Why do people collect DVDs?

[Jzero]

<< IAt the moment, I am waiting on my DVDs for Macross -- TV show I watched as a child. >>


HA-HA!
/me already has them.

 

[pulse8]

<< Ever heard of TV-out? >>



Sounds to me like someone's doing something just because they can. I find it very hard to believe that the quality is the same as a DVD through a set-top player.

 

[voodooguy]

<< And how many people like to sit at a computer to watch a movie? >>



I have a nearly silent mediabox under my TV.

I built it myself.

It plays DivX.

It has a remote control.

It has Linux MAME.

With 4 USB controllers.

It has all my mp3's on a 60 gig HD.

It is a tiny cube case (twice the height of a CD) and takes a mATX mobo.

I spent less than $500 to build it.

 

[StageLeft]

I find it very hard to believe that the quality is the same as a DVD through a set-top player

Trust me, it's not nearly as good DivX is pretty impressive but a movie on an 80 CD simply does not look nearly as good as a DVD.

 

[voodooguy]

<< DivX is pretty impressive but a movie on an 80 CD simply does not look nearly as good as a DVD. >>



You obviously have no understanding of DivX.

DVD's are encoded in MPEG 2. DivX is MPEG 4. They are completely different codecs. MPEG 4 allows for far better compression than MPEG 2.

Let me ask you this. Can a 100kb JPEG file look as good as a 1 megabyte BMP file, of the same image, at the same resolution? The answer in 99% of all cases is a resounding yes.

 

[MikeO]

<< I find it very hard to believe that the quality is the same as a DVD through a set-top player. >>



It's not the same because it's compressed, doh! But it's close, it can be really really close and it's much much MUCH better than VHS that I've been watching all my life.

 

[MikeO]

<< Trust me, it's not nearly as good DivX is pretty impressive but a movie on an 80 CD simply does not look nearly as good as a DVD. >>



And that's why they usually use 2 x 80min CD's, 1 CD rip's are not so close to DVD but 2 CD's are.

 

[kami]

voodooguy...i guess just some people like me are more picky than other people (like you) about quality. to me audio is more important than video...if divx ever supports true 5.1 dolby digital and dts without quality loss i may consider it

 

[gogeeta13]

<< voodooguy...i guess just some people like me are more picky than other people (like you) about quality. to me audio is more important than video...if divx ever supports true 5.1 dolby digital and dts without quality loss i may consider it >>



Dont SVCDs do 5.1?

 

[Murphyrulez]

I watch DVD's through my computer, RGB out of the VGA cable hooked into a front screen projector. DTS digital audio.

I buy DVD's, even if I think I might only watch them once, because if I have people over, they will have a choice of what they can watch. And on the 8 foot projection screen, my movies look VERY good.

Anyone living in the Detroit area, feel free to come on over and we'll have a movie night...

Paul

 

[Kev]

kami: the divx codec only handles the video. the mp3 codec is used for audio. but it is possible to have ac3 sound with divx movies.

 

[Atlantean]

I collect dvd's because I love movies.

 

[MikeO]

<< to me audio is more important than video... if divx ever supports true 5.1 dolby digital and dts without quality loss i may consider it >>



DivX movies can have AC3 sound, but groups rarely use it because it takes too much space. But releases with AC3 sound do exist.

 

[voodooguy]

<< if divx ever supports true 5.1 dolby digital and dts without quality loss i may consider it >>



Actually DivX has nothing to do with audio. DivX is a video codec. It is synchronized with an audio stream, encoded with the audio codec of your choice.

Most DivX movies these days are released with DivX v3.11 video stream and 128kbps mp3 audio stream. This provides reasonable quality, and is mostly done because people are used to encoding movies with this combination. More and more people are moving onto a combination of DivX v4.11 and 192kbps mp3 audio streams, which provides superb quality. I have seen rips with Windows Audio and Ogg Vorbis audio streams. The video is completely independent from the audio stream, and it doesn't matter what audio codec you use as long as you sync the two together properly.

The reason that DivX movies do not have 5.1 sound is because none of the available perceptual audio codecs have a way to encode 5.1 sound, at least not automatically. There is simply no demand for it. Most people are happy with stereo because that is what they had with VHS and in most instances that is all they have with DVD as well. If someone works out a way to encode 5.1 mp3, for instance, it would be easy as pie to re-rip the audio track of the DVD in 5.1 and re-sync it with the previously ripped DivX video track.

 

[DanJ]

Because I love movies.

 

[kami]

<< Actually DivX has nothing to do with audio. DivX is a video codec. It is synchronized with an audio stream, encoded with the audio codec of your choice.
>>


I know that...i've encoded divx files many times.
I just say "divx" when referring to ripped movies like that, regardless of audio. guess i should've been more specific

 

[mackdawgson]

If you think about it DVD's are probably one of the best things that you can collect from a value/enjoyment standpoint. People spend thousands of dollars collecting art, stamps, rare toys, coins, etc. What can you do with these? Nothing but stare at them.

With DVD's I can:

1) Watch movies as the director intended with the best possible picture and sound.
2) With the extras I can learn about the movie making process, see/hear what goes on behind the scenes, etc...etc...
3) Watch the damn thing as many times as I want without diminishing the quality of it.

Not bad for a $10 - $20 investment

I'd list some other points but I'm kind of sleepy right now

 

[Kurupshin]

If u ask me collectin DVD's is a waste. You would be much better financially if you rented them. This isn't a DVD/VHS debate. Its a why do you spend money on DVD's when you know you aren't getting you $ out of it.

 

[jamison]

In my mind, there is no reason to buy a DVD. Renting is good though, you get all of the features and only give $3 instead of $10+. I have yet to see a DVD worth watching twice.

 

[edjam]

For my home theatre, duh.

 

[Atlantean]

how do you know that we aren't going to get our money out of it? if you watch a movie you bought 4 times you have gotten your money out of it. I lend my movies to friends all the time, so they are getting enjoyment out of it too.

 

[Kurupshin]

<<

You obviously have no understanding of DivX.

DVD's are encoded in MPEG 2. DivX is MPEG 4. They are completely different codecs. MPEG 4 allows for far better compression than MPEG 2.

Let me ask you this. Can a 100kb JPEG file look as good as a 1 megabyte BMP file, of the same image, at the same resolution? The answer in 99% of all cases is a resounding yes. >>



Sorry, but this is an extremely bad comparison. One reason is the fact that you are compressing a compressed format. So Divx doesn't look near as good as DVD, unless you go for super high quality and then you get only about 1/3 compression. If you encoded raw film into MPEG-4 it would be awesome, but you can't do that, at least with DVD's. I have tons of Divx movies, but I only watch them to see if the movie is good. If I like it, then I go out and buy it. Too bad the RIAA/MPAA won't hear of such things. Next thing you know, they will make movies only to be able to be played on one player.

 

[Nefrodite]

As for DivX being "lower quality" you obviously haven't seen a recent rip with automatic two-pass DivX v4.11 and mp3 at 192kbps.

It is indistinguishable from the DVD. And it barely fills an 80 min CD.

oh come on, you are either running really lousy dvd software, really lousy dvd player, really lousy tv, really lousy monitor to even make that comparison. I've encoded my fair share of two pass 3.11 or 4.12 divx with vrb mp3 so i don't have to jack up the audio that high which is a massive waste since video quality is so much more noticable then audio on a divx. There is NO comparison, especially for a 1 cd rip, even if you crank it to 730mb overburning. at 3 cd rips you start getting pretty nice results, but its just not worth it. your still degrading your original image by recompression, you lose your special featuers which sometimes really kick ass, you lose commentary(yes you can add a low bitrate track but it sounds like crap and eats into bitrate for the divx). some dvds have seamless branching, or links within the movie to special featuers etc, all gone with divx. with divx you end up with the functionality of SVHS ...good enough for little thieves, but not real quality at all. After all, its your time your wasting watching crap not worth even renting apparently

as for why buy? well if theres a great release of your favorite movie, thats a good reason. a lso if you can't find the dvd at those mega chain rentals.. which has piss poor selection. i still mostly rent


as for what divx might be good for? maybe hd dvd-rw unless they make a massive jump in capacity..course processing hdtv into hd divx would require some serious processing power. gah.

 

[voodooguy]

<< Sorry, but this is an extremely bad comparison. One reason is the fact that you are compressing a compressed format. >>



Here's a better comparison. Take a wave file and compress it to a 320kbps mp3 file. Then take that mp3 file and compress it to a 192kbps mp3 file. Technically, of course, the 320kbps mp3 file sounds "better" than the 192kbps file, but you would be hard pressed to find 1 person in 100 that can tell the difference.

The same is the case with DivX and DVD.

 

[voodooguy]

<< with divx you end up with the functionality of SVHS ...good enough for little thieves, but not real quality at all. >>



Did you just insult everyone who uses SVHS and is happy enough with it?

Cable TV is SVHS quality also. Do you watch cable TV? Are you a thief?