DJ Cyder
Chris,
there is nothing wrong with using vob, mpeg-1, mpeg-2. The only reasons I rip to vob is the fact it rips very fast and there is no quality loss from the dvd. The side effect is the files are bigger. Personally I'd rather rip a disc in 10 minutes and give up the space then to spend 8 hours and lose quality.
there is nothing wrong with using vob, mpeg-1, mpeg-2. The only reasons I rip to vob is the fact it rips very fast and there is no quality loss from the dvd. The side effect is the files are bigger. Personally I'd rather rip a disc in 10 minutes and give up the space then to spend 8 hours and lose quality.
Posted Wed 03 Aug 05 @ 11:42 pm
mp3jrick
If you have an mpeg 1 file that is only 20mb, there is little argument that vob will look better.
Posted Thu 04 Aug 05 @ 12:12 am
yourbasicdj
Chris,
there is nothing wrong with using vob, mpeg-1, mpeg-2. The only reasons I rip to vob is the fact it rips very fast and there is no quality loss from the dvd. The side effect is the files are bigger. Personally I'd rather rip a disc in 10 minutes and give up the space then to spend 8 hours and lose quality.
Exactly. Just got word from Newegg that "Step 4: Your order contents are packaged and sealed." I should have my stuff on Friday. In the meantime I'm ripping what I can to my current drive in vob.
there is nothing wrong with using vob, mpeg-1, mpeg-2. The only reasons I rip to vob is the fact it rips very fast and there is no quality loss from the dvd. The side effect is the files are bigger. Personally I'd rather rip a disc in 10 minutes and give up the space then to spend 8 hours and lose quality.
Exactly. Just got word from Newegg that "Step 4: Your order contents are packaged and sealed." I should have my stuff on Friday. In the meantime I'm ripping what I can to my current drive in vob.
Posted Thu 04 Aug 05 @ 12:14 am
acw_dj
Thanks Rick, I'm with MPEG-1 too, it works great with VDJ. I was doing some other compress with divx to store a large number of videos in less space. In that case I have to use a 720x480 file to get a good definition of DivX6 (not VP6). It' takes 3min or less to convert an avi (900MB) or mpeg-2 file (250MB) to a 35MB file (all are aprox.). 25 videoclip are converted to divx in about 1hr.
Posted Thu 04 Aug 05 @ 1:29 am
kamakuakane
I am using DVD Decrypter 3.5.4 to transfer the vob files to my RAID. Size is of no concern, quality is what is important. I have a terabyte available just for videos.
Posted Thu 04 Aug 05 @ 8:02 am
acw_dj
Fellows,
We use mp3 or some other compress audio file for what? Anyone uses wav files instead? Maybe yes, but the main reason to use mp3 is because the file size and the good sound. We don't use 96Kbps to rip our mp3 song, I use VBR in 192 (and in some causes use 160) because I want to have the max quality and the less space (with that quality) the song would have.
It's the same in Video, but I still looking which is the best. Divx has a high video quality in less space, but not the same great audio (it's good or fair, but not as well as a 192Kbps song).
It's not the same to work with 200MB files to work with 35MB instead. It's faster and take less resources to make the job done. I agree the quality is what we are looking for, but I don't agree that quality takes 8 times more size than another which is able to visually looks the same (as many display devices are not be able to support more than 480x320 in video mode). The standard TV resolution is 320x240. The VHS resolution is greater (but TV has the same old one). DVD have 720x480 but unless you're displaying in a device which supports that resolution, you hardly notice the difference between that an a 480x320 resolution.
Could anyone tell me which is the TV resolution, the S-Video resolution and the optical resolution standard?
Because I'm not sure of all these data, and I want to learn about it.
We use mp3 or some other compress audio file for what? Anyone uses wav files instead? Maybe yes, but the main reason to use mp3 is because the file size and the good sound. We don't use 96Kbps to rip our mp3 song, I use VBR in 192 (and in some causes use 160) because I want to have the max quality and the less space (with that quality) the song would have.
It's the same in Video, but I still looking which is the best. Divx has a high video quality in less space, but not the same great audio (it's good or fair, but not as well as a 192Kbps song).
It's not the same to work with 200MB files to work with 35MB instead. It's faster and take less resources to make the job done. I agree the quality is what we are looking for, but I don't agree that quality takes 8 times more size than another which is able to visually looks the same (as many display devices are not be able to support more than 480x320 in video mode). The standard TV resolution is 320x240. The VHS resolution is greater (but TV has the same old one). DVD have 720x480 but unless you're displaying in a device which supports that resolution, you hardly notice the difference between that an a 480x320 resolution.
Could anyone tell me which is the TV resolution, the S-Video resolution and the optical resolution standard?
Because I'm not sure of all these data, and I want to learn about it.
Posted Thu 04 Aug 05 @ 7:40 pm
acw_dj
* I use 192Kbps VBR (and use 160Kbps VBR also)
Posted Thu 04 Aug 05 @ 7:58 pm
DJ Cyder
that isn't a fair comparison. For the most part wav files are not compressed at all. Dvd's are a form of mpeg-2 compression. To be more acurate what you are doing when you compress dvd video is like taking a wave and ripping it to 320kb/s and then re-encoding to 128, that is two generations of data loss.
Also The NTSC standard has a fixed vertical resolution of 525 (625 for pal)horizontal lines stacked on top of each other, with varying amounts of "lines" making up the horizontal resolution, depending on the electronics and formats involved. There are 59.94 fields displayed per second. A field is a set of even lines, or odd lines. The odd and even fields are displayed sequentially, thus interlacing the full frame. One full frame, therefore, is made of two interlaced fields, and is displayed about every 1/30 of a second.
Moving on
1080i - 1080 interlaced; one of two formats designated as high-definition television in the ATSC DTV standard, with 1,080 vertical pixels by 1,920 horizontal pixels. The i stands for interlaced, as opposed to progressive scanning, used in the second HDTV standard, 720p. Contrary to myth, 1080i is not superior to 720p; 1080i has more scanning lines but also suffers the disadvantages of interlaced scanning.
Also The NTSC standard has a fixed vertical resolution of 525 (625 for pal)horizontal lines stacked on top of each other, with varying amounts of "lines" making up the horizontal resolution, depending on the electronics and formats involved. There are 59.94 fields displayed per second. A field is a set of even lines, or odd lines. The odd and even fields are displayed sequentially, thus interlacing the full frame. One full frame, therefore, is made of two interlaced fields, and is displayed about every 1/30 of a second.
Moving on
1080i - 1080 interlaced; one of two formats designated as high-definition television in the ATSC DTV standard, with 1,080 vertical pixels by 1,920 horizontal pixels. The i stands for interlaced, as opposed to progressive scanning, used in the second HDTV standard, 720p. Contrary to myth, 1080i is not superior to 720p; 1080i has more scanning lines but also suffers the disadvantages of interlaced scanning.
Posted Fri 05 Aug 05 @ 2:22 am
acw_dj
Thanks Cyder,
And what is doing VOB?
NTSC has 525 horizontal lines but I remember that it has a 320x240 display resolution as standard. I remember also that VHS have more (lines and resolution) and DVD is the top of all. DVD is now in 720x480 (or not). My max resolution to video display (not computer or data display) is 720x480?
And what is doing VOB?
NTSC has 525 horizontal lines but I remember that it has a 320x240 display resolution as standard. I remember also that VHS have more (lines and resolution) and DVD is the top of all. DVD is now in 720x480 (or not). My max resolution to video display (not computer or data display) is 720x480?
Posted Fri 05 Aug 05 @ 4:03 am
DJ Cyder
vob would be exactly the same as dvd.
Posted Fri 05 Aug 05 @ 5:38 am
kamakuakane
I am currently using .wav and .vob files, because I do not want to sacrife quality. I have always promised my customers the best quality sound for decades. That is why I switched from vinyl to CD. I think that mp3 are of the same quality as vinyl without the snap,crackle and pop. Hard drive storage is very cheap, a terabyte can be had for under $500.
Posted Fri 05 Aug 05 @ 6:52 pm
vantinedj
Who can hook me up with a divx mpeg 4 setting for #1 dvd ripper that works well. I can't find the right combo. Mpeg 1 looks better.
Posted Fri 12 Aug 05 @ 4:58 am
In DivX 6 in HIGH DEF, HOME TEATHER mode looks and sounds good from a MPEG-2 DVD format input. But MPEG-1 looks and sound better. DivX6 looks good, but the sound it's not as good ad MPEG-1, video is fair enough (It looks much like the MPEG-1 640x480 format). You must try and then make a choice.
Posted Fri 12 Aug 05 @ 10:50 pm
acw_dj
In DivX 6 in HIGH DEF, HOME TEATHER mode looks and sounds good from a MPEG-2 DVD format input. But MPEG-1 looks and sound better. DivX6 looks good, but the sound it's not as good ad MPEG-1, video is fair enough (It looks much like the MPEG-1 640x480 format). You must try and then make a choice.
Posted Fri 12 Aug 05 @ 10:50 pm