6 ms·

This is the top way that I build up my private Plex library. 1. Buy DVD on ebay 2. Rip DVD with handbrake 3. Add rip to Plex library 4. Archive DVD in disc

by umvi 6y ago

This is the top way that I build up my private Plex library. 1. Buy DVD on ebay 2. Rip DVD with handbrake 3. Add rip to Plex library 4. Archive DVD in disc folder Works great for "classics" that can't get much better than DVD quality anyway (i.e. any movie made before, say, 2005)

imbusy111 6y ago
Almost all of the classics are shot on film so they absolutely can get significantly better than DVD quality.
mhh__ 6y ago
Maybe movies made post-digital but before 2005, but if you look at (say) the recent cut of apocalypse now looks unbelievably good. Like it was shot yesterday.
jpablo 6y ago
35mm film has equivalent resolution of about 90megapixels, way better than DVD quality. If a movie isn't issued in better than dvd quality is because nobody has cared about remastering them to better formats. I guess there maybe super budget, made for tv films that were filmed on tape and those certainly have reached their digital quality maximum.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  I think TV shows tend to be much more of a mixed bag. The Sopranos (1999), The Wire (2002), and Firefly (2002) were all shows at the forefront of the current renaissance in dramatic television— they were all shot on film, but it's interesting that Firefly for example was natively 16:9 and cropped to 4:3 for its original run, whereas The Wire's "conversion" to widescreen has been a matter of some more controversy, eg: https://www.techhive.com/article/2854439/hbo-remastered-the-wire-in-169-hd-and-it-was-a-lot-harder-than-youd-think.html https://www.techhive.com/article/2854439/hbo-remastered-the-... Another interesting aspect of Firefly is that the pure VFX scenes (eg spaceship exteriors) were rendered originally at 480p, so when you watch the Blu-ray version of the show, you can see a bit of an awkward transition where the shots of the actors are gloriously crisp, but the space scenes are clearly upscaled.
  - sneakymichael 6y ago
    Friends was also shot on film, and cropped to 4:3 for broadcast. Like Firefly, Friends also had unintentional things (crew, microphones, un-dressed sets, etc) appear in the edges in 16:9. While most were probably edited out before the uncropped 1080 re-release; some unintended things remain, which I personally really like seeing. Additionally, like Firefly's pure VFX, some footage in Friends also appears in SD in the HD release (seemingly either because the original film stock was lost, or it wasn't originally shot on film), with the zoomed 4:3 SD vs 16:9 HD sometimes changing mid-scene, and …that too I find a humbling reminder of the quality of yesteryear.
    - zbuttram 6y ago
      I've been noticing some of the same with The X-Files. There are seemingly random shots with lower quality, and any shot with heavy VFX looks original, but most of it now looks quite sharp.
  - chowndown 6y ago
    I remember having a distinctive moment of clarity watching Seinfeld reruns in 16:9 HD. Did they have the foresight that it would be a classic making billions in syndication?
    - aasasd 6y ago
      A random episode on IMDB has ‘35 mm’ as film format, which to my knowledge is 4:3: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0697703/technical https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0697703/technical So I would ask if maybe the image was cropped for the 16:9 conversion. Update—here's what Wikipedia says: “Unlike the version used for the DVD, Sony Pictures cropped the top and bottom parts of the frame, while restoring previously cropped images on the sides, from the 35mm film source, to use the entire 16:9 frame.”
      - opencl 6y ago
        35mm stills cameras normally use a 3:2 frame. Television shot on film typically used movie cameras that shot at 1.85:1 and then cropped to 4:3. But different shows handled the aspect ratios differently in their widescreen re-releases. Seinfeld included slightly more horizontally than the original TV release but still cropped a significant amount from the top and bottom. That 70s Show as one example that was also shot on 35mm film included the whole original 4:3 frame plus extra on the sides.
aasasd 6y ago
A ton of movies were reissued on Blu-ray, re-scanned from film. DVD has garbage resolution and compression, while film is made to be projected on gigantic theater canvas. Surely you don't believe movie theaters were effectively displaying 720x480 or 720x576 at the size of canvas? Consult this video, for example: https://youtu.be/sCv-dIFGcd0 https://youtu.be/sCv-dIFGcd0 Personally I find that even BD-rips made in SD resolution look better than DVD—if only for contrast enhancements made for reissues, and due to better compression formats. Moreover, if the source was shot on 70mm film then people might still keep re-digitizing it in the 22nd century into fresh HD formats of the day.
- gfo 6y ago
  The quality is impressive, and I've seen this before with older footage which has been re-scanned in higher quality. Still, there's some characteristic about old footage which sort of tells me it was shot a long time ago. I want to say it's that the footage seems darker, and you can obviously make a case for classic brand logos being a giveaway.
  - aasasd 6y ago
    The darker edges seem to be due to ‘natural vignetting’, as I learned from this article recently posted on HN: https://ciechanow.ski/cameras-and-lenses/ https://ciechanow.ski/cameras-and-lenses/ In the comments on YouTube, people discuss some other race-related aspects that reveal the age of the video. Such as lack of protective barriers, and people standing right next to the race track.
    - codetrotter 6y ago
      > lack of protective barriers, and people standing right next to the race track Makes me wonder what kind of risks we are obliviously taking today that will seem kind of crazy in the future.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        I don't know that "oblivious" is the word I'd use. People standing next to the racetrack are well aware of the risks involved. They aren't there because they don't perceive the risk; they're there because they think it's worth it. Would you describe rock climbers as "oblivious to the risks involved", or just as people who are sometimes killed by their hobby?
branon 6y ago
Consider Jellyfin instead of Plex :) https://jellyfin.org/ https://jellyfin.org/

by umvi 6y ago

imbusy111 6y ago

Almost all of the classics are shot on film so they absolutely can get significantly better than DVD quality.

mhh__ 6y ago

Maybe movies made post-digital but before 2005, but if you look at (say) the recent cut of apocalypse now looks unbelievably good. Like it was shot yesterday.

jpablo 6y ago

35mm film has equivalent resolution of about 90megapixels, way better than DVD quality. If a movie isn't issued in better than dvd quality is because nobody has cared about remastering them to better formats. I guess there maybe super budget, made for tv films that were filmed on tape and those certainly have reached their digital quality maximum.

mikepurvis 6y ago
I think TV shows tend to be much more of a mixed bag. The Sopranos (1999), The Wire (2002), and Firefly (2002) were all shows at the forefront of the current renaissance in dramatic television— they were all shot on film, but it's interesting that Firefly for example was natively 16:9 and cropped to 4:3 for its original run, whereas The Wire's "conversion" to widescreen has been a matter of some more controversy, eg: https://www.techhive.com/article/2854439/hbo-remastered-the-wire-in-169-hd-and-it-was-a-lot-harder-than-youd-think.html https://www.techhive.com/article/2854439/hbo-remastered-the-... Another interesting aspect of Firefly is that the pure VFX scenes (eg spaceship exteriors) were rendered originally at 480p, so when you watch the Blu-ray version of the show, you can see a bit of an awkward transition where the shots of the actors are gloriously crisp, but the space scenes are clearly upscaled.
- sneakymichael 6y ago
  Friends was also shot on film, and cropped to 4:3 for broadcast. Like Firefly, Friends also had unintentional things (crew, microphones, un-dressed sets, etc) appear in the edges in 16:9. While most were probably edited out before the uncropped 1080 re-release; some unintended things remain, which I personally really like seeing. Additionally, like Firefly's pure VFX, some footage in Friends also appears in SD in the HD release (seemingly either because the original film stock was lost, or it wasn't originally shot on film), with the zoomed 4:3 SD vs 16:9 HD sometimes changing mid-scene, and …that too I find a humbling reminder of the quality of yesteryear.
  - zbuttram 6y ago
    I've been noticing some of the same with The X-Files. There are seemingly random shots with lower quality, and any shot with heavy VFX looks original, but most of it now looks quite sharp.
- chowndown 6y ago
  I remember having a distinctive moment of clarity watching Seinfeld reruns in 16:9 HD. Did they have the foresight that it would be a classic making billions in syndication?
  - aasasd 6y ago
    A random episode on IMDB has ‘35 mm’ as film format, which to my knowledge is 4:3: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0697703/technical https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0697703/technical So I would ask if maybe the image was cropped for the 16:9 conversion. Update—here's what Wikipedia says: “Unlike the version used for the DVD, Sony Pictures cropped the top and bottom parts of the frame, while restoring previously cropped images on the sides, from the 35mm film source, to use the entire 16:9 frame.”
    - opencl 6y ago
      35mm stills cameras normally use a 3:2 frame. Television shot on film typically used movie cameras that shot at 1.85:1 and then cropped to 4:3. But different shows handled the aspect ratios differently in their widescreen re-releases. Seinfeld included slightly more horizontally than the original TV release but still cropped a significant amount from the top and bottom. That 70s Show as one example that was also shot on 35mm film included the whole original 4:3 frame plus extra on the sides.

aasasd 6y ago

A ton of movies were reissued on Blu-ray, re-scanned from film. DVD has garbage resolution and compression, while film is made to be projected on gigantic theater canvas. Surely you don't believe movie theaters were effectively displaying 720x480 or 720x576 at the size of canvas? Consult this video, for example: https://youtu.be/sCv-dIFGcd0 https://youtu.be/sCv-dIFGcd0 Personally I find that even BD-rips made in SD resolution look better than DVD—if only for contrast enhancements made for reissues, and due to better compression formats. Moreover, if the source was shot on 70mm film then people might still keep re-digitizing it in the 22nd century into fresh HD formats of the day.

gfo 6y ago
The quality is impressive, and I've seen this before with older footage which has been re-scanned in higher quality. Still, there's some characteristic about old footage which sort of tells me it was shot a long time ago. I want to say it's that the footage seems darker, and you can obviously make a case for classic brand logos being a giveaway.
- aasasd 6y ago
  The darker edges seem to be due to ‘natural vignetting’, as I learned from this article recently posted on HN: https://ciechanow.ski/cameras-and-lenses/ https://ciechanow.ski/cameras-and-lenses/ In the comments on YouTube, people discuss some other race-related aspects that reveal the age of the video. Such as lack of protective barriers, and people standing right next to the race track.
  - codetrotter 6y ago
    > lack of protective barriers, and people standing right next to the race track Makes me wonder what kind of risks we are obliviously taking today that will seem kind of crazy in the future.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      I don't know that "oblivious" is the word I'd use. People standing next to the racetrack are well aware of the risks involved. They aren't there because they don't perceive the risk; they're there because they think it's worth it. Would you describe rock climbers as "oblivious to the risks involved", or just as people who are sometimes killed by their hobby?

branon 6y ago

Consider Jellyfin instead of Plex :) https://jellyfin.org/ https://jellyfin.org/