4 ms·

This post contains two .png (lossless) screenshots from Blu-rays that look absolutely horrible. I don't have much first-hand experience with Blu-rays, but I won

This post contains two .png (lossless) screenshots from Blu-rays that look absolutely horrible. I don't have much first-hand experience with Blu-rays, but I wonder if this kind of bad compression is a common thing? I suppose the big studios do a decent job at encoding (though I might be wrong). Is this mostly a problem with smaller companies that might not be able to hire the proper expertise? No doubt there will be an industry learning curve like with DVDs (with time they got better).

DarkShikari 17y ago
I don't have much first-hand experience with Blu-rays, but I wonder if this kind of bad compression is a common thing? Fortunately it's not too common, but it's more common than one would like. This isn't unique to Blu-rays either; it happened a lot with DVDs. Various problems that I've seen are: 1. Improperly done telecine (e.g. telecining two different parts of the frame at different rates, more common in animation). 2. Badly done framerate-changing (Robot Chicken DVDs). 3. Completely borked interlacing (Family Guy first season DVDs). 4. Bad encoders that can't deal with massive bitrate peaks well (Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu R1 DVDs, see http://i43.tinypic.com/105b8rk.png http://i43.tinypic.com/105b8rk.png). The primary problem with Blu-rays is a lack of source quality, not these kinds of mistakes: a lot of Blu-rays simply don't have any detail beyond SD because their source material is horrible (examples: Cowboy Bebop: The Movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind).
- mikeytown2 17y ago
  Bad encodes, 1/2 the reason for the "magic" script we both developed http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=134078 http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=134078 Output: http://i43.tinypic.com/2qd4wvk.png http://i43.tinypic.com/2qd4wvk.png
kierank 17y ago
I suppose the big studios do a decent job at encoding (though I might be wrong) They do a poor job in a significant proportion of cases. (Warner are known to be the worst)
baddox 17y ago
The article links to those screenshots to show how bad some results from so-called "professional" Blu-ray encoding software. Although it wasn't the case early on, most Hollywood Blu-rays looks great now. Check out this review of the Avatar Blu-ray http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=42265 http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=42265 . About a third of the way down the page there are tons of lossless screenshots. That site has reviews for tons of titles; it's a good place to check sound/video quality before buying a Blu-ray title.
- kierank 17y ago
  it's a good place to check sound/video quality before buying a Blu-ray title. From a cursory glance it seems that site is rating known bad releases (e.g. U-571 and it's strong grain removal; Transformers 2's major blocking during action scenes) with 5 stars.
  - baddox 17y ago
    Sadly, grain removal is a matter of debate. I personally like grain, but apparently some people (even serious reviewers) are fine with post processing. Also, a quick search yielded me no mention of U-571 grain removal. Lastly, I personally saw no "major blocking" during action scenes of Transformers 2.

DarkShikari 17y ago

I don't have much first-hand experience with Blu-rays, but I wonder if this kind of bad compression is a common thing? Fortunately it's not too common, but it's more common than one would like. This isn't unique to Blu-rays either; it happened a lot with DVDs. Various problems that I've seen are: 1. Improperly done telecine (e.g. telecining two different parts of the frame at different rates, more common in animation). 2. Badly done framerate-changing (Robot Chicken DVDs). 3. Completely borked interlacing (Family Guy first season DVDs). 4. Bad encoders that can't deal with massive bitrate peaks well (Suzumiya Haruhi no Yuutsu R1 DVDs, see http://i43.tinypic.com/105b8rk.png http://i43.tinypic.com/105b8rk.png). The primary problem with Blu-rays is a lack of source quality, not these kinds of mistakes: a lot of Blu-rays simply don't have any detail beyond SD because their source material is horrible (examples: Cowboy Bebop: The Movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind).

mikeytown2 17y ago
Bad encodes, 1/2 the reason for the "magic" script we both developed http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=134078 http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=134078 Output: http://i43.tinypic.com/2qd4wvk.png http://i43.tinypic.com/2qd4wvk.png

kierank 17y ago

I suppose the big studios do a decent job at encoding (though I might be wrong) They do a poor job in a significant proportion of cases. (Warner are known to be the worst)

baddox 17y ago

The article links to those screenshots to show how bad some results from so-called "professional" Blu-ray encoding software. Although it wasn't the case early on, most Hollywood Blu-rays looks great now. Check out this review of the Avatar Blu-ray http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=42265 http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=42265 . About a third of the way down the page there are tons of lossless screenshots. That site has reviews for tons of titles; it's a good place to check sound/video quality before buying a Blu-ray title.

kierank 17y ago
it's a good place to check sound/video quality before buying a Blu-ray title. From a cursory glance it seems that site is rating known bad releases (e.g. U-571 and it's strong grain removal; Transformers 2's major blocking during action scenes) with 5 stars.
- baddox 17y ago
  Sadly, grain removal is a matter of debate. I personally like grain, but apparently some people (even serious reviewers) are fine with post processing. Also, a quick search yielded me no mention of U-571 grain removal. Lastly, I personally saw no "major blocking" during action scenes of Transformers 2.