Torrents looking bad

>>87462122
I never download a blu ray encode that's less than 15gb

>>87462384
yea this

>>87462122
Why do people like you need high definition so badly?

Even 720p is overkill and not worth the amount of space it takes up. I strictly like 480p.

Being able to see hair follicles isn't necessary at all for understanding the plot any better. Am I wrong?

Maybe your monitor is shit?

>>87462559
No, man. Real blu-rays look beautiful.

>>87462559
There are 720p rips available in perfectly reasonable file sizes.

>>87462604
It's certainly low-end but blu-rays and even some DVDs look great and sharp.

>>87462676
Still, not worth it when you can have 480p at half the file size.

>>87462758
But 480p (amateur) downconversion looks awful

File: 1485479556017.jpg (33KB, 200x200px)

33KB, 200x200px

>>87462758
why not download in highest quality?
its so nice to have a sharp picture

>>87462814
I really don't know anything on the topic, and sorry to be pedantic, but what do you mean by amateur? For example, when a show at 480p comes out literally seconds after it's done airing, it's obviously done by a computer, not a human.

>>87462941
720p is sharp enough for me. Also, I have a data cap. Maybe you don't but I do. And I like being able to download things fast.

>>87462122
Download a raw br/dvdrip and encode your own.

>>87462122
1080p blu-rays rips need to be at least 8gb to not look like shit

>>87463107
>>87462384
Those sizes are really arbitrary but a good rule of thumb. You can get very high quality encodes a little smalelr than that, depends on the sound channels you need. There's also a few math optimizations in the codecs you can exploit to skimp and save here and there. Most encoders are YIFY tier with bigger filesize budgets.

>>87463169
>YIFY tier

You mean *the* luxury standard of encodes? Yeah right man

>>87462559
You have the right idea, but generally, you can't say that the resolution is wrong. It can be an improvement sometimes, seeing as they can change the overall color correction of the film.

For older films especially, this can matter a lot, specifically if they actually re-scan the film negatives, and not just touch up the film digitally or upscale it.

>>87463287
I guess color isn't important to me at all. Only reason I could think of anyone needing an image that HD would be to screenshot a certain scene for a magazine or make a billboard to put on the side of a building or something.

>>87463462
>not demanding the absolute highest quality screenshot to attach to shitposts
>laughing_24gb_png.gif

>>87462559
>Am I wrong?
Yes. "muh plot". Kill yourself.

File: thegame.gif (2MB, 236x224px)

2MB, 236x224px

>>87463542
>muh pixels is more important than muh plot

File: Untitled.jpg (1MB, 3584x1480px)

1MB, 3584x1480px

>>87463462
>color isn't important to me at all

How is that not important at all in a medium that relies immensely on visual?

Pic related. On the left you have ghost busters which has a very subtle color correction difference to it. The 2009 Blu Ray makes the scene look "colder", with skin that doesn't look as flushed. On the right, you have a much bigger difference. You have the DVD version on the left and the blu ray on the right. The blu ray takes away a lot of the saturation.

>>87463607
It actually is. You want plot go read a book. Film is foremost a visual medium.

File: REALLY.jpg (851KB, 2696x1092px) Image search: [Google]

851KB, 2696x1092px

>>87463607
This is the kind of opinion that has caused film to take a nose-dive in quality of cinematography and camera-work.

Citizen Kane has depth in the scene. It juxtaposes characters using shadow and angle to show distance and importance, it effectively creates an atmosphere of intensity that grows as you look at it. A masterpiece.

Then we have this abomination on the right, The Great Gatsby...Flat....Static...Lacking in any real focus. The character fails to stand out in the environment he's in, and not due to any sort of thematic elements present in the film, with the positioning of the camera assuming of the viewer to know the character, which we don't. It fails to pull us into the film or make us want to keep watching.

>>87462955
Most media right now is done in 1080p or 4K (uncompressed). They use professional video compressors that can process 2TB of raw video data in order to reduce the file size for broadcast (25GB) or 50GB for blu-ray.

For torrents, the "rippers" don't use a state-of-the-art video processing program and the downconversion from 25GB or 50GB 1080p to 1.25GB 480p is done fast with little error correction and little pixel analysis.

File: interdasting.jpg (34KB, 550x421px)

34KB, 550x421px

>>87463692
That's pretty damn cool. Have you seen both versions? Did new characters appear and other subplots form from the variation of the color that ultimately changed the outcome of the film?

It's amazing that slightly changing the color basically creates parallel universes.

>>87464141
Yeah, they do. The only thing "professional" video compressors do is that they use (probably multiple pass) hardware compression which is way way way faster and probly leaves a lot of high quality presets. Software encoding has scales for shit you can turn down and is pretty fucking slow. You can do everything the same in software though, just slower. Pixel analysis is another setting. You can do 100% RGB where every single picture is 100% accurate to the capture, it doesn't compress well.

>>87464250
>Did new characters appear and other subplots form from the variation of the color that ultimately changed the outcome of the film

No, why would I give a shit about any of that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSfFHxyYJJA

>>87463006
I get distracted by extreme pixelization, especially in low light/high movement shots. it looks bad but viable at 720p, I have no idea how you tolerate 480p. trees blowing in the wind look like a screen of flickering green boxes. are you watching on a phone/ipad?

>>87464590
That's an encoding artifact not related to resolution or color depth but rather bitrate/compression.

File: 402551927.jpg (364KB, 1909x1431px)

364KB, 1909x1431px

>>87464590
>I have no idea how you tolerate 480p. trees blowing in the wind look like a screen of flickering green boxes. are you watching on a phone/ipad?

I have two monitors, but I can't seem to concentrate on tv/film while I'm shitposting at the same time, glancing back and forth, so I keep it all on one screen. I guess in the end quality doesn't really matter when what I'm watching is taking up like 1/4 of my screen.

>>87464650
sure, but the same artifacts are made more apparent when you enlarge something encoded at 480p to the size of 1080p.

>>87464894
Encoding from another encode is absolutely haram anyway. It'll be exponentially worse.

>>87464733
lmao. trolling or not, you've laid some good bait there my friend, expect a lot of (you)s. 480p sounds perfect for you.

>>87464733
I bet you like the films of Wes Anderson.

>>87464993
on a related note, x265 encodes are fucking godly in comparison to similar sized x264, can't wait for more people to start using it. not getting my hopes up since shitters are still encoding with fucking XviD.

>>87464996
:)
I like these kinds of threads because slowly and surely I learn a little bit each time. Though, I'm not kidding, I do only get 480p for the size reason and that I keep the window small and to the side while I watch it.

I am trolling on the importance of color though ever since the Man of Steel /tv/ fiasco, and completely get it.

In the end, what I sacrifice in HD (which I give two shits about) I make up in the fact that my primary tv/film collection in 480p only takes up three 2tb hdds (plus another 3 for backup)

So, all you people that care about picture quality, you download 12GB for every movie? You all have expensive 10mbps internet? How do you manage hard drive space?

>>87465288
>10mbps
Like 75~ is high-average? But 12GB should be maybe a slightly cleaned up BR-rip not an encoded movie filesize.

>>87465288
Yes

>>87465288
>watch movie
>delete it if it's mediocre, or good but you doubt you'll watch it again
>download again later if needed

>>87465190
>the importance of color

Color doesn't intrinsically matter, what matters is how its used, which is why a lot of Black and White films are visually more appealing than even the most colorful Marvel films.

I usually aim for about 3-5 GBs
x265 if its available

>>87465737
I just don't know x265 like I know x264. I can tune an x264 encode exactly where I want it. It's good shit though, if you can find anything that supports it easily.
>tfw recompiling ffmpeg for the 4th time this week

>>87465737
For what? A 2 hour film or 20 minute show?

>>87465288
meh, I get by with 2-4gb rips. I'm sure I'll regret it if I get a good TV. quality rips are for future proofing, I don't want to archive versions of stuff I like that will look terrible in 10 years. I already experienced that with chinese VCDs from 20 years ago - great compared to VCR quality, absolutely shit when compared to DVD rips. also this >>87465554, I only keep stuff I've enjoyed and would revisit. 6TB of 480p stuff is a shit ton of media, what are you keeping? everything?

>>87465810
film

>>87465862
>6TB of 480p stuff is a shit ton of media, what are you keeping? everything?
Pretty much. I won't delete like you and the other guy, I hoard for posterity. (Not to mention shows that /tv/ swears by, only to find they suck after s01e01 and I've already downloaded the whole series)