To Aru Majutsu no Index Blu-ray vs Digital TV


A comparison of the difference between the recently released Blu-ray edition of Index-tan anime A Certain Magical Index (on the right) and the digitally broadcast version (on the left) emerges.

The difference is as night and day… In fact it seems a little extreme? Poor encoding, perhaps?

Those who are still not convinced can view the full (same resolution) 10mb png here.

    Post Comment »
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by zen!
    16:44 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    that's blu-ray alright
    the pics from the right are way smoother, especially the edges

    altough i rly can't see the differents on the 2nd picture, they're already blurry

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:57 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    just look at her left cheek and compare, DTV version got so many block like when try upscale a vid.

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:21 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    just click the full size image (10mb)

    even at about 720p res i can clearly see the different between them let not 1080p

    Comment by Scion
    13:45 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Oh god , whoever can't see the difference must have keemchit for a PC. It makes me want to stop watching the garbled mess that is the digital broadcast. Heh, I'm even getting to the point where low quality 1080p is eating away at me. I can't stand 720p & 576p re-encodes & 480p might as well reserve a pit in hell. Just thank god for blu-ray. Stretching 1440 to WS when its obviously 4x3 at 1080p is just f-ing retarded.

    Comment by LeapofFate
    17:27 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Seriously. How can't people NOT see the difference?

    Comment by Kibate
    18:01 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    wow, can't see any difference at all
    after someone said the darker side have some grain on it i was able to see it

    but SERIOUSLY when you watch animated it stuff like this is invisible. TV quality is nowadays so good that its not worth it paying more than i need to for blueray etc.

    Avatar of GHS
    Comment by GHS
    20:58 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well, the Blu-ray is less pixelated and has less square textures than the TV version...I guess...

    Avatar of Diorte
    Comment by G107
    19:42 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wow, those look exactly the same. I bet if someone mixed around which pictures were regular and which were from Blue-Ray, no one would know the difference.

    Avatar of Diorte
    Comment by G107
    19:45 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wait, nevermind. I didn't know I could expand it more U___U; Yea, there's a slight difference, mainly in the darker areas, and the skin tons look a little different [better?].

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:39 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Oh wow, It's so much clearer on the Blu-Ray side it's unreal. In the .png it looks as if the entire left side is still a .jpg whereas the right hand side is perfect. Awesome.

    Comment by KCH
    12:34 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Saw the difference right away. Its not as noticeable in the 2nd screenshot, but its convinced me to look for some Blue-ray DVD torrents sometime later.

    Comment by Mentar
    08:56 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    So you're saying that you're surprised that the BluRay is looking much better than the Digital TV airing? That should be a major duh, you know

    1) The bitrate for the Bluray is 10-15x the bitrate of the Digi-TV-Airing

    2) The codec for Blurays is h264. The codec for Digi-TV is MPEG-2 (much worse)

    3) the resolution for the Bluray is 1920x1080 - the resolution for Digi-TV is 1440x1080.

    In other words, the BluRay has huge advantages in every aspect. And still, the Digi-TV transport streams for Index deserve praise, since they're among the cleanest, particularly compared to most other shows. So let's be happy that the BluRay is holding up well.

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    There are much better DTV broadcasts which don't show such a huge difference; this was the real point.

    Avatar of Shuu
    Comment by Shuu
    11:14 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    The issue at hand is that many people fail to see those truly outstanding differences in quality, hence they need it pointed out for them.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:52 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Huge Difference if you look closer.. and if your really blind open up the 10mb png..... seriously...

    Avatar of Zonic505
    Comment by zonic505
    10:47 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Had to look at the close ups, could DEFINITELY notice the difference then. However, at the small pics on the front page, couldn't tell the difference.

    Comment by acid
    12:25 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    to see the difference you need to watch them both on standard and blu-ray

    Avatar of Chris
    Comment by Chris
    11:35 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Maybe I'm just a qualityfag when it comes to video and images, but I can see a huge difference. The only comparison I couldn't see a difference would be the 2nd screen from the OP. I think that has more to do with all the noise in that still :v

    Avatar of Matteas
    Comment by Matteas
    22:10 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I find the tv version quite good, but the blu-ray version really is at a different level.

    Avatar of shockerz
    Comment by Tommy
    22:53 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    What happen to the quality of the blue-ray? It look like the same to me.

    Avatar of Lillymon
    Comment by Rhapsody
    09:37 03/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    The quality difference on the full quality image does seem fairly apparent to me except on the fourth example (though you can still see it in the background there), though I would say it's almost certainly not as noticeable when the video is actually in motion. That's not really why I'm posting though.

    My main point of commenting here is that the full quality PNG seems very badly optimized to me. The original, as hosted here, is approximately 10.9MB, making it a very large file. After sending the same image through OptiPNG (, I got an image of exactly the same quality that was only 7.4MB in size. That's a reduction of nearly 32% over the original.

    The exact options to produce this (at least on OptiPNG 0.5.5) are "-zc9 -zm9 -zs1 -f5", I could also upload this optimized image somewhere if Artefact wants to use it instead of the original. Low bandwidth users are sure to appreciate it, as is the server.

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    It's ok - I doubt many actually used it as the 90% jpg is pretty much identical for most aspects of the image...

    Avatar of Meimi132
    Comment by Meimi132
    06:00 03/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Ohhh the difference is ENORMOUS..... no... I just.... no.... Untill they stop selling normal dvd's.... I won't bother with blu-ray.... I'd have to own a full-hd tv for it to make any real difference anyways..... I wouldn't get it for anime at any rate. For HD Tennant/RDJ/JDM maybe.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:45 20/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    10MB PNG FTW!!!! =3

    Avatar of h8GWB
    Comment by H8gwb
    10:39 25/04/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Sure, there are differences, but anybody who really cares is a BluRay fag.

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:35 01/04/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's quite silly to show screenshots of Blu-Ray at such a low resolution. The entire point of the format is to look good at high resolutions. If you compare DVD to Blu-Ray at DVD resolution, of course there'll be no difference. If you compare it at Blu-Ray resolution on the other hand..

    Comment by retsnom
    10:32 29/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I'm not surprised by the people who can't the differences. Some of my friends, who only watch the casual stuff like Naruto/Bleach/One piece, etc. streams just about everything that they watch and they have asked me, and continues to ask from time to time, why I waste my hard drive space downloading animes when I could stream animes like they do.

    To them, quality doesn't matter as long as it's watchable and has subtitles. Not that I'm saying that it's a bad thing, but some people are more sensitive about it than other people, I suppose.

    Comment by misae
    11:58 26/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    OH! I see what they did thar.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:40 26/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    just expand the picture bigger, when you got a picture which is bigger than you monitor height that the right one

    Comment by S. mcduck
    08:32 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I could certainly see differences, though I am completely certain that I would not be able to if nobody pointed out there are differences.

    Then again, my monitor is ten years old.

    Maybe that's for the best, though. Not being artifact-intolerant certainly saves a lot of money and harddisk space.

    Avatar of RaikenTB
    Comment by raikentb
    04:54 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I can see the difference but I'm one of those people who's not touching blu-ray until DVD is completely fazed out.

    Avatar of dmil666
    Comment by dmil666
    04:52 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I guess I'm going blinder (I'm already visually challenged) 'cause I can't see much, if any difference on my monitor. No blu-ray for me.

    Comment by abvc
    05:03 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Betamax for life

    Comment by stg
    05:17 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's a sony.

    Avatar of Shuu
    Comment by Shuu
    06:13 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    You said the dirty word!

    Comment by stg
    07:56 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    oh, to correct myself:

    It's a snickers.

    Avatar of Quen
    Comment by Quen
    04:18 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I would say something here, but experience has taught me my eyes are broken and I can barely tell differences between VHS, LD, DVD, BD and whatever else's quality.

    It's the same for perfume, shampoo, audio cassettes and CDs. Perhaps over a decade of my otaku ways have re-routed my body's nerve endings all to a certain spot of my anatomy. ^^;

    Avatar of metatron
    Comment by metatron
    21:29 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Same thing.

    I think you can only see the difference if you played it at a HD large plasma/lcd screen

    Comment by SaruDa
    05:11 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I generally feel the same as you, but this time I can see a few pixels here and there when fully zoomed in on the left one (kinda like the encryption in a jpeg). I can only imagine it would be much more noticeable on a 40" plasma screen TV.

    Comment by Necross
    04:17 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    They're practically the same, can anyone point out the difference, I sure as hell can't find any.

    Comment by Bananjan
    05:09 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Look at text, linework, black areas etc. There's a HUGE difference.

    Comment by Smiley
    07:08 26/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    No, there's a TINY difference. The pictures to the right look slightly sharper, but only slightly, and not in a way that anybody sane cares about.

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    The difference is huge and immediately noticeable, certainly to me and a number of others. I think what we are seeing here is a gap between two differing mentalities or modes of perception...

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:28 28/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Look at the borders where the lines are drawn, look for odd stuff, like faded rectangles

    Comment by muteKi
    07:32 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yeah, it's mainly in the darker colors and scenes that any errors are noticeable.

    Avatar of Onsokumaru
    Comment by Onsokumaru
    04:10 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    "The difference is as night and day...In fact it seems a little extreme?"
    Is that sarcasm? They look pretty much the same. You can only really see the difference in the 1st and 4th pics.

    Comment by Azarien
    03:34 03/02/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yes, there are some TINY differences... after you look CAREFULLY... but if it were to convince me to buy a Bluray player, I'd say it's a NO.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:22 10/04/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    I agree. I can't really tell the difference except on the first and last pics, and even then I don't worry about that kind of stuff when I'm just watching it for basic amusement.

    Comment by Orestes
    04:17 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    You sir need a nice pair of glasses.

    Comment by Atsuke
    04:24 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Of course it's sarcasm. You can notice less grain on the blu-ray side, but it's not that big of a difference. But for people from 2ch who are always paying attention to details, the blu-ray version is a must buy.

    Comment by retsnom
    11:06 27/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I won't say that you're BLIND for not being able to tell the difference, but the difference is pretty obvious to me, personally.

    Comment by retsnom
    10:25 29/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    But isn't that the point? These shows are meant to be seen on a bigger screen. If I were to take the native resolution of the DTV version and try to fill my 22" monitor with it, the difference would be even MORE clear.

    Like I said, the difference is clear enough for me. DTV's quality is quite good and I'm not trying to sound all spoiled but it stuck out for me the moment I enlarged it.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:27 28/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    it's not THAT obvious, until you put it on a huge screen, I had to look closer at it to see the little squares/rectangles around picture 3 on the left

    Comment by Bananjan
    05:10 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Grain? The broadcast version is artefacted to hell.

    Avatar of Shuu
    Comment by Shuu
    06:11 25/01/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    LOL. But I don't think Artefact is to blame for this.

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact


    Post Comment »


Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments