Reply to Take a look at this great video.. and notice the size. 1/9 size & same quality on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:05:11 GMT

spam17 — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:05:11 GMT

Some interesting facts about VOB follow:

A commercial DVD has a VOB size of 1,048,574 KB, or less if it is the last VOB.

DVD-Rs made on my stand alone DVD recorder produce VOB sizes of 1,048,xxx. Where xxx is just slightly less than 574. I’m presuming it’s cutting as close to 1 GB as possible without going over.

Womble MPEG Video Wizard DVD authors VOBs with 1,048,574 KB.

VideoReDo TVSuite authors VOBs with 1,024,xxx KB.

Examples from the same video:

VOB 1 from my original DVD-R: 1,048,050 KB.
Viewing File Properties: 0.99 GB (1,073,203,200 bytes)

VOB 1 after Womble: 1,048,574 KB.
Properties: 0.99 GB (1,073,739,776 bytes)

VOB 1 after VideoReDo: 1,024,460 KB.
Properties: 0.97 GB (1,049,047,040 bytes)

^-^

Reply to Take a look at this great video.. and notice the size. 1/9 size & same quality on Sat, 02 Jan 2016 13:22:28 GMT

Popper — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 13:22:28 GMT

The original was apparently a NTSC DVD and therefore 480i@59.94 (not 480p), which makes an important difference as you'll see more below.

Certainly the MPEG-2 codec of the DVD standard dates back and there are more efficient for file size available since some years (e.g. the MPEG-4 AVC used in your encoding, which can be about 2x smaller file sizes at similar quality). However you have to keep in mind that every step of decoding / re-encoding will result in a loss of quality. Sometimes it is not perceivable and then called transparent, but that can depend a lot on the decoding, display device (definition, size, scaling) and viewing distance. See wikipedia for more about that.

In many cases, especially older works, the DVD releases offer the best available quality, abide at large file sizes and the preferable source to create smaller versions.

Now to your encoding…
There is an visible very obvious error made during encoding: The interlaced DVD source video wasn't de-interlaced, which result in comb structures appearing at every scene with horizontal movement.

The picture has a less visible, but still perceptible loss of details. It is easy spot that for example in the structure of the pavement when comparing both picture attached.

The frame rate is 30 fps, but seen the source, it should have 29.97 fps. So either the playing time of your encoding is shorter, or worse, a frame rate conversion was done, which usually results in jagging while panning.

Finally the audio bit rate is very low. Might be good enough for a porn video like this, but wouldn't for a themed movie, especially when reproduced via a good home cinema sound equipment.

Here a screen capture from the DVD:

and for comparison, from your version: