# program to convert DVD to 1080p??



## DrGreenThumb (Feb 1, 2008)

Hi fellas

Ive seen versions of lord of the rings trilogy in 1080p [1920x800]

LOTR- The Return of the King (ExtEd) HD 1080P Xvid AC3.avi

"This is notoriously one of the best HD conversions done yet, where the resolution was nearly tripled and yet there was no sacrifice in the quality of the picture (compared to standard DVD resolutions"

I own all the LOTR dvd's ,is it possible to do this my self with a program?  or is this a alltogether new format

appreciate help


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 1, 2008)

You can't add more detail. Those HD versions aren't DVD rips.


----------



## DrGreenThumb (Feb 1, 2008)

"This is notoriously one of the best HD conversions done yet"

so what did they convert it from?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 1, 2008)

DrGreenThumb said:


> "This is notoriously one of the best HD conversions done yet"
> 
> so what did they convert it from?



A HD source? Blu ray, HD-DVD, etc.


----------



## DrGreenThumb (Feb 1, 2008)

i c thx


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 1, 2008)

uh, the lord of the rings has yet to be released in HD so im not sure how anyone could have ripped it. there may be tv rips at 720p but i doubt they will be even close to the quality of a true HD rip.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> uh, the lord of the rings has yet to be released in HD so im not sure how anyone could have ripped it. there may be tv rips at 720p but i doubt they will be even close to the quality of a true HD rip.


Hasn't been released here, but who's to say it isn't either released elsewhere, or a flat-out insider leaked copy.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2008)

You can't add detail.  You can't take a 720x480 source, and increase the resolution to 1920x1080 and expect it to look better.

It doesn't work with still images, try it with a picture and you will see, and it won't work with movies either.

Thats why upscaling DVD players are so gimmicky, they don't improve the picture one bit because the source still looks like crap.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 1, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Hasn't been released here, but who's to say it isn't either released elsewhere, or a flat-out insider leaked copy.



well it hasnt been released at all anywhere in the entire world. now it could be an insider leaked copy but i highly doubt it since the movie studio has just switched to blu-ray and hasnt even started the process of encoding it in HD. i have a feeling this HD rip he is talking about is low quality scat porn.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> You can't add detail.  You can't take a 720x480 source, and increase the resolution to 1920x1080 and expect it to look better.
> 
> It doesn't work with still images, try it with a picture and you will see, and it won't work with movies either.
> 
> Thats why upscaling DVD players are so gimmicky, they don't improve the picture one bit because the source still looks like crap.


You're wrong, well comparatively. Upscaling players do increase image quality on DVDs. The player's scaling engine does a much better job than the TV's in almost all cases. Did you ever plug a non-upscaling DVD player into an HDTV? I have, and it isn't pretty. lol. All kinds of scaling artifacts and blocking. Upscaling players basically use anti-aliasing to achieve a better looking picture. While it doesn't actually increase detail, it most certainly reduces picture artifacts, and therefore looks better.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2008)

If you have a crappy HDTV that doesn't properly scale.  All mine do just fine at the various SD resolutions.  And all the upscaling does is make the picture look blurry, which is exactly the opposite of what people want.  Upscalling DVD players do not increase the picture quality one bit, I have both hooked up to my HDTV right now and it doesn't matter which one I use, they both look identical.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> well it hasnt been released at all anywhere in the entire world. now it could be an insider leaked copy but i highly doubt it since the movie studio has just switched to blu-ray and hasnt even started the process of encoding it in HD. i have a feeling this HD rip he is talking about is low quality scat porn.


Considering the same Codec can be used on both formats, it isn't that far-fetched, and it certainly wouldn't be the first (or last) time it happened.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 1, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Considering the same Codec can be used on both formats, it isn't that far-fetched, and it certainly wouldn't be the first (or last) time it happened.



im saying they havnt even thought about putting the movie out in HD at all. they havnt begun the process of that. if there would be a leak at 1080p then it would have to be done by a handful of people with access to the film print and then the authorities would obviously know who did it. ive seen a 720p movie on television and it looks like an upconverted dvd.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> im saying they havnt even thought about putting the movie out in HD at all. they havnt begun the process of that.


That's not what I've heard. But then again, I don't work at the company, so I can't confirm anything.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 1, 2008)

Wile E said:


> That's not what I've heard. But then again, I don't work at the company, so I can't confirm anything.



i would have heard if new line cinema had announced they were planning a release for LOTR. it may not be out of the realm of possibility, but i would eat my hat if there is an actual 1080p copy of this series floating around on the internet.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 1, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> If you have a crappy HDTV that doesn't properly scale.  All mine do just fine at the various SD resolutions.  And all the upscaling does is make the picture look blurry, which is exactly the opposite of what people want. Upscalling DVD players do not increase the picture quality one bit, I have both hooked up to my HDTV right now and it doesn't matter which one I use, they both look identical.


Not comparitively to an non-upscaling player. I've played around with dozens of different models of HDTVs in both 720p and 1080p flavors. On every single set, the upscaled DVD looks better than a non-upscaled one. Yes, some TVs have better scaling engines than others, but none of them compare to the standalone upscaling DVD players. So, no, the upscaling player doesn't add detail, but it sure as hell looks better than feeding the TV a straight SD signal.

If it looks the same to you, you either have the most amazing scaling TV on the planet, or you need glasses.


----------



## DrGreenThumb (Feb 2, 2008)

apparently LOTR is from a blu ray source,odd you say its not been officially released,ive also seen the starwars trilogy {Ep I,II,III} in 1080p

And when i say seen i mean floating around net 

heres a sample for you to decide whats up *Sample or not, I consider it warez*
oh yer one LOTR movie weighs in at 7.85GB fyi


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2008)

Wile E said:


> You're wrong, well comparatively. Upscaling players do increase image quality on DVDs. The player's scaling engine does a much better job than the TV's in almost all cases. Did you ever plug a non-upscaling DVD player into an HDTV? I have, and it isn't pretty. lol. All kinds of scaling artifacts and blocking. Upscaling players basically use anti-aliasing to achieve a better looking picture. While it doesn't actually increase detail, it most certainly reduces picture artifacts, and therefore looks better.



my nintendo wii had that, until i got component cables for it. DEFINATELY not pretty (constant blocky artifacts around objects, particularly the cursor)

as for those talking about stuff floating around: lots of is idiots doing thigns wrong.

Some people grab a 480p file and stretch it into a 1080p file. it looks no better and takes up a lot more space - but people will download and watch it, because they want 'better'

Example: how many people get a 700MB avi file, and burn it to a DVD - in DVD format. a 700MB file becomes 4.3GB and because DVD is better than avi, some people will claim the quality is up 'its bigger so its better'.

I saw online a 1080p copy of a movie, 8GB - obviously wrong, as the disks are over 15GB for this movie. Then i saw *drumroll* the 720P version.... at 12GB. I wonder which file was fake? lol.


----------



## Hitsugaya_Toushirou (Feb 2, 2008)

Well, I'm not here to argue if there is a 1080p LOTR or not but I'll answer the question in the title for anyone else who might come and read this thread.

In a situation where you have an original DVD Video:
If you know how to use command line and you don't need a GUI then all you'll need is:
Any DirectShow MPEG2 decoder
AviSynth
x264
Nero Digital Audio AAC
mkvmerge

If you need a GUI then get K-Lite Codec Pack OR CCCP (contains MPEG2 decoder as well) and StaxRip OR MeGUI and don't get x264, Nero Digital Audio AAC and mkvmerge since StaxRip and MeGUI downloads them for you. (You still need AviSynth)

Or if you want an all-in-one program with a simple few clicks but limited settings and options then get something like MediaCoder.


The above utilities will allow you to convert a DVD Video to a H.264 Video with AAC Audio in an mkv container. (You choose the resolution if you want it to be 1080p or not since thats your decision)
Just note that once it's in this format it won't be recognised by a DVD player anymore but i'm assuming you know that.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2008)

Hitsugaya_Toushirou said:


> Well, I'm not here to argue if there is a 1080p LOTR or not but I'll answer the question in the title for anyone else who might come and read this thread.
> 
> In a situation where you have an original DVD Video:
> If you know how to use command line and you don't need a GUI then all you'll need is:
> ...



That only changes it to an x264 file though. It doesnt raise the quality, or change it to 1080p (it can only 'stretch to fit')


----------



## Hitsugaya_Toushirou (Feb 2, 2008)

Mussels said:


> That only changes it to an x264 file though. It doesnt raise the quality, or change it to 1080p (it can only 'stretch to fit')



Well, yes it doesn't change it to true 1080p but you could stretch it as you said and then you can put it through filters in AviSynth to smooth the image and make it appear better quality... Also H.264 video is much better than MPEG2 that in some cases some say that the quality has "increased" (As long as you use appropriate options during the transcode to give a sense of higher quality for that specific video by using different algorithms at different sections of the movie)... Also the file will be much much smaller... 4GB to like 500MB with no loss in quality.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2008)

Hitsugaya_Toushirou said:


> Well, yes it doesn't change it to 1080p but you could stretch it as you said but then you can put it through filters in AviSynth to smooth the image and make it appear better quality... Also H.264 video is much better than MPEG2 that in some cases some say that the quality has "increased"... Also the file will be much much smaller... 4GB to like 500MB with no loss in quality.



agree with you on the codec being better. I've noticed its a lot smoother, without the flickering you get on MPEG2 (DVD) files.

4GB to 500MB is kinda right for a DVD rip, since 1.1GB is the standard for x264 TV show episodes online - and they look far better than DVD (Which is why i download things i already own, since bluray/hdDVD arent cheap enough yet)


----------



## Hitsugaya_Toushirou (Feb 2, 2008)

Mussels said:


> agree with you on the codec being better. I've noticed its a lot smoother, without the flickering you get on MPEG2 (DVD) files.
> 
> 4GB to 500MB is kinda right for a DVD rip, since 1.1GB is the standard for x264 TV show episodes online - and they look far better than DVD (Which is why i download things i already own, since bluray/hdDVD arent cheap enough yet)



And i'm sure you'll agree with the AviSynth filtering (or VirtualDub's filtering as well) if you saw how much of a quality difference can be made by filters. If you used enough filters in correct order with correct settings i'm sure you'll be able to get a noticable increase in quality (this is similar to how upscaling works but this method allows manual settings to get optimal quality increase for the specific video)

An example... I once had a really low quality 30MB RM Video and after lots of time I got the perfect settings with very good filtering to output a h.264 video and it was very impressive... not as good as the 170MB XviD version of it but it was good enough to watch compared to it's original 30MB RM file i used. It was a very noticeable increase in visual quality.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2008)

i dont do much on the ripping/converting side, merely watching. So i got no idea on the filters.
MKV is great - you get a shimmering/flickering in MPG, thats meant to be fixed by deinterlacing but isnt always done properly.

H264/X264 doesnt have that, and just looks so much better even if its just converting - ofc, depending on whether the source had that problem.


----------



## Hitsugaya_Toushirou (Feb 2, 2008)

Even if there are problems with the source, filters can fix it up.
I may be incorrect here but i'm sure you can interlace h264 video to get that awful flickering as well but i doubt anyone would want to use that setting even if the option is available (x264's h.264 encoder doesn't have that option but others like quicktime's h.264 might have it).

Well, even if you have no idea about filters just remember they are very useful... People like the police might use it to get clearer images of faces from low quality cams or like NASA might use it in investigations to get more detail of an incident (eg. Columbia from 2004... they never would have worked out what caused it to explode if they didn't use very good filters onto very poor quality camera videos to sharpen the image to see what hit it and where.)


----------



## Hitsugaya_Toushirou (Feb 2, 2008)

I see DrGreenThumb has also recently joined this thread...
Well, i listed the programs you'll need but if you want help on how to use them, i first recommend doing a bit of research by visiting their homepage and seeing how to use them... I'm sure you'll pick up how to use them without too much trouble (Hopefully) if you are planning on doing any.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 2, 2008)

so i guess the point of this thread is to say that there is no TRUE 1080p release (legit or leaked) of LOTR, and that you can make your DVD copy of LOTR 1080p and clean it up a bit but it still wont look near as good as a TRUE 1080p version. conclusion? dont waste your time. also, ive noticed that all the torrents floating around claiming to be 1080p versions of the LOTR series are apparently sourced from a Chinese broadcast. So i am 99% positive this is a classic bootleg tactic. They get the 720p version from a broadcast and upconvert it to 1080p and use filters to make it not look so bootleg. Then they pass it off on the streets as 1080p. That may work in China but it sure as hell shouldnt work in the USA !


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2008)

Easy Rhino said:


> so i guess the point of this thread is to say that there is no TRUE 1080p release (legit or leaked) of LOTR, and that you can make your DVD copy of LOTR 1080p and clean it up a bit but it still wont look near as good as a TRUE 1080p version. conclusion? dont waste your time. also, ive noticed that all the torrents floating around claiming to be 1080p versions of the LOTR series are apparently sourced from a Chinese broadcast. So i am 99% positive this is a classic bootleg tactic. They get the 720p version from a broadcast and upconvert it to 1080p and use filters to make it not look so bootleg. Then they pass it off on the streets as 1080p. That may work in China but it sure as hell shouldnt work in the USA !



it'd work better than you think - most people would fire it up in a player and see what that said. If the set top player or media software says the res is 1080p, most people would beleive its true.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Feb 2, 2008)

Mussels said:


> it'd work better than you think - most people would fire it up in a player and see what that said. If the set top player or media software says the res is 1080p, most people would beleive its true.



yea, im sure it fools people, but it shouldnt.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 3, 2008)

Hitsugaya_Toushirou said:


> Even if there are problems with the source, filters can fix it up.
> I may be incorrect here but i'm sure you can interlace h264 video to get that awful flickering as well but i doubt anyone would want to use that setting even if the option is available (x264's h.264 encoder doesn't have that option but others like quicktime's h.264 might have it).
> 
> Well, even if you have no idea about filters just remember they are very useful... People like the police might use it to get clearer images of faces from low quality cams or like NASA might use it in investigations to get more detail of an incident (eg. Columbia from 2004... they never would have worked out what caused it to explode if they didn't use very good filters onto very poor quality camera videos to sharpen the image to see what hit it and where.)



X.264 has the option _not_ to de-interlace from interlaced material. It's been a while, so I don't remember the switch to turn off de-interlacing. Not so sure about turning non-interlaced material into interlaced. Not even sure why one would want to attempt that anyway. lol.


----------

