hard you are looking.

 

A properly made blu-ray rip to .mkv will look much better than DVD, but not as good as Blu-Ray.

 

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with .mkv but to make a statement like that please know what you are talking about first.

 

COYS

 

Basicly .MKV is simply a handy format to store very large movie files on a computer. When the conversion is done well you will not notice any difference. You even state that the loss of quality is not visible to the naked eye? Sounds good enough to me then as I'd be using my naked eye to watch it.

 

Of course if you are going to watch it on a 50" high quality screen and do a direct compare to the BR disc you might notice a small difference if you were a complete AVphile but as 99% of people are not I'd say the statement that a good Matroska file is as good as the BR file is valid. I'm a movie buff and have watched plenty of .MKV x764 files on my 50" 1080p Panasonic and the quality is BR quality and blows away DVDs. The fact that it might be -0.2% vs the BR is irrelevant.

[COYS]

Basicly .MKV is simply a handy format to store very large movie files on a computer. When the conversion is done well you will not notice any difference. You even state that the loss of quality is not visible to the naked eye? Sounds good enough to me then as I'd be using my naked eye to watch it.

 

Of course if you are going to watch it on a 50" high quality screen and do a direct compare to the BR disc you might notice a small difference if you were a complete AVphile but as 99% of people are not I'd say the statement that a good Matroska file is as good as the BR file is valid. I'm a movie buff and have watched plenty of .MKV x764 files on my 50" 1080p Panasonic and the quality is BR quality and blows away DVDs. The fact that it might be -0.2% vs the BR is irrelevant.

 

A fair statement apart from the last line...... "The fact that it might be -0.2% vs the BR is irrelevant."

 

If you crush a 15GB Blu Ray down to ....say 10GB then you lose 33% of the quality. Is 33% irrelivant? Regardless of what this may look like to the "naked" eye, this is indeed the case.

 

If you are telling me that these movies have been re-encoded to -0.2% of their original size then ok. I know that's not what you are saying though. What you are saying is that no matter how much of their original quality they once had then that doesn't matter as these look ok anyway, right?

 

I have watched Xvid's (avi) before that were encoded to nearly 10% (700mb) of their original size. The movies were extremely watchable but that is not my point.

 

The first thing that caught my eye (and many other people's...many of which may have purchased these) about the title of this advert is that they were "high quality Blu-Ray files." I have a Blu-Ray player and would like a nice Blu-Ray collection. However, Blu-Ray is what it is, and that is EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY. Sure, .mkv Blu-Ray rips are fine imitations of the real thing but let's not be in under no illusions, they are not Blu Ray and should not be sold as such.

 

COYS

Edited May 21, 2011 by COYS

[PepeLePew]

A fair statement apart from the last line...... "The fact that it might be -0.2% vs the BR is irrelevant."

 

If you crush a 15GB Blu Ray down to ....say 10GB then you lose 33% of the quality. Is 33% irrelivant? Regardless of what this may look like to the "naked" eye, this is indeed the case.

 

If you are telling me that these movies have been re-encoded to -0.2% of their original size then ok. I know that's not what you are saying though. What you are saying is that no matter how much of their original quality they once had then that doesn't matter as these look ok anyway, right?

 

I have watched Xvid's (avi) before that were encoded to nearly 10% (700mb) of their original size. The movies were extremely watchable but that is not my point.

 

The first thing that caught my eye (and many other people's...many of which may have purchased these) about the title of this advert is that they were "high quality Blu-Ray files." I have a Blu-Ray player and would like a nice Blu-Ray collection. However, Blu-Ray is what it is, and that is EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY. Sure, .mkv Blu-Ray rips are fine imitations of the real thing but let's not be in under no illusions, they are not Blu Ray and should not be sold as such.

 

COYS

 

Actually no, that wasn't quite what I meant. Looking 'ok' is not what I want when I watch a 1080p/720p MKV 'blu ray' download. I want it to look great and they do. My tv shows up any 'ropey' copy and although I can be a bit of a geeky avphile when in the mood I honestly can't tell the difference between a 'blu ray' MKV and a BR disc.

 

If they were actually BR files it would be awkward to play them from a HD. Like DVD files you would need to put them on a disc.

 

The fact remains though that high quality MKV files are within +/-0.2% of the visual quality of a BR disc which to most peoples naked eye is 'blu ray' quality. If you lost 33% of the original quality it would be unwatchable!

 

At the end of the day as long as what you see on the screen looks great and is indistinguishable from the BR disc then we are simply discussing semantics.

[COYS]

Actually no, that wasn't quite what I meant. Looking 'ok' is not what I want when I watch a 1080p/720p MKV 'blu ray' download. I want it to look great and they do. My tv shows up any 'ropey' copy and although I can be a bit of a geeky avphile when in the mood I honestly can't tell the difference between a 'blu ray' MKV and a BR disc.

 

If they were actually BR files it would be awkward to play them from a HD. Like DVD files you would need to put them on a disc.

 

The fact remains though that high quality MKV files are within +/-0.2% of the visual quality of a BR disc which to most peoples naked eye is 'blu ray' quality. If you lost 33% of the original quality it would be unwatchable!

 

At the end of the day as long as what you see on the screen looks great and is indistinguishable from the BR disc then we are simply discussing semantics.

 

 

I agree in part with what you are saying. If the person watching the movie is happy with what they are watching then all's well and good. Like I said, it would depend on how hard you are looking. I am sure that if you took a blu ray disc and a mkv file which had been re-encoded to lose 30-50% of it's file size, put a frame split screen side by side and compare them then you would see the difference.

 

I don't know where you have got the "0.2%" figure from. The truth is that there are many variables when you re-encode a movie that will determine the final output. Inevitably, the more you compress a movie, the lower the bitrate and the more quality you will lose. You cannot simply put a 0.2% figure on it because it's like 'how long is a piece of string,' as like I said there are many different variables when re-encoding that determine how much quality you will actually lose.

 

Each video will have different losses in quality depending on many variables. To put it in perspective, if anyone has ever downloaded a movie encoded to Xvid say from around 5gb down to 1.4GB it still looks good right? Extremely watchable too. Alongside the original DVD there is a quality difference though and this is exactly the same principle. The only difference being that we are working with much bigger file sizes when it comes to blu-ray. The actual video encoding is exactly the same as making an Xvid or H264 from a DVD, the difference being that the container (.mkv) is different and can hold multi audio and subtitle tracks amongst other things which makes it a more popular container than .avi.

 

In fact these files are almost certain to be either Xvid or H264 (probably H264) contained in the .mkv along with the original audio and subtitle tracks. Can't make it any simpler than that for people to understand.

 

People can make of that what they will. I am just trying to put in perspective what the good people on this forum are buying. If they are happy with that then great and best of luck too!

 

COYS

 

 

 

 

[James Purdom]

1080p MKV file looks the same as a Blu-ray disc. Even on large 1080P TV's. End of.

[COYS]

1080p MKV file looks the same as a Blu-ray disc. Even on large 1080P TV's. End of.

 

If that was indeed the case then surely that would render Blu-Ray useless. Don't be stupid. A compressed re-encoded movie NEVER looks as good as the original. End of.

 

 

 

[Guiness]

thanks to both of you for your honest input. however i really need to know (for my viewing pleasure) if the ordinary person who buys a standard dvd ( not blue ray) will notice a dis improvement ? will it make a difference to that person if he watches these films( that thaitechtrader is selling ) through a standard dvd player or a blue ray player ???

 

thanks again lads !!

[PepeLePew]

I agree in part with what you are saying. If the person watching the movie is happy with what they are watching then all's well and good. Like I said, it would depend on how hard you are looking. I am sure that if you took a blu ray disc and a mkv file which had been re-encoded to lose 30-50% of it's file size, put a frame split screen side by side and compare them then you would see the difference.

 

I don't know where you have got the "0.2%" figure from. The truth is that there are many variables when you re-encode a movie that will determine the final output. Inevitably, the more you compress a movie, the lower the bitrate and the more quality you will lose. You cannot simply put a 0.2% figure on it because it's like 'how long is a piece of string,' as like I said there are many different variables when re-encoding that determine how much quality you will actually lose.

 

Each video will have different losses in quality depending on many variables. To put it in perspective, if anyone has ever downloaded a movie encoded to Xvid say from around 5gb down to 1.4GB it still looks good right? Extremely watchable too. Alongside the original DVD there is a quality difference though and this is exactly the same principle. The only difference being that we are working with much bigger file sizes when it comes to blu-ray. The actual video encoding is exactly the same as making an Xvid or H264 from a DVD, the difference being that the container (.mkv) is different and can hold multi audio and subtitle tracks amongst other things which makes it a more popular container than .avi.

 

In fact these files are almost certain to be either Xvid or H264 (probably H264) contained in the .mkv along with the original audio and subtitle tracks. Can't make it any simpler than that for people to understand.

 

People can make of that what they will. I am just trying to put in perspective what the good people on this forum are buying. If they are happy with that then great and best of luck too!

 

COYS

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, but the thing is a 1080p mkv file is not only 30 - 50% of the BR orig. If it was I could see the difference. I D/L'd the hurt locker in 720p. Looked fantastic. I've since seen it on BR. Looked the same to me even though the BR is 1080p. I didn't watch them side by side as I'd deleted the DL but I'd bet i'd have had to scrutinize it in minor detail to see any difference.

 

I think you are being a bit pedantic about the use of the term Blu Ray. I also think you are hung up on the term 'compression'. Sure when converting a file you can compress it to a small % of orig size but you don't have to. Any MKV file of 8gb and upwards is going to be fairly lightly compressed if at all. BR discs can carry 25gb (50 if dual layer) but not many utilise that space, they simply don't need to hence the fact they are full of useless 'extras'. I'd be willing to bet you couldn't tell the difference between a Br disc and the same movie converted with no or minimal compression unless you had the highest end industry standard setup to watch it on and even then you'd have trouble.

[COYS]

Ok, but the thing is a 1080p mkv file is not only 30 - 50% of the BR orig. If it was I could see the difference. I D/L'd the hurt locker in 720p. Looked fantastic. I've since seen it on BR. Looked the same to me even though the BR is 1080p. I didn't watch them side by side as I'd deleted the DL but I'd bet i'd have had to scrutinize it in minor detail to see any difference.

 

I think you are being a bit pedantic about the use of the term Blu Ray. I also think you are hung up on the term 'compression'. Sure when converting a file you can compress it to a small % of orig size but you don't have to. Any MKV file of 8gb and upwards is going to be fairly lightly compressed if at all. BR discs can carry 25gb (50 if dual layer) but not many utilise that space, they simply don't need to hence the fact they are full of useless 'extras'. I'd be willing to bet you couldn't tell the difference between a Br disc and the same movie converted with no or minimal compression unless you had the highest end industry standard setup to watch it on and even then you'd have trouble.

 

Some good points there. I think you are right in that you would have a job telling the difference between a mkv with little or no compression and a blu ray.

 

However, blu-ray uses H264 as a standard codec so to re-encode a video from H264 to H264 with no or little loss of size would be pointless. That is why I use the term compression so freely. Because you are taking the H264 file and compressing it to a smaller size, probably to fit on a DVD9 I would guess. That could be a 25GB movie or more as you have said, compressed to 9gb. Is that not 40-50% of it's original size or less?

 

Most people will be happy with an .mkv of a blu-ray movie. My main point is that there is a difference in quality, even if most people would not notice it. I think that the quality will be much more noticeable in fast moving action scenes where a higher bitrate is needed. That is where you would spot the most artifacts I reckon.

 

COYS

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2011 by COYS

[merlin99]

thanks to both of you for your honest input. however i really need to know (for my viewing pleasure) if the ordinary person who buys a standard dvd ( not blue ray) will notice a dis improvement ? will it make a difference to that person if he watches these films( that thaitechtrader is selling ) through a standard dvd player or a blue ray player ???

 

thanks again lads !!

 

the movies offer by the OP are not ment to be viewed via a DVD player they are Computer format files and only playable on a computer or via a stand alone computer media player unit , to play them on a DVD player would involve converting them back to DVDs and then burning onto disks

[James Purdom]

If that was indeed the case then surely that would render Blu-Ray useless. Don't be stupid. A compressed re-encoded movie NEVER looks as good as the original. End of.

 

Blu-Rays are useless. They are just convenient for Film Makers to sell their product.End of.

[PepeLePew]

Some good points there. I think you are right in that you would have a job telling the difference between a mkv with little or no compression and a blu ray.

 

However, blu-ray uses H264 as a standard codec so to re-encode a video from H264 to H264 with no or little loss of size would be pointless. That is why I use the term compression so freely. Because you are taking the H264 file and compressing it to a smaller size, probably to fit on a DVD9 I would guess. That could be a 25GB movie or more as you have said, compressed to 9gb. Is that not 40-50% of it's original size or less?

 

 

 

 

The point of re encoding them in their original size would be to make them playable via a computer or mobile device. The fact is most Blu Ray movies are nowhere near 25gb in size anyway. I'm sure if the mkv was 20-50% of the orig blu ray it would be more than noticeable but they simply are not compressed to that amount if at all.

[Guiness]

the movies offer by the OP are not ment to be viewed via a DVD player they are Computer format files and only playable on a computer or via a stand alone computer media player unit , to play them on a DVD player would involve converting them back to DVDs and then burning onto disks

 

 

thanks merlin99, of course you are correct . on reflection what i meant was would a person who normally watches dvds see an improvement or dis-improvement with the films on offer on these 1tb and 2tb drives ?###

 

hope i got it right at this stage

 

regards to merlin99!!!

[COYS]

The point of re encoding them in their original size would be to make them playable via a computer or mobile device. The fact is most Blu Ray movies are nowhere near 25gb in size anyway. I'm sure if the mkv was 20-50% of the orig blu ray it would be more than noticeable but they simply are not compressed to that amount if at all.

 

I would guess that an average blu-ray movie will be about 15gb with all the 'extras' stripped from it. That is just a guess though.

This can be easily clarified by the person that encoded them in the first place. Maybe 'Thai Tech Trader' can specify the variables that he used when copying these movies? Did you simply use a software program such as "Handbrake" or "MakeMKV" that chooses the variables for you or did you choose them yourself?

 

I think we already know the answer to this, I'm just teasing.

 

 

COYS

 

PS. The original file of any movie is as good as it can be, whether it be blu-ray, dvd or whatever. You cannot improve the quality by re-encoding it. The very best you can hope for is to make a file that is the same or similar quality but when you are trying to reduce a filesize by at least a 3rd, as is the case when re-encoding a blu-ray disc, then you can expect a considerable loss in quality.

 

H264 is one of the blu-ray standards for blu-ray discs. Obviously , to compress that even further will result in a loss of quality, whether visible to the naked eye or not.

 

I'm not against .mkv at all, in fact I think it's a brilliant container and much better than .avi.

 

I don't care if anyone buy's these movies or not. I just want them to know exactly what they are buying, and that is reduced quality versions of blu-ray movies.

 

COYS

Edited May 23, 2011 by gogo dog
flame removed

[PepeLePew]

I would guess that an average blu-ray movie will be about 15gb with all the 'extras' stripped from it. That is just a guess though.

This can be easily clarified by the person that encoded them in the first place. Maybe 'Thai Tech Trader' can specify the variables that he used when copying these movies? Did you simply use a software program such as "Handbrake" or "MakeMKV" that chooses the variables for you or did you choose them yourself?

 

I think we already know the answer to this, I'm just teasing.

 

 

COYS

 

PS. The original file of any movie is as good as it can be, whether it be blu-ray, dvd or whatever. You cannot improve the quality by re-encoding it. The very best you can hope for is to make a file that is the same or similar quality but when you are trying to reduce a filesize by at least a 3rd, as is the case when re-encoding a blu-ray disc, then you can expect a considerable loss in quality.

 

H264 is one of the blu-ray standards for blu-ray discs. Obviously , to compress that even further will result in a loss of quality, whether visible to the naked eye or not.

 

I'm not against .mkv at all, in fact I think it's a brilliant container and much better than .avi.

 

I don't care if anyone buy's these movies or not. I just want them to know exactly what they are buying, and that is reduced quality versions of blu-ray movies.

 

COYS

 

I'm sorry but this post is completely out of order. You can 'guess' all you like about the OP but if that is all it is you would be better served keeping your guessing to yourself. Re encoding a Blu Ray does not de facto reduce it's size by any %. As I stated before I think most mkv files of around 8gb and up are probably 1:1 conversions. The file sizes are huge anyway so there is little point trying to make 12gb into 8gb or 15gb into 10gb even.

 

This conversation has pretty much run it's course and if you check the rules for this particular section of the forum should not even have taken place. From your last post it would seem you have an issue with the items themselves rather than the format or quality. ThaiTechTrader would be completely within his rights to ask for both yours and my posts regarding this to be removed and I urge him to do so.

[merlin99]

thanks merlin99, of course you are correct . on reflection what i meant was would a person who normally watches dvds see an improvement or dis-improvement with the films on offer on these 1tb and 2tb drives ?###

 

hope i got it right at this stage

 

regards to merlin99!!!

 

it will depend on the screen you watch them on , if you have a "normal" tv then chances are you wont see much improvement though you may see some , to get the full on experience you need a hidef tv , if you watch on a pc then you should see improvement

 

i doubt they will be any worse than a normal dvd and a 1TB drive with 150+ films on it is a lot easier on the eyes than 150+ dvds a 1TB drive is also much easier to protect via a safe than a huge disk collection

 

if i had the spare cash id certainly buy a few without hesitation

[Edge]

I'm sorry but this post is completely out of order. You can 'guess' all you like about the OP but if that is all it is you would be better served keeping your guessing to yourself. .............................

 

This conversation has pretty much run it's course and if you check the rules for this particular section of the forum should not even have taken place. ..............................

 

I agree that the direct 'flame' was unnecessary and out of order.

 

However, this OP has moved his crusade out of the For Sale & Rent Section into Technical Issues so the Rules for the former don't apply.

 

Just my opinion obviously.

 

 

 

[PepeLePew]

I agree that the direct 'flame' was unnecessary and out of order.

 

However, this OP has moved his crusade out of the For Sale & Rent Section into Technical Issues so the Rules for the former don't apply.

 

Just my opinion obviously.

 

 

 

 

It was all unecessary to be honest.

[JAI DEE MAK]

I'm sorry but this post is completely out of order. You can 'guess' all you like about the OP but if that is all it is you would be better served keeping your guessing to yourself. Re encoding a Blu Ray does not de facto reduce it's size by any %. As I stated before I think most mkv files of around 8gb and up are probably 1:1 conversions. The file sizes are huge anyway so there is little point trying to make 12gb into 8gb or 15gb into 10gb even.

 

This conversation has pretty much run it's course and if you check the rules for this particular section of the forum should not even have taken place. From your last post it would seem you have an issue with the items themselves rather than the format or quality. ThaiTechTrader would be completely within his rights to ask for both yours and my posts regarding this to be removed and I urge him to do so.

 

Personally I find this an interesting and informative thread.

 

Clearly there are a few (Experts) who disagree.

 

Please don’t close it I and others are able to cut through the BS.

 

For me it has answered a few questions.

 

JDM

[PepeLePew]

Personally I find this an interesting and informative thread.

 

Clearly there are a few (Experts) who disagree.

 

Please don’t close it I and others are able to cut through the BS.

 

For me it has answered a few questions.

 

JDM

 

Don't worry. It was in danger of being closed when it was in it's original form. It has now been cut from the original thread and given it's very own little space and is here forever. Well I say forever but after compression it may only be 1000 years or so.

[xerive]

End of the day when I am watching a "bluray" or MKV file I see no difference and when in Pattaya I usually have a "guest" either bouncing up and down on me or her head is bobbing up and down so I don't tend to worry about the exact quality anyway