Fake HD movies, myth or fact
July 25th, 2016
First of all, I did a quick search and didn’t found any topic(s) about the “fake HD” article dating from 2007-2008 written by George Ou (a Technical Director of ZDNet). The article(s) can be found at the following link:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=511
Related articles:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=959
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962
TalkBack (Verizons offers full HD):
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=43301&messageID=858800
So if you’re interested to download HD movies in the (near) future, then maybe it’s interesting to compare the offers and to find the right “Size vs Quality” download from .
Second of it, I would like to give a little word about the sites that I have mentioned in the description (TehParadox and HD-United) . A little beginning word about them: this comment has nothing to do with the quality of the movies, but TehParadox has a very rude crew if you compare them with HD-United and/or . Besides that, they dare to beg and put a 600 bucks-bar on top of their homepage. About the site itself, then a rough view shows me that 1/3 of the topics has a very bad description about the movies (no specs), and if you ask the poster… watch your back for TehPredators aka TehParadox crew… RAWR… Next to that, the uploaders of HD-United are the encoders itself, which is a big plus, and the threads are very professional.
The technical reason behind those 2 sites is because “TehParadox” has releases with a higher bitrate, and “HD-United” releases with a lower bitrate, and I can’t compare “” since this site:
– doesn’t have a HD-subforum (yet)
– offers every type of HD-bitrates
Third point of this topic is the comparing part. Lets compare the ZDNet article with a few samples we took and drag those 2 sites in our comparison willingly or unwillingly. It’s up to you to choose, and you can check the details of the sample you download in Super:
http://www.erightsoft.com/
Or in GomPlayer:
http://www.gomlab.com/
► For this comparison we have cut 2 exactly identical parts from 2 movies with grafic effects. The following scene is from Iron Man, and it has a bitrate of 5,356 Kbps encoded by SEPTiC, which you can download from this link (24.08 mb):
http://www.~ Dead file host ~/?d=HHU5KUOF
► Compare it with the following sample with a bitrate of 3,074 Kbps encoded by AsCo which you can download from the following link (13.89 mb):
http://www.~ Dead file host ~/?d=84R8ZFUC
→ The (full) movie has a bitrate of resp. 4,229 Kbps (4.37 GB) and resp. 2,249 Kbps (2.36 GB).
► The second scene is from Batman, The Dark Knight with a bitrate of 5,754 Kbps, which I have downloaded from encoded by SiNNeRS, uploaded by KenReaves (73.93 mb):
http://www.~ Dead file host ~/?d=01DRL3XE
Note: The 73.93mb-scene has a little error @ 20sec, I’ll update soon the scene without error.
► Compare it with the following scene with a bitrate of 2,349 Kbps encoded by AsCo (30.07 mb):
http://www.~ Dead file host ~/?d=FHKJFRSJ
→ The (full) movie has a bitrate of resp. 5,691 Kbps (7.91 GB) and resp. 2,189 Kbps (3.07 GB).
Note that the part that is cut out of the full movie, has a higher bitrate because of the action that the sample holds (which explanes the higher bitrate).
Another thing what I compared was some screens from TehParadox with screens from HD-United, and there is so far as the eye can see not really a difference. And a last comparison is the comparison between ripped HD-movies with BluRay’s. I’m downloading atm AVPR 720p from HD-United, I want to compare that with the AVPR BluRay version. I’ll update this topic later. Info about the version AVPR I’m downloading:
http://hd-united.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1824
Feel free to give your own opinion about the quality and the comparisons you did between BluRay’s and ripped HD movies.
To conclude this topic, I searched on HD-United for some feedback about their ripping method, and this is what I found:
United have settled on around 2300kbps for a 720p movie (in 2.4:1). I guess you could call this their ‘sweet spot’ if you want, after many releases, experimentation and feedback, that is what some encoders have chosen as a starting point when doing a 720p encode.
we had started with 1600-1800though the encodes looked great and the screencaps were brilliant, when played on a 1080p monitor or tv it looked very bad
so the main concern was not how it looks as 720p but how it will look at 1080phttp://www.hd-united.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2150And as you would guess I don’t have any feedback from TehParadox.
So the final conclusion is, who wants to download a movie thats twice or thrice as big as the one with a bitrate of 2000 Kbps and he doesn’t notice a difference?
MOVED TO [OFFTOPIC – SERIOUS DISCUSSION]:
http://www.google.com?t=2889970Grtz,
While visually there might be difference there’s usually a bigger difference in audio.
While visually there might be difference there’s usually a bigger difference in audio.I agree with , the 720p encodes have very good video quality. Equal to that of the original 720p releases. You don’t see the difference. And the audio is of good quality too, no difference aswell. Although the bitrate is almost half: 384 KBps vs. 640 KBps. Both 6 channels sound.
So I recommend the 720p re-encodes over the original 720p releases.
The main article from ZDNet written by George Ou (a Technical Director of ZDNet) is about the visual. He tries to compare the “fake” one with a “real one” on the following link (it’s the same one as the 3rd link in my 1st post – literally and figuratively):
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962