blu-ray/hd-dvd rips... when??

Why aren't they doing this rips, you could rip a high def movie in a dvd-r and play it with a pc. so why haven't they started yet?

[azrael69]

dude
let me tell you what you're trying to perform
an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc converted to DVD-R.
now, you're vague about whether you want a 4.38GB Xvid file or an actual DVD-R.
if it's the latter, it's because DVD-R releases already exist and there's no point in a downsampling resizing conversion!

if you want an H.264 or Xvid or whatever of that size, the answer is.... drumroll please!
BANDWIDTH.
for most of us, a 3-disc SVCD takes fucking forever. a 2-disc Xvid also takes a long ass time.  the DVD-R releases people like us would download are few and far between because it'll take god damn until the end of time.
in short, there's just no point right now.  the ability of such a release to propagate into the wild isn't there.

oh yeah-- have the copy protection streams in HDDVD or Blu-Ray been fully cracked yet?
yeah, there's that too. it took awhile for DeCSS (i know you don't know what that is) to appear and even longer before it became practical to most people.
plus, both disc formats call for an adjustable method of content encryptions meaning the utilities will continually need adaptation to keep up--when they get their foot in the door.

Well, yes I want high def xvids. when divx started showing up, way way back, it was almost crazy for almost everyone download 700mb to watch a movie. so now 4,7gb is not so bad, and even internet speeds are going up realy fast. I don't know about copy protections, but I don't think thats a problem for most of the people that is dedicated in releasing groups, they crack all sort of software protection and that is way harder, belive me.

[azrael69]

...that it's harder to crack xyz random piece of pc software than it is to crack Blu-Ray or HDDVD?!

dude, you clearly don't know the first thing about content encryption.

it took about 3 years from the appearance of the first consumer DVDs until CSS was cracked and you could actually do something with the file.

this time it might take that long or longer.
like i said, both formats call for ability to manipulate the encryption scheme to keep up with crack attempts.

and while it's true the typical internet user's connection has been swapped from dialup in favor of broadband since late-99 (emergence of divx releases), a whole hell of a lot of us get shitty downstream caps and far more restrictive upstream caps.
let's call a 1.5mbit connection 200kbyte/sec (it's close but not precise)

at full sail you're looking at over 6 hours 20 minutes to complete.  a quarter of your day's internet capability taken up by one item.  that's why a lot of people avoid DVDR releases.  given that the vast majority of people don't actually have site access and they rely on P2P methods nowadays, you can plan on that DVD actually taking at least a day, assuming it even works and isn't a fake/corrupt.

what's worse? 1080p (1920x1080, p because fuck interlacing...) has exactly six times the picture information of a DVD (480p is 720x480)
meaning you're going to need to up the ante on the bitrate by say.... a factor of six, to get the same image quality (as appears and can be compared) upon compression
two things to note here; one is that few if any xvid releases (none i can ever recall seeing that i didn't do myself) actually use original picture size (adjusting for cropping) and don't resize the picture to something smaller.
that's how you make the bitrate smaller and get it to fit on disc: fewer pixels, better clarity of what's there.
lengthy movies have been pretty much mandated to become 2-cd releases, and a "good quality" 700mb full-length movie has been resized.

multiply 700 by six and it'll fit on a DVDR, yes.
but that assumes you're using the full 720x480 of the dvd--which you never are.
meaning your 1080p encoding will need to be resized smaller to avoid looking like shit when played back at actual resolution.

the whole thing at this point is highly impractical.

furthermore, internet speeds aren't going "way up" and i don't even know where you came up with that one.

I don't know about the encryption, but I think that cracking a game with a protection like starforce 3.0, is extreamly hard, so anyone can play the game in his computer. on the other hand we are talking of someone streaming the video and compresing it with xvid. he can use any sort of hardware or software + I don't know what else. I have 600k internet (yes in bits), and I download stuff all the time, movies, games, apps, and I can keep up with everything I want. so is more than enough a 5 megabit for downloading dvd-r.
the 1080p stuff, ok not 1080p but 720p is more than enough. I played this trailer in my sony 46" LCD and it looks amazing, 100 times better than usual dvd rips. http://www.digital-digest.com/movies/pirates_of_the_caribbean2_xvid_trailer.html
this video is 127 seconds long, and its size is: 71mb. so a regular 1:45 long movie should be: 3522mb.
I rest my case.

[Eric2203]

OK, so because YOU can download GB of stuff constantly without problems (time being the main one here, not availability), does NOT mean everyone can. If that were the case, DivX/XviD would be long gone and we would all download DVD-Rs. Yet that's not happening. So what's YOUR explanation for that ? I can give you mine: the demand isn't there at this point.

[azrael69]

ugh.... so many things wrong with the encode of this trailer!

glaring example #1 - whoever created it references "1080p" as a source and uses the proper cropped resolution for it
encoded at 23.976 fps (NTSC)

23.976 is NOT ntsc, it's ntsc-film. ntsc is delivered at 29.97, and HDTV precludes these two standards entirely.  A 1080p source is 60 full frames per second--pretty much rate of perception of the human eye (60fps for ATSC i believe is the new 'standard' name; Europe has 50)  This idiot cut out 60% of all frames presented in the original.  No wonder there's still perfectly detectable motion blur and jitters.  That frees up a lot of bits to use on what's left though.

I'll leave him alone on resizing to a 720p-compat. resolution; this is simply necessary

he claims a 160kbit vbr audio bitrate
actual audio bitrate you will find to be 102kbit, so he gained a free 58kbit there.

and it's goddamn mp3 stereo not ac3 which comes in at 448kbit.  So ignore the 58kbit discrepancy between what he says and what it is for audio; it should have been448kbit for 5.1 and mind you there are higher bitrate formats being disseminated with the next-gen discs.
by turning the audio into a SHITTY 102kbit (about on par with FM radio for clarity) he managed to steal another 346kbit that he shouldn't have had.

Use a bitrate calculator if you want or trust me; video bitrate is about 4531 (you said 127 seconds i called it 126 giving an extra 2 or 3 kbit)
With proper audio (seriously what the fuck is this pleasure my eyes and insult my ears bullshit) the video bitrate would have been 4185.

Add back the 60% of the frames that he dropped and you can imagine what happens to the quality.  Or just add 20% to the 23.976 to bring it back to 29.97. actually a flat 30 fps would be better for consistency (just drop every other frame)
There's no justifiable reason for dropping the framerate by 60%

Sorry you don't see it but this is just an eye-candy encode to catch peoples' eyes with large detailed pictures in motion.  40% of the motion that there actually should have been.  Immeasurable (but quite high) drop in audio quality.  Nothing remotely "proper" about it.

(actually you could measure the audio quality drop if you had the original source and decoded the mp3 and recoded to ac3 or whatever it was and run analysis on the two)

hate to say it but it looks "100x better than normal dvdrips" because 1) your dvdrip is being stretched probably by your television which doesn't know how to stretch (none do really)
and 2) both the bitrate and resolution are dramatically different.

So go buy that DVD or rent it.  Pull the original theatrical trailer off of it and encode it yourself, using AC3 and don't resize from 480p.  Use 4,000 kbit.  Play your encode on your computer at fullscreen and compare.  Play it on the tv and compare.
The motion in yours will look vastly smoother and the sound is simply incomparable.

high resolutions are great, large pictures give great clarity.
but this guy cut incredible corners to yield clarity of still frames while set in motion its flaws become clear.

the point of the 1080p source is the all-around clarity it brings to the table in motion/scene change, picture detail and sound quality.  this trailer is a pure bastardization of two of the three which makes it a large waste of space if the full-length film was encoded in such a fashion.  i know what a 1080p source looks like in motion, i had the pleasure of staring at them all day at work for 9 months.  this only compares purely in terms of resolution.


sleep on it.

[Phreaker47]

There WILL be a hi-def scene, given time. As a sign of the evolution: First, everything was ASF. Then VCD, then SVCD, and now XVID and DVDR are the most popular. With cable broadband speed now reaching a standard of 4Mbps in a lot of areas, a DVDR download isn't so bad now.

There's already a HDDVD ripper out there. It makes sense that either a blu-ray ripper will follow (they have similar encryption schemes) and/or there will be a way with Linux on a PS3. Either way, we could *at least* have an ability to do our own rips. Premium newsgroup services could handle 20GB or higher images and could feasibly be downloaded in less than a day for those that are determined to start doing this asap.

As for this HD to xvid on dvdr, I don't think that will take off. The resulting benefit over standard dvd mpeg2 at that capacity wouldn't be worth going through.

As for this HD to xvid on dvdr, I don't think that will take off. The resulting benefit over standard dvd mpeg2 at that capacity wouldn't be worth going through.

yes it would check the trailer I've posted http://www.digital-digest.com/movies/pirates_of_th e_caribbean2_xvid_trailer.html
a whole movie would be less than a dvdr.

[Phreaker47]

And I'm telling you, nobody will care. Plus that vid was re-encoded from a quicktime video. Just because they slapped a certain resolution on it doesn't mean it's going to look great on a large screen. All in all, this will be too much of a niche to ever gain any momentum in the scene.

[tys]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070115-8622.html

The pirates of the world have fired another salvo in their ongoing war with copy protection schemes with the first release of the first full-resolution rip of an HD DVD movie on BitTorrent. The movie, Serenity, was made available as a .EVO file and is playable on most DVD playback software packages such as PowerDVD. The file was encoded in MPEG-4 VC-1 and the resulting file size was a hefty 19.6 GB.

...that it's harder to crack xyz random piece of pc software than it is to crack Blu-Ray or HDDVD?!

dude, you clearly don't know the first thing about content encryption.

it took about 3 years from the appearance of the first consumer DVDs until CSS was cracked and you could actually do something with the file.

this time it might take that long or longer.
like i said, both formats call for ability to manipulate the encryption scheme to keep up with crack attempts.

and while it's true the typical internet user's connection has been swapped from dialup in favor of broadband since late-99 (emergence of divx releases), a whole hell of a lot of us get shitty downstream caps and far more restrictive upstream caps.
let's call a 1.5mbit connection 200kbyte/sec (it's close but not precise)

at full sail you're looking at over 6 hours 20 minutes to complete.  a quarter of your day's internet capability taken up by one item.  that's why a lot of people avoid DVDR releases.  given that the vast majority of people don't actually have site access and they rely on P2P methods nowadays, you can plan on that DVD actually taking at least a day, assuming it even works and isn't a fake/corrupt.

what's worse? 1080p (1920x1080, p because fuck interlacing...) has exactly six times the picture information of a DVD (480p is 720x480)
meaning you're going to need to up the ante on the bitrate by say.... a factor of six, to get the same image quality (as appears and can be compared) upon compression
two things to note here; one is that few if any xvid releases (none i can ever recall seeing that i didn't do myself) actually use original picture size (adjusting for cropping) and don't resize the picture to something smaller.
that's how you make the bitrate smaller and get it to fit on disc: fewer pixels, better clarity of what's there.
lengthy movies have been pretty much mandated to become 2-cd releases, and a "good quality" 700mb full-length movie has been resized.

multiply 700 by six and it'll fit on a DVDR, yes.
but that assumes you're using the full 720x480 of the dvd--which you never are.
meaning your 1080p encoding will need to be resized smaller to avoid looking like shit when played back at actual resolution.

the whole thing at this point is highly impractical.

furthermore, internet speeds aren't going "way up" and i don't even know where you came up with that one.

guess I was right after all!!!

[tys]

Heh. I download 30-40 gig HD/BR rips a few times a month now. Too bad not that much good shit gets released.

sorry to be the asshole here, but what's up with all the HD-Xvid rips thats floating around for a while? They have 4480 kbps x264 video bitrates and ac3 @ 640 kbps audio bitrates... how come these rips are only 4.7GB? Did they cut on the frames/p second?

[Digital Chaos]

i think they believe that the best "size" to rip these to is DVD5 and I think that is BULLSHIT. Give me a fucking break these are high def movies and they should all be ripped down to DVD9 x264 not this DVD5 bullshit. Fuck I hate it. the Scene sucks.