Bluray vs. Mkv

Gromb

Gromb

Gromb

Associate
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Posts
11
Location
Beijing
Both are compressive formats this I understand. Why is it that a 25 gb Bluray can become a tinsy 5 or 6 gb file with what I can tell to be no loss in quality.

Why is the BR so bloated, am I missing something here?

I have never understood this. :confused:
 
Several reasons.

Firstly, MKVs typically don't have high definition audio tracks, or multiple audio tracks for that matter. That shaves a good few GBs off the file size.

Secondly, plenty of MKVs out there are 720p compared to the 1080p of BluRay, though there are some 1080p MKVs that are a good deal smaller than their m2ts (BluRay) counterpart. This is usually down to either the codec used (some BluRays use MPEG2 which is horrific for hidef), or the resultant video file simply isn't the same quality, but not to the extent that it's hugely noticeable.
 
Also depends on what you're watching it on. Todays 37/42/46/50 inch tellies might not show "much" difference but in a few years when we have common place 60+ inchers it might show strain.

I know I couldnt really notice a difference between a 700mb XVID and a DVD on my old 28" CRT TV but I certainly do now on my 46"
 
Yeah but DiVX based videos compared to HD videos are worlds apart, easier to see the difference on a HD TV for the former compared to the latter (eg: 720P-vs-1080P on a 42" HDTV VS DVD-vs-DiVX).

On a large PC screen (24"+) it's easier to see the difference between say 720P and 1080P due to PC screens being much sharper.

Anyway an average 1080P mkv contains movies will be around 8-11GB whereas the 720P version (most common) will be 4-6GB.

SOME mkv contained movies have DTS-HD audio streams but it's useless for most since you'd need to plug it into a compatible audio output setup to benefit from it - the majority of PC users do not have this so mkv creators just use the AC3 stream which is perfectly fine (and high enough quality) to enjoy up to DD5.1 and keeps the filesize down at the same time.
 
Eh?

I said an XVID of a DVD compared to the DVD itself doesnt show much on a smaller screen and the same holds just now with MKV and BD but once people get larger screens it will be more apparent.
 
People already have larger screens and XVID/DIVX are almost the same thing quality wise. Both decoders are cross compatible and the fourcc can be switched on both so the players get fooled into thinking one is the other etc.
 
I can't tell the difference between a 9gb 1080p mkv and a full blu-ray, but I don't have fancy surround sound mind ;)
 
I'd say it's four things, assuming you're talking about H264-encoded MKVs:

1. The MKV files don't include all the extras on the disc, like extra scenes, commentary etc.
2. The files which I think you're thinking of are 720p, smaller than the 1080p resolution of Blu-Rays. A comparable 1080p MKV is about 10-15GB.
3. More advanced encoding - the x264 encoder, widely used by enthusiasts but not film studios, is intensively developed and perhaps uses data more efficiently.
4. There's no reason why studios need to be conservative about bitrate. They have a whole disc to fill, so they might as well bump up the bitrate, even if there's no discernible quality shift.
 
mrk said:
People already have larger screens and XVID/DIVX are almost the same thing quality wise. Both decoders are cross compatible and the fourcc can be switched on both so the players get fooled into thinking one is the other etc.
Click to expand...

Most people dont tho, have a look at a lot of the threads on here, a mainly techy community and people are talking about 37/42/46/50's generally.

I didnt mention any XVID/DIVX differences, I've used the encoding method back to the DivX ;-) 3.11 Alpha hacked Microsoft codec back in the day so know full well they are interchangable fella :)
 
So you're saying anything below 60" is small? considering screens that are around 42" are native 1080P anyway that's a pretty big screen with a large resolution to boot.

Most people probably won't have such a big screen in their bedrooms, 32" being common but in the living room most people have something 42"+ which is a big sized screen.
 
If you actually read the words on your screen you'll see - now on my third round of explanation - whats current will get bigger and then differences will be more apparent, as the differences between -Generic MPEG4 .AVI Files- and DVD's were not so visible at 28" but at 42" are more so.
 
Rikki said:
If you actually read the words on your screen you'll see - now on my third round of explanation - whats current will get bigger and then differences will be more apparent, as the differences between -Generic MPEG4 .AVI Files- and DVD's were not so visible at 28" but at 42" are more so.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. When I had an old school CRT, watching an Xvid it was hard to tell the difference between it and the DVD. Now the differences are incredibly apparent. Soon down the line, similar to this, the differences between the MKV and the BD will become more apparent. Not sure why some people find this hard ot understand.
 
The difference between 1080p mkv and a BD won't be as apparent as XVID vs DVD as explained above by you - that's what I'm saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom