1080p Bluray 'Quality'

Been sorting out my movie folder and while I'm a complete amateur at stuff involving video quality, some things just strike me as odd.

For example, pic related is a still from an 11GB encode of a Galaxy Quest Bluray. Video bitrate hovers at an average of 10 Mb/s at lowest dipping momentarily into 5 Mb/s. As far as I know rips close to 12-14 Mb/s are effectively indistinguishable visually from the untouched blurays themselves, so this should be close if not very similar to the highest quality of this movie available.

So why is the image quality still so poor? Nothing looks sharp. It looks even worse when I'm watching it full screen on a 2560x1080 (21:9) monitor where maximized the effective size of the image is stretched to 1440p. Will post more examples.

Other urls found in this thread:

diyphotography.net/cinematography-jeff-cronenweth/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

A 10 V 10 Thanks YIFY!

>get ptp or hdb account
>download best encodes or remuxes
>use mpv
>????
>kino!
problem solved

This is a Coherence 1080p bluray rip around 7GB. Video bitrate averages around 9 Mb/s. Again it looks terrible. Nothing is sharp.
I have 1080p webrips of TV shows that are much smaller in terms of file size and video bitrate and yet the image looks incredibly crisp and sharp even when maximized.

These encodes are at least 5 times the size of YIFY's, yet still look like shit.

I don't have ptp but while I do have access to remuxes I don't have the hard drive space to have the average movie take up 40GB. I only reserve downloading remuxes for select movies like LotR and Jurassic Park. But that's not the issue here because according to most people a video bitrate of 12+ Mb/s should be virtually visually indistinguishable from a remux. So the image quality presented should be close to the blurays (which I assume look only marginally better at best and still terrible).

In comparison here's a still from a 6-7GB rip of Game of Thrones (similar in file size and duration to Coherence). Image quality looks great and sharp.

Eventually there's a point where it's a matter of how the Blu-ray was mastered: what sources were used, if the image went under any shitty DNR or other awful processes. Some BDs are just by nature more detailed than others.

That's what I suspected.
I sort of expected older movies to be less sharp due to being shot long ago on dated technology for example here is a 16GB encode of Ghostbusters which I find acceptable because it was released in 1984, but I didn't expect it to happen with more recent movies.

>I sort of expected older movies to be less sharp due to being shot long ago on dated technology
pre cgi movies can be great quality because they were filmed on film still
early 2000s movies filmed on digital suck ass in quality

Another example of a blurry recent movie.
16GB encode of Interstellar, so roughly the same in size as .

Ghostbusters is incredibly popular, for a film like that they're going to find the best source they can. A low-budget film like Coherence, probably filmed digitally with only okay camera, is doomed to look a little muddy even on Blu.
Maybe I'm not sure what you mean by 'blurry'; what's wrong with Interstellar?

And here is an example of a movie that looks amazing (how I expect files of this size to look).
It's 15GB in file size so comparable to both . Movie's only about 15 minutes shorter than Interstellar so video bitrate shouldn't be too different and yet looks amazing.

It not about the age of the film (older films actually can look amazing since they are on film, early digital films will have issues) but it mostly due to market. A small movie they will do a quick HD scan and slap it on the blu-ray, while a popular film they will do a lot of work to make sure they get it right.

Ah sorry saw your post too late. Compare these two closeups .

They're both fairly representative of how 'sharp' the images are for the entire length of each movie. Here's another one for A Cure For Wellness. At no point in Interstellar does the sharpness of image in Interstellar come close.

And here's another of Interstellar to compare with

Have you thought about not downloading encodes and getting remuxes or full blurays (BDMV folders) instead?

Yea but see . I only have about 8TB of main storage (if it wasn't a raid it'd be twice that but I'm opting for redundancy), and if everything was a 40GB remux I'd run out of space fast. I do download the absolute best for my favorite movies, but they don't look that great either.

here's one of intersteller from a 15gb encode
mmmmm

those DSLs

You unironicly like cold digital images over film (Interstellar was filmed on film, cure for wellness was digital)

I'm not an expert on this but I'm pretty sure when a film is encoded to be smaller, the bitrate isn't the only thing that changes. There are other factors too, which I don't really know the details about.

...

The difference is in director's preference. In Cure For Wellness you can see a lot of detail, every single pore an Dane DeHaan's face. That's what Verbinski likes, all the Pirates of the Caribbean films look just as refined, their Blu-ray transfers are excellent.
Interstellar on the other hand looks 'soft', maybe even a little smeary with the colors less absolute. That's Christopher Nolan's choice, a lot of his films have that soft look to them.

And here's one from a 17GB of Fight Club.
I guess it goes into 'acceptable' territory considering it's one of the best looking image I could find. Still looks noticeably better than the Interstellar one.

This isn't about encoding, this is about light choices and recording medium.

Better is very subjective. A softer lens will give a warmer image. For example, A cure for wellness didn't impress me since it felt cold, and part of that was the super sharp image.

I guess that's the case. I read Interstellar was shot on two mediums which is why it's in two different aspect ratios. Thing is they said the choice was because of dynamic range, but I'm seeing (or think I'm seeing) way better dynamic range in A Cure For Wellness than Interstellar.

Yea what you're describing is what I mean. Lots of soft edges and little granularity.

user you are comparing the visuals of films by file sizes, that's a bit retarded.
Not everyone wants the most clean extremely sharp polished digital look possible like here Ofcourse a movie shot on film will be softer and grainier. A big play of the look is ofcourse in lighting also, a film like this has practically no budget and the lighting is horrendous so the image ends up looking entirely flat.

And as the other user already said, some bluray transfers simply end up looking terrible from the start.

Different aspect ratios just change the resolution and screen size, it has nothing to do with "dynamic range"
It was shot on 35mm film and IMAX camera, which makes the screen vertically bigger to almost a square in certain scenes.

Thanks, now I know.

>I read Interstellar was shot on two mediums
It was filmed on 35mm and 70mm (IMAX) film.
Cure for wellness does not have better dynamic range, It does have a sharper image which you have clearly stated that you much prefer. In fact, you prefer a specific type of sharpness with shallow depths of field and hypersharp images even when on film. Intersteller has a softer image but a much deeper depth of field.

Here for instance is a jpeg of the first Pirates (Verbinski). The detail is much finer than any of the Interstellar screenshots you've posted despite the disparity in file sizes. It's just director's choice. Some are interested in showing off lots of details and others prefer to rub away some of the more minute details and focus more on using the high bitrate for wider color range.

Yep

diyphotography.net/cinematography-jeff-cronenweth/

Since he likes fight club, here is a good article that explains how he got those shots that he likes.

it's all about the source at sizes like that, unless the encoder was a moron and added retarded filters to it
there are countless examples where a BD can hardly be called 1080p and are completely fucked up because of the source (and/or master). one that i watched recently was Terminator 2 (i think there's a very-newly mastered version, if so not that one), which was absolute shit. the grain is completely crushed and replaced with noise. thanks to the loss of grain, the resulting picture is flat and just looks like shit.
if you really want to see what a "shit encode" looks like, check out some anime releases. you'd see some of the best encoders and also the fucking worst as encoding becomes more than just "let's make this transparent!111"

the encodes on PTP are shit for other reasons. they have a whole system dedicated to "the best releases around", but to them "the best" is simply equivalent to "transparent". the vast majority of movies from years

thx AXXO! :)

i get the same quality from 700MB-2GB files. if you watch them on tv, don't let it stretch the picture to 16:9.

The Original Jurassic Park and The Lost World look like shit on Blu Ray too.