http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/6888
:blink:
Printable View
More importantly or at least having more point .
Of varying quality but on the whole largely over-hyped
Attachment 60098
Better
Attachment 60097
That's pretty impressive. But I'm not sure how a compressed encode could be of better quality than the original source it was actually encoded from. At least not unless the software video player used for taking the screenshot was using lower quality filters or renderers or that it had something to do with the videocard. I've seen plenty of cases where certain videos or videotypes look worse or better in one player than another. Otherwise I'm not quite sure how that could happen. And I assume the blu-ray is the original source because I don't know what else it could have been encoded from.
Perhaps use of filters during the encode process? Seems it may have been sharpened - some of the edges dont look natural. Hard to tell with just screenies. Not much of a fan of sharpening - think it was imagine or flawless that went bezerk with it... made movement look aweful, but still scene incredible.
The maximum resolutions that film currently offers are 2485×2970 or 1420×3390 (Couldn't remember the exacts, took that off wikipedia). IMAX is even larger. Bluray is still a compressed format. One of the places I worked we had a networked storage server for raw video data, before editing, and it was multi terabyte. Some company over in Japan is trying to put out Ultra HD at 7680×4320. I don't think that will make it into your home any time soon though. I think it was invented for larger stadium signs and billboards.
But back to my point, Bluray was great when it came out and of course there will be new and improved tech that will give you a little better picture quality. Will the average Jo watching his new bluray hooked up to his 37 in vizio from walmart be able to tell the difference? No. But, there are more and more of us who have our computers hooked to out tv's and we can enjoy the benefits of the latest technology.
And I do have one question for the poster. Where would you get a FASM copy of a movie? If you are just re-encoding a blu, why not just stick bluray? wouldn't you need access to the original source to make the best compression reproduction possible?
FASM is a release group; lots of their releases on TorrentLeech. I'm certain it's just had a sharpening filter applied: have a looksy - http://neuron2.net/msharpen/msharpen.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by cleptomaniac
Obviously blu-ray is quite compressed, but that's likely the only source these movies are encoded from, which is why I phrased my post that way. All the comparison pics in the original post didn't look to me at the time like it was just from a sharpening filter, especially some of the detailed things like the different sets of hair etc, but I'm not as knowledgeable as others so I'll take your word for it. I would also note that there's a huge difference between animation like in that latest link vs real objects/people and photography. But it still probably makes more sense than any other option though because nothing else really fits, so I'm sure you're right.
FASM = flat assembler, right?
No. They're a release group.Quote:
Originally Posted by heiska
Sharpening is meant to bring out the detail, but it only really works in still (motion less) scenes.
They're a release group, but they at least partially got their name from the assembler tool. I believe they make reference to it in all their release notes. I'm not sure if they actually used it for their encoding process or to write a program that they use for encoding, or if it's just more of a moniker only.
actually, the phasm is an insect that makes its own body the stage set in which he hides.Quote:
Originally Posted by heiska
http://www.phasmes.com/images/phylli.../Dcp_1356b.jpg
So much grain lost. :(