Author Topic: DVD drive question  (Read 4967 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Darwin

  • Centurian Lord
  • ********
  • Posts: 6,466
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • http://www.mierda54.tripod.com
DVD drive question
« on: September 28, 2006 10:01 am CDT »
I need to get myself a new dvd drive soon.  And I have a question.

See, DVD's have never looked so hot on any computer I've ever played them on.  I take it because computer monitors are much higher res than SDTV's, so it just never looks as pleasing as it does on an old 36inch tube.  

Because this might be a resolution issue (and correct me if it isnt), are there any upconverting dvd drives out there for pc?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by Darwin »



slorge_gridlock

  • Undead Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
  • Reputation: +0/-0
(No subject)
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2006 10:22 am CDT »
I don't think it's a matter of the DVD drive as much as it is the monitor resolution and the quality of the DVD media you're playing.

The reason it looks better on a standard TV is because you cant see the imperfections due to the low resolution.  Normal TV's are only like 320X240 resolution (actually only rated in horizontal line count, I believe), plus have a different scan rate/type as monitors.
Something like, say a tv episode downloaded through bit torrent, which looks blocky on the computer will actually look better than VHS quality when played back on a reagular TV screen.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by slorge_gridlock »

Darwin

  • Centurian Lord
  • ********
  • Posts: 6,466
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • http://www.mierda54.tripod.com
(No subject)
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2006 01:51 pm CDT »
Alright.  Well what about these standalone box dvd players that come out that upconvert dvd's to 1080p for HDTV's?  Wouldnt there be a nice solution like that for computers as well?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by Darwin »



Particle

  • Chief Codemonger
  • Administrator
  • Centurian Lord
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,904
  • Reputation: +20/-4
    • Particle's Custom RPG
(No subject)
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2006 05:41 pm CDT »
Ok, here's the skinny.

TVs use a resolution of 720x480.  It's an odd thing, too, since that isn't exactly 4:3 (640x480 would be).  Many people will tell you that 720x480 is wrong, but they just don't know.  Yes, that's the resolution of a standard DVD.  No, it isn't a mistake stemming from that.  If you want to see the difference, get some real capture gear for your PC.  Capture something at 720x480 and watch it on your TV at the same time.  The edges (40 pixels on each side) aren't shown on the TV.  On the PC you would see a little more of the scene of whatever you are watching.  In the good old days, we just called this NTSC.  720x480 @ 60 interlacing fields per second, generating ~29.97fps.  In modern HDTV times, this is called 480i.  Resolutions for TV are stated as their vertical resolution* followed by an "i" for interlaced or "p" for progressive.  Progressive is considered better than interlaced (full images instead of interlacing fields), though some research suggests interlaced is better for action.  Personally, I think anything interlaced looks like complete crap, especially during action.

*There are two methods of stating resolution.  Vertical in this case means the number of horizontal lines there are in a vertical cross-section.  Essentially, how many left-to-right lines there are from the top of the image to the bottom.  The other use of "vertical resolution" is essentially the opposite--how many vertical lines there are.

Anyhow, not important.

In order from worst to best, consider the following resoultions:
480i - TV, some DVDs
480p - Some DVDs
720i - Early HDTVs and cheap units these days
720p - Early HDTVs, mainstream
1080i - Mainstream
1080p - Good sets (1920x1080)

DVDs when played on your computer are already upsampled if you run a resolution higher than 720x480 (and you do).  There isn't really anything you can do to make them look better.  You're watching a much higher resolution display much closer than you would a TV.  The compression artifacts are going to show up a lot more.  There's nothing you can really do about it to make it look like you were watching it off a TV.  The DVD drive itself has absolutely nothing to do with it.  It only reads (and most likely writes) data.  It doesn't have any hand in playing the movie itself.

If you are looking for a good DVD+/-RW, I'd suggest the NEC ND-3550A.  No matter what unit you get, it isn't going to look different on your PC.  You might look into using software with realtime noise reduction, but that's only a bandaid a problem stemming from the DVD format itself--using medium bandwidth MPEG-2 compression.  It's a sucky compression and they've only got so much space on a disc for 1.5+ hours of video.  DVDs just look bad.  TVs are more forgiving because they're lower resolution and (more importantly) you sit much further away when watching.

It's got nothing to do with what hardware plays your movie.  It's the DVD itself that sucks.  They all do.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by Particle »
As a point of history:  Our last server clear was on September 27, 2004.  That is 4963 days ago (13.6 years) as of today.

If you're visiting after a long hiatus and have forgotten your password, try emailing me via the support form at http://www.pcrpg.org.

If your character is from after the 2004 clear but appears to have been deleted or reset, chances are it was caught in one of the inactive account purges over the years.  Backups were made before such events, so try the support form.

slorge_gridlock

  • Undead Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
  • Reputation: +0/-0
(No subject)
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2006 07:48 pm CDT »
Quote from: "Particle"
Ok, here's the skinny.

TVs use a resolution of 720x480.  It's an odd thing, too, since that isn't exactly 4:3 (640x480 would be).  Many people will tell you that 720x480 is wrong, but they just don't know.  Yes, that's the resolution of a standard DVD.  No, it isn't a mistake stemming from that.  If you want to see the difference, get some real capture gear for your PC.  Capture something at 720x480 and watch it on .
.
.
.
.
.ium bandwidth MPEG-2 compression.  It's a sucky compression and they've only got so much space on a disc for 1.5+ hours of video.  DVDs just look bad.  TVs are more forgiving because they're lower resolution and (more importantly) you sit much further away when watching.

It's got nothing to do with what hardware plays your movie.  It's the DVD itself that sucks.  They all do.


jeez..isn't that what I said?  :P  I gave you the Circuit City salesmen explanation, he gave you the manual.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by slorge_gridlock »

Particle

  • Chief Codemonger
  • Administrator
  • Centurian Lord
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,904
  • Reputation: +20/-4
    • Particle's Custom RPG
(No subject)
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2006 10:07 pm CDT »
Yeah, mainly.  It's just one of those things like when people re-encode their old Napster MP3s at 320Kbps and believe they're getting a quality increase.  I always feel an impulse to explain why that's stupid.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by Particle »
As a point of history:  Our last server clear was on September 27, 2004.  That is 4963 days ago (13.6 years) as of today.

If you're visiting after a long hiatus and have forgotten your password, try emailing me via the support form at http://www.pcrpg.org.

If your character is from after the 2004 clear but appears to have been deleted or reset, chances are it was caught in one of the inactive account purges over the years.  Backups were made before such events, so try the support form.

Darwin

  • Centurian Lord
  • ********
  • Posts: 6,466
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • http://www.mierda54.tripod.com
(No subject)
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2006 09:20 am CDT »
I can digg it particle. Thanks a lot.

So what is your opinion on the upcoming HD formats nowadays?  They are out, and they are expensive, so, would you agree it just best to sit tight instead of be burned like so many early adopters can be?

*edit*
Quote from: "Particle"
Yeah, mainly.  It's just one of those things like when people re-encode their old Napster MP3s at 320Kbps and believe they're getting a quality increase.  I always feel an impulse to explain why that's stupid.


True there.  But I have seen some amazing things happen with real time upmixing.  A guy who lives across campus from me demonstrated Creative's X-Fi sound card to me one day, and I was floored.  He upmixed several low quality tracks to higher quality, and the difference was very much apparent on his very expensive set of speakers.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by Darwin »



Kingpin

  • Gnoll Fighter
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Reputation: +0/-0
(No subject)
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2006 10:55 am CDT »
lol you get no respect there Slorge......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by Kingpin »
"It is said that the meek shall inhearit the earth.....damnit..."

~Kingpin Strife, ranger of shadow~

villman420

  • Minotaur Rager
  • ******
  • Posts: 752
  • Reputation: +5/-2
(No subject)
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2006 01:03 pm CDT »
Quote from: "Particle"
Yeah, mainly.  It's just one of those things like when people re-encode their old Napster MP3s at 320Kbps and believe they're getting a quality increase.  I always feel an impulse to explain why that's stupid.


so you saying that when i change my cds into mp3's, i shouldnt go for high quality 320 but go for the regular 160 or whatever it is
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by villman420 »

slorge_gridlock

  • Undead Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
  • Reputation: +0/-0
(No subject)
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2006 01:50 pm CDT »
*refer to the asterisk when confused.

No what he was saying is if you take a 128  mp3 and convert it to a 320, all you're doing is making a bigger file, you're not increasing the quality.  Once it's been converted down...it can't get converted back up.

The quality of the mp3/ogg when ripping a CD will be great at 320.  And if you take that 320 and convert it to 160, the quality will degrade.  If you try to take that 160 and up it back to 320, you will not recover any quality lost in the original conversion.  You're just making a bigger box for the 160 to live in.

An original rip using 320 gives headroom so that you do not lose quality from the original CDA format.
If you rip at 160, 128 or w/e you have already lost quality you will not be able to reclaim by re-converting the lower rip to 320.

*Blah, blah blah, blah, blah, balh, halb, blah

I've been upgrading too many systems and servers lately, so my brain is mush.  I'm sure you understood though.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by slorge_gridlock »

Xenos

  • Elvin Legion
  • *****
  • Posts: 485
  • Reputation: +2/-1
    • http://www.baconcat.com
(No subject)
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2006 04:06 pm CDT »
If you rip cd's to mp3 I always recommend using 320kbps VBR encoding.  Using VBR will use less space when there is no sound and use more when there is alot of sound playing.

If space is not an issue just rip to FLAC. It does lossless compression. I usually get about %50 per cd.  So about 400mb a cd but its exact quality that you can later convert to mp3 or reburn to cd without audio loss.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by Xenos »

Lidge Farkley

  • Uber Menace
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,357
  • Reputation: +2/-3
    • http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/psychosworld2/
(No subject)
« Reply #11 on: October 3, 2006 03:43 am CDT »
Quote from: "Particle"
Yeah, mainly.  It's just one of those things like when people re-encode their old Napster MP3s at 320Kbps and believe they're getting a quality increase.  I always feel an impulse to explain why that's stupid.


People actualy do this?

Wait.. I am not suprised.. I work tech support.. I deal with people who try to tell me how to fix their computer.. I just look at them and tell them it's what I've done since I was 8 years old, I am 25 now and that it's at my desk because they broke it.
;-)

Anyway.. uhh... *shakes his fist at morons that do not understand technology but try to look savvy using it*
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by Lidge Farkley »
Lend your heart unto the divine mineral TOPAZ;
from which our reverent hearts and minds sprang.
Also Known As:  Alcoholic 007
My Page of tribes Tools and Helpful "FAQ" Stuff

12Stones

  • Minotaur Rager
  • ******
  • Posts: 967
  • Reputation: +2/-0
(No subject)
« Reply #12 on: October 3, 2006 10:10 am CDT »
Quote from: "Lidge"
*shakes his fist at morons that do not understand technology but try to look savvy using it*


Careful now..  we might have some iPod users watching..
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by 12Stones »

Quote from: "Aphex"
mmm so many different types of music, so little time.

|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ASCII FAN\\\|]

Darwin

  • Centurian Lord
  • ********
  • Posts: 6,466
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • http://www.mierda54.tripod.com
(No subject)
« Reply #13 on: October 4, 2006 12:38 pm CDT »
Quote from: "Lidge Farkley"
Anyway.. uhh... *shakes his fist at morons that do not understand technology but try to look savvy using it*


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by Darwin »



slorge_gridlock

  • Undead Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 384
  • Reputation: +0/-0
(No subject)
« Reply #14 on: October 4, 2006 05:56 pm CDT »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969 06:00 pm CST by slorge_gridlock »