Is there really a difference in quality between ISO files vs

>>4370185
The higher quality is definitely the one on the left. There's also noticeable chromatic aberration on the image on the right compared to the one on the left.

>>4370185
Look how some of the hairs have been turned grey to save bitrate on the one on the right. Also notice the clarity between the strands on the left compared to the right.

>>4370189

Yea, that was the iso version. I guess I am blind.

>>4370185
Hate to be that person but source?

>>4370210
dark shell

>>4370185
The main goal of an encode is to make it exactly look like the source but with a lower bitrate.

>>4370240
It was really hard to tell the difference between the two. Does that mean it's just very well encoded?

>>4370191
that is not bitrate starvation, that is bona fide chroma shift by the look of it.

generally speaking, the worse thing about rips is getting warpsharp and shit filters like that. You never know how retarded the encoder is, even for a new show that would not need filtering. It takes a bit of spotting.
Old encodes will have huge bitrate starvation artifacts, and divx/xvid era detail loss from shit smoothing filters.

Well done rip is safe to take over ISO though, particularly when you would have to fisrt IVTC it.

>>4370212
Fucked shit. Some guy in dorms had that, I gave up on him as a person after seeing it from his shared(!) folder.

>>4370185
You got some shitty scene to compare. The color on the whole picture is so bland, doesn't change much and also have a bloom effect. You'd see a better difference on a more colored scene/animation.

>>4370241
did you miss that the chroma information is displaced to the right, by few pixels? look at he colors on the cock

>>4370212
man this shit is dark as hell

like seriously, just horrible death and rape everywhere. guess it's nice to be reminded that i'm a normal human being every now and then