+Warwagon MVC Posted January 13, 2009 MVC Share Posted January 13, 2009 After recently watching a hi-def movie in mkv format it made wonder. Why isn't this type of compression being used instead of what blu-ray is currently using? Or why did blu-ray choose the compression technology that they did when MKV has been around for a while. The picture and audio were excellent coming in at only 4.36gb.. To all the audiophiles out there yelling at your computer screen on how I just compared the audio included in a high-def version of a movie at 4.36 gigs with blu-ray. Well it sounded damn good. So let's assume you remove the audio. You would then have video taking up the entire 4.36 gigs looking even better than the one with audio. If you include the audio as a separate track it would still easily fit on a dual layer DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunker Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) lol, you forgot about those video freaks. :wacko: there is BIG DIFFERENCE in the video bitrate on a 4.36 gigs mkv compared to a blu-ray. 1080p DVD5 mkv = ~6,000kbps Blu-ray = ~25,000kbps (40,000kbps max) Edited January 13, 2009 by bunker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted January 13, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 13, 2009 Blu-Ray does ues the same compression, it's H.264 :p The difference is that you were watching a recompressed version of a compressed version (most likely) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koto Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. Matroska (MKV) is just a container format (like AVI). So what compression are you talking about? H.264? DivX? XviD? MP3? Vorbis? AAC? AC3? Matroska can contain any of them. If you're talking about H.264, Blu-ray already supports AVC. People already make their own mini-Blu-ray discs by compressing Blu-ray movies down to the size of dual-layer DVDs using the same kind of compression (H.264 AVC) that was probably in the "MKV file" you watched. These are just lower-quality bare bones Blu-ray movies burned to a DVD9 with no menu or anything else. Also, you never specified whether it was a 720p rip or a 1080p rip. There is absolutely no way you can fit... an entire 90+ minute movie with a resolution of 1920x1080 (1080p) multiple audio tracks (including uncompressed) for various speaker setups and commentaries java menus and scene selection bonus features and much more ...in a dual-layer DVD. Also, remember that DVD resolution is 720x480, while HD (1080p) needs to be 1920x1080. Do the math. Blu-ray's AVC compression is better than DVD's MPEG2 and all, but it can't account for the 2.6x extra space needed by the 1080p resolution. Please, please do some research next time before posting. Remember, Wikipedia is your friend. Edited January 13, 2009 by Koto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted January 13, 2009 Author MVC Share Posted January 13, 2009 Huh? That makes absolutely no sense. Matroska (MKV) is just a container format (like AVI). So what compression are you talking about? H.264? DivX? XviD? MP3? Vorbis? AAC? AC3? Matroska can contain any of them. If you're talking about H.264, Blu-ray already supports AVC.People already make their own mini-Blu-ray discs by compressing Blu-ray movies down to the size of dual-layer DVDs using the same kind of compression (H.264 AVC) that was probably in the "MKV file" you watched. These are just lower-quality bare bones Blu-ray movies burned to a DVD9 with no menu or anything else. Also, you never specified whether it was a 720p rip or a 1080p rip. There is absolutely no way you can fit... an entire 90+ minute movie with a resolution of 1920x1080 (1080p) multiple audio tracks (including uncompressed) for various speaker setups and commentaries java menus and scene selection bonus features and much more ...in a dual-layer DVD. Also, remember that DVD resolution is 720x480, while HD (1080p) needs to be 1920x1080. Do the math. Blu-ray's AVC compression is better than DVD's MPEG2 and all, but it can't account for the 2.6x extra space needed by the 1080p resolution. Please, please do some research next time before posting. Remember, Wikipedia is your friend. Thanx for the reply. My topic must have really cought your eye or struck a nerve. member since before me and only 447 posts (last one not since October)one of which you used on me Awwww. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koto Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Thanx for the reply. My topic must have really cought your eye or struck a nerve. member since before me and only 447 posts (last one not since October)one of which you used on me Awwww. Maybe I only have 447 posts because I don't view this forum as a post-count contest of who has the biggest e-penis and write posts that are about as relevant and useful as spam in order to "win". If only your post count was a good measure of how well you knew what you were talking about, y'know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teh_apple Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 ^ I think this guys onto something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindkvist Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 He is :) besides that, MKV as a container is superior...i agree with that. Now i'd just like to see some support on the DVD players (and on my XBox 360 ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 After recently watching a hi-def movie in mkv format it made wonder. Why isn't this type of compression being used instead of what blu-ray is currently using? Or why did blu-ray choose the compression technology that they did when MKV has been around for a while. The picture and audio were excellent coming in at only 4.36gb..To all the audiophiles out there yelling at your computer screen on how I just compared the audio included in a high-def version of a movie at 4.36 gigs with blu-ray. Well it sounded damn good. So let's assume you remove the audio. You would then have video taking up the entire 4.36 gigs looking even better than the one with audio. If you include the audio as a separate track it would still easily fit on a dual layer DVD. Wow theres a lot of bitchy people about today. As has already been stated these MKV rips use the same h264 codec that blu-ray uses but its 720p video instead of 1080p where it can afford to have a much lower bitrate since the resolution is a lot smaller. Another thing ive tried lots of commercial h264 encoding software including one that the studios use to make blu-ray masters and they arent as advanced in features as the encoders these MKV rips use so what it lacks in quality increasing settings they just throw higher and higher bitrates at the video to minimize macroblocking. These MKV rips are encoded using open source x264 encoder which has hundreds of people working on it giving it new features and optimising it and by using pre-processing you can minimise the visual quality loss when encoding to 4.3Gb 720p encodes. Just a shame digital downloads and video distribution doesnt take a hint and start knocking out DECENT quality encodes id certainly buy them instead of ripping my own Blu-Ray where it takes anywhere from 1-7 days depending on the quality settings i choose. (sorry for the rambling) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹ Posted January 13, 2009 Subscriber¹ Share Posted January 13, 2009 Maybe I only have 447 posts because I don't view this forum as a post-count contest of who has the biggest e-penis and write posts that are about as relevant and useful as spam in order to "win".If only your post count was a good measure of how well you knew what you were talking about, y'know? warwagon is an MVC so he must know what he's talking about in one subject area here on Neowin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iZoom Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Granted, I may not be an audiophile or a video buff, but I still think the .mkv files that I watch are crisp/clear. I've popped in V for Vendetta on Blu-Ray and then watched Planet Earth streaming via my PC in .mkv format and both are stunning. I'm sure that I'm missing out on subtle things in the .mkv compressed video, but it still stuns me nonetheless. Side note: While I don't share the gentleman's strong anti-post count feelings, I too have a low post count considering my time as a member, but I tend to lurk a LOT rather than post. I only provide input if a subject catches my eye. I can't imagine posting 20,000+ posts...that poor keyboard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted January 13, 2009 Author MVC Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) Maybe I only have 447 posts because I don't view this forum as a post-count contest of who has the biggest e-penis and write posts that are about as relevant and useful as spam in order to "win".If only your post count was a good measure of how well you knew what you were talking about, y'know? take a chill pill. Wasn't trying to offend you or anything. All I was doing as asking a question. Edited January 13, 2009 by warwagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted January 13, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 13, 2009 It's merely a filetype (.MKV), dubbed "Matroska Multimedia Container", that can hold an unlimited number of video, audio, and/or picture tracks. Blu-ray discs don't need containers because they use a variety of codecs which include MPEG2 and H.264/MPEG4 AVC. That, and the fact that it has the space to use for lossless audio codecs like Dolby TrueHD. Pseudo-HD videos, which tend to use .MKV containers, offer lower quality sound and video than Blu-ray movies. Sometimes, it's hard to notice the minute details but it's a fact. The quality is reduced to cut down on file size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Bluray discs DO need containers they use the .M2TS container format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted January 13, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 13, 2009 Bluray discs DO need containers they use the .M2TS container format. That's a Sony HD video file format which is used in some Blu-ray movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+BeLGaRaTh Subscriber¹ Posted January 13, 2009 Subscriber¹ Share Posted January 13, 2009 I've often wondered this too, I mean yes as mentioned you can't get multiple audio tracks, Bonus Features, java menus etc, but I mean there are hardly any profile 2.0 players out there worth investing in, in order to use these features, hell most are still 1.0 or barely 1.1 compatible, so a lot of those extra features are nullified, especially as most people just want to watch the movie and not bother with extras. It was the same with DVD, I would hazard (guesstimate) 90%+ people who bought a DVD didnt watch the extra features, or want to listen to it in 15 other languages? Or maybe I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iZoom Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I haven't quite grasped this BluRay live feature I believe it's called? Personally, if I wanted to find out more about a movie, I would visit IMDB or google to find out more information. I want to sit down and watch the movie, not link out to the Internet mid-scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhell Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I haven't quite grasped this BluRay live feature I believe it's called?Personally, if I wanted to find out more about a movie, I would visit IMDB or google to find out more information. I want to sit down and watch the movie, not link out to the Internet mid-scene. Exactly. All that other crap is just filler. I have some movies that I...erm...acquired that have been ripped from Blu-rays and the quality is immaculate. The audio is incredible too. Personally, I couldn't give less of a **** about uncompressed audio or 10000kershillionbps bit rates. That crap is just marketing speak for the "audiofiles" and "videofiles" to help them justify their $400 Monster cables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted January 13, 2009 Author MVC Share Posted January 13, 2009 Exactly. All that other crap is just filler.I have some movies that I...erm...acquired that have been ripped from Blu-rays and the quality is immaculate. The audio is incredible too. Personally, I couldn't give less of a **** about uncompressed audio or 10000kershillionbps bit rates. That crap is just marketing speak for the "audiofiles" and "videofiles" to help them justify their $400 Monster cables. Well said, well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpotato Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Exactly. All that other crap is just filler.I have some movies that I...erm...acquired that have been ripped from Blu-rays and the quality is immaculate. The audio is incredible too. Personally, I couldn't give less of a **** about uncompressed audio or 10000kershillionbps bit rates. That crap is just marketing speak for the "audiofiles" and "videofiles" to help them justify their $400 Monster cables. In other words you're to cheap to legally buy movies, so you'll settle for lower quality because it's free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted January 13, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 13, 2009 Prices on Blu-ray players and movies have dropped quite a bit since they first came out. The quality is great too. You definitely get what you pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhell Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 In other words you're to cheap to legally buy movies, so you'll settle for lower quality because it's free. That's not it at all. I just don't buy into all the marketing BS that they have been pushing with Blu-ray. Once the price on the players and movies come down ($35 for a movie is bull****), I'll buy one. Oh and FYI, there is no visual/audio quality difference between a PROPERLY ripped movie and the source. If anyone says they can tell the difference, they are full of ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dysphoria Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Exactly. All that other crap is just filler.I have some movies that I...erm...acquired that have been ripped from Blu-rays and the quality is immaculate. The audio is incredible too. Personally, I couldn't give less of a **** about uncompressed audio or 10000kershillionbps bit rates. That crap is just marketing speak for the "audiofiles" and "videofiles" to help them justify their $400 Monster cables. Haha, that gave me a chuckle :) Well you might be able to notice difference in picture quality on screens bigger than 40 inches. 1080p is not the same as 720p. I know that some people might argue with me but I can notice a clear difference in picture quality even on my bedroom 32 inch Samsung 1080p TV comparing to my other LG 32 inch 720p screen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhell Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Haha, that gave me a chuckle :) Well you might be able to notice difference in picture quality on screens bigger than 40 inches.1080p is not the same as 720p. I know that some people might argue with me but I can notice a clear difference in picture quality even on my bedroom 32 inch Samsung 1080p TV comparing to my other LG 32 inch 720p screen... *Sigh* I am talking about 1080P on a 50" TV. All the rips that I have are 1080P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 13, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted January 13, 2009 Oh and FYI, there is no visual/audio quality difference between a PROPERLY ripped movie and the source. If anyone says they can tell the difference, they are full of ****. ahhell, please do some research before making such statements. Video bitrate is much higher on the source. Your MKVs are compressed, and quite often cropped. You're taking an uncompressed file, which is usually anywhere around high teens up to around 40GB per film, and compressing it to say between 8-12GB for most 1080p encodes. I know this, as I've ripped many a Blu Ray myself - Thing is though, I don't encode them, I just stream the uncompressed AVC (raw video) to my PS3. Iron man was around 35GB just for the Video. And the audio present in your MKVs is usually AC3 5.1, sometimes DTS. But never HD audio. If you want to say you don't notice a difference yourself, fine, but do not run around saying their is no difference because there most certainly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.958469f789995895cc0de1fb3c106d00.jpg)
Recommended Posts