How discerning an eye do you really have?

[Kester Pelagius]

This is just a wee bit of fun to see just how discerning an eye we all really have.

Some don't seem all that concerned about video quality while others gripe about every misplaced pixel, real or imagined.  But the real question today is: DVD or DVDr: Can you tell the difference?

Well, can you?

[ulthar]

Well, those three images are clearly different.

My conclusion below (posted in "spoiler" format to not taint the test for others):

















































Which is which I cannot say, except to say #3 was quite noticeably the highest quality (clarity and color), to me at least.

[Andrew]

If those are the exact same frame of film then #1 is the best.  #3 is cropped quite a bit.

[Ash]

I'd guess that #1 and #2 are DVr's and #3 is DVD.

[GoHawks]

I assume that by "DVDr" you mean a ripped copy of a DVD-ROM onto a DVD-R or DVD+R disc.  I shall refer to them as "DVD-R".

For source discs that are single-layer, the DVD-R should be identical.  That's what digital storage is all about..  (Also, dual-layer sources copied onto dual-layer DVD-Rs will be identical.)

For source discs that are dual-layer that have been recompressed to fit onto a single layer disc, there really are a lot of factors to consider.  Here are some that jump to mind, in no particular order:

• The (picture) quality of the source (film).  Starting with poor quality will generally lead to very poor quality copies, but high quality sources can "stand" to lose quite a bit and still be very good.
• The bitrate of the source.  If you start with a relatively high bitrate, you really have to lower the bitrate a lot before it becomes noticeable; if you start at the bottom, lowering the bitrate becomes noticeable immediately.
• The software/algorithm used to recompress.  Most software packages perform an adequate job, but obviously some are better than others and some just stink.
• The source disc.  If the source disc is dirty or has a lot of scratches, these may manifest as errors or glitches during playback.  Recompressing these discs will amplify these errors.
• The amount of recompression.  Usually, when *ahem* someone *ahem* recompresses a DVD to get it to fit onto a DVD-R, they only compress it enough to allow it to just fit onto the new disc (~4.3GB).  You can, however, shrink it even further if for example you wanted to put 2 movies onto a single disc.  This goes pretty much hand in hand with the bitrate, as a smaller file of the same movie will, by definition, have a lower bitrate.

It is important to remember that the video on the source DVD-ROM has already been compressed.  Two hours of film rate video, recorded at 720x480 in 24bpp would take up about 170GB uncompressed.  When you shrink a movie to get it to fit onto a smaller media, you are recompressing it.

To get back to the OP, the second picture is obviously lower quality and is probably from VHS.  The first and third pictures also obviously differ (and I mean other than they are slightly different frames).  The first looks "flatter" but sharper, while the third looks more colorful but blurrier to me (look at the hair).  I have to answer, "I don't know, except it's not #2."

[CheezeFlixz]

I guess it would depend on the quality of the program and the compression ratio, IF I was to copy DVD's I'd use DVD Platinum and dual layer disc and you'd get a copy you couldn't tell from the original ... that is if I did that which is hypothetical since that would be illegal. But I've heard you can't tell the copy from the original.


As for the frames shown IHMO 1 original DVD, 2 and 3 copies.

[Allhallowsday]

Well, nobody likes #2... I thought #3 was real good at a quick glance, because it had richness of color and good detail..., however, the more washed out or bleached looking #1 seems to have a slight edge in clarity, and though color is hardly as vivid, bright unobstructed sunlight will do that and it might be most accurate or "true".  GoHawks I enjoyed your lecture and didn't get too dizzy trying to ignore SNOOPY jumping up and down, though a long read!      

[GoHawks]

GoHawks I enjoyed your lecture and didn't get too dizzy trying to ignore SNOOPY jumping up and down, though a long read!      

Thank you very much.  Although I didn't really mean for my post to be a lecture, I am glad you (and hopefully others) enjoyed it regardless.  And remember, happiness is a dancing beagle.

I just wanted to add something to my bullet point about "The amount of recompression."  I have found that many commercial DVDs are padded with superfluous "extras" just to make the disc too large to fit on a single layer.  These discs typically use ~4.5-5.5 GB of space.  Recompressing these discs (so I've heard  ) usually results in a DVD-R that is indistinguishable from the source.  I mention this to distinguish those discs from the "really needs 7-8GB of space" discs which do not generally recompress as well (i.e. there may be noticeable artifacts, especially in high-bitrate scenes like explosions).

[KYGOTC]

Picture quality doesnt really bother me that much. Not as long as I can tell whats going on. I CANT STAND those blu-ray/hi-def zombies.

[Kester Pelagius]

GoHawks,

Great post.  Alas you and CheezeFlixz are quite right, without knowing more about the how the DVDr were created it's hard to make a determination about the video.  My apologies for any confusion.  I've updated the entry but, to recap, hopefully without giving it all away:

Each of the screen caps are from different video sources.

FYI: No computers were involved in the creation of the DVDRs.

[dean]

Typical, first chance I get to sneak a look at the site while I'm at work [and stealing internet  ] and one of the first things I see is a work-related question!  Can't seem to get away from the place...

I look at these things at work all the time and I can say it's MUCH easier to tell the difference when you're watching the source on a big screen Plasma/LCD.  That's where you really notice the difference between the sources.  On a regular CRT Tv it's not so noticeable but you should be able to pick it.

If I were to guess this is what I would say:


#1 and #3 are DVD, #2 is VHS.  VHS comes very fuzzy in comparison to DVD and whilst I could be wrong, my first impression told me straight away that #2 has the common VHS blur that I'm used too...

#1 seems like DVDr and #3 seems like regular DVD: the contrast ratio is quite different but it's hard to see the usual indicators through your picture you posted, which is pixelation on DVDr and sharpness, it's a little tougher.  Just based on the 'blackness' I'll say #3 is DVD, but I can't really tell 100%... I don't see why burning a dvd would add contrast, I figure it'd take the blacks away slightly. But it's a tougher one without seeing it on a proper source [ie not a small pic on my computer here at work]

The only other issue I have is like others have said already: #3 is cropped a bit more than #2 which makes it look like a Fullscreen and not a widescreen pic.  I've never seen that difference before on a burnt disc before, so that confuses me [unless it's from different copies of the same movie, that is a fullscreen vs widescreen version, which I have seen before] 

But looking at it again directly after I posted I figure they are all slightly different times of the same shot since his arm seems to be dropping down or up.

Hawks summed up the compression pretty well.  With burnt dvds the first thing to go is usually the picture quality, the second is sound.  I'd like to slap the people who come into work with a burnt dvd as a tester for picture quality/sound quality.  Especially if it's a dodgy burnt disc from Thailand or something...  That being said, they are soooo cheap... 

A filmmaker once said to me that you can usually forgive bad picture but you can never forgive bad sound, and I agree with that 100%.  Which is lucky since I sell speakers but still... 

Ah well, not long to go before work is over.  Back to it for now. Will check in again when I get the chance [or a proper connection] Shame I got caught up on this post instead of looking briefly over everything else!

[Jack]

Number 2 is somewhat blurry in the foreground and has less detail in the background, probably VHS.  Numbers 1 and 3 are nice and sharp, I can't tell the difference.  I'd prefer to watch #3 because the colors are richer, but that doesn't have anything to do with DVD vs. DVD-R, just how much attention they paid to color correction when they transferred it.  I don't know if #3 is cropped or not, none of them are precisely the same frame (look at where the guy's head is positioned against the circles in the background).

[The Burgomaster]

My tolerance for picture quality depends on what I'm watching.  If I buy a DVD of a new release, it damned well better be sharp and clear.  But I don't mind the lesser quality you find on stuff like the Mill Creek 50 movie packs because the per-movie cost is cheap and there aren't many movies in those collections that I would pay $10 or $15 or $20 for even if the quality was better (but there are a few I would pay more for).  Overall, I'm more interested in the aspect ratio.  For the most part, I'd rather have a lower quality widescreen DVD than a higher quality full frame ("formatted to fit this screen") DVD.  Of course, there aren't many widescreen movies in the Mill Creek packs (but every once in awhile I get a surprise and 2 or 3 of the movies in the pack are widescreen).  I just watched the James Brolin movie HIGH RISK (in Mill Creek's Box Office Gold 50 Movie Pack).  It was full-frame and about VHS quality, but it cost me less than 65 cents, so I'm happy.  Don't think I would have paid upwards of $10 for a sharp, widescreen copy of this anyway.

[Kester Pelagius]

Interesting results so far.  Everyone pretty much agrees the VHS source sticks out like a sore thumb but aren't certain about the other two.  However, as some have complained about certain issues with the caps, to be fair, I posted a second set of caps so you can compare between out-door and in-door lighting conditions.

To: dean, CheezeFlixz, and GoHawks I picked a scene this time I could cap as close to the same frame as possible.  I hope this meets with your bad Movie AV seal of approval.  (Good thing I really like STEEL DAWN.)

[Jack]

I still can't tell any difference between #1 an #3 except what's being caused by the difference in brightness levels.  In #3 you can see a spot on the guy's lower lip, which is too washed out to notice in #1. 

I guess I'll say #3 is the original DVD, as it's got the better color correction and I can't see somebody making DVD-Rs that looked better than the DVD's the studio produces.