HD Quality

[The_wand_mirror]

So i have downloaded two versions of the LOTR (Lord of the rings) trilogy.

One is at 8 GB per movie and in .mkv claiming to be 720p and the other is 4 GB per movie in .mp4 format claiming to be 1080p

I already looked up some information about h264 and x264 but it turns out that this has little to nothing to do with quality as their both related but are both a complete different eh... part. At least from what i understood.

So it's really hard to see if one is of better quality than the other because they both look pretty nice but i still got the feeling that the 8 GB one's look better. Anyone have any experience with this.

Could've bought the original bluray box but i don't have a bluray player so that would be almost 100 euros only for that.

EDIT - May have to reconsider that, the .mp4 one actually looks a tad bit better because it's at a 1920*800 resolution (not real hd i believe is it, kinda weird numbers but very high quality nonetheless). But i don't get what they have done with the thing, because i have the feeling it's just somekind of upscaled and compressed version of an original 1080 or maybe even a 720? I don't really have a lot of knowledge of how these things work when you're really going to purely judge it from image quality.

The thing being that the 720p looks a little less sharp than the other, but the 1080p one's are so darn small!!

 

[Dr Super Good]

because it's at a 1920*800 resolution

Its not 1080p then. 1080p is the defination for 1920*1080 at atleast 30 frames per second. The funny resolution though can be explained by the stupid black bars at the top and bottom of movies because movie companies are too retarded to make a film use the whole full screen. Watching a DVD of the last harry potter movie for example meant you had this tiny bar across the screen which was the film, lazy movie companies.

The 4 GB might look sharper at still motion due to higher pixels. The 8 GB might have better audio and sharper motion (as if LotR has any of that anyway). They might also have different audio streams, like surround sound so do check. Eithor way you are probably missing out on a lot of quality as a blu-ray should be 25-50 GB approximatly.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

Yeah i was downloading a 80GB one before but it was going way to slow.

 

[The_wand_mirror]

I've read some threads on other forums about different compression of these things. Seems they somehow keep almost the same quality but at able to get much lower filesizes. I have already watched all of them and i found the picture quality to be very sharp. So...

 

[Gilles]

You can't keep the quality when you compress, that's the whole point of compression, smaller file size. It may still look good but not as good as prior to compression.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Be aware that unless your display has a native resolution of 1080p or higher, you will not be able to see all the details anyway. The compression might loose some information, like colour depth, contrast or even just high frequency visuals.

Additionally, a lot of content is probably cut. This includes extra Blu-ray features, languages, and probably the ultra high quality surround sound.

The only real way is to test the full 80 GB side by side with the reduced version, comparing surround sound (you probably need an orignal for this due to DRM), image quality and content.

Remember that it will logically look sharper than a DVD as it is a lot higher resolution so stationarry footage will look a lot better. However, when action occurs the compression might cause a major reduction in image quality due to the high compression used. Ofcourse it is watchable but do not think it is as good as the orignal.