i can tell u this tv is the medium u are gonna watch them dvdes on and not a monitor... if u get a 99% quality u will not see it on the tv and u will not even see bad quaity before u hit under 40% that i can tell you... in clone dvd u burn them dvds with 49-99% and it all looks good on tv and monitor.. you sure must be a real alien spud if u see the diffrence...

I'm using a TV

yes as the rest of use movie freaks do

I'll put this in simple logic:
If you can't tell the difference on a tv, use a monitor, you will then be able to deduce which is the better program and therefore which one should be used.
TVs get better, crap encodes will not , they will appear to get worse infact. Monitors do not blur the encodes like TVs do, so for inspecting the quality fairly, you should use a monitor. Pretty simple

I have a very good monitor and my brother has a pretty decent tv, on those it is very easy to see encoding inperfections. If your given the option, use the better encoding method is my arguement.

spudthedestroyer: I am doing the test with the next spinal.... but.... dose it matter about the monitor.. I mean if the final product will be shown on TV,, and lest face it a BIG TV is a lot cheaper than a big monitor.... who cares.

And 1/2 the stuff I collect ends up on video for non computer types

Yes!!! I'm not sure your understanding what I was saying, so:

Your monitor is better at showing inperfections by far than your television. When tvs get better, the shitness of a rip will become more and more annoying. You should be striving for the best quality now so it doesn't come back and screw you up the ass later . Therefore, its logical to get the best rip possible is it not? Well then using your tv is not the best way of checking the quality because a television is one big blurring machine. It takes the picture and blurs it and thusly the pixelation doesn't show up much.

However, that doesn't mean that the quality of the rip doesn't matter . If you go to one of your mates houses who has a shit hot tv, uses a projector, uses a pc, etc. Your rip will be worse because if your using a program that produces substandard rips, 'well it looked okay when I used used a tv to compare quality' doesn't mean squat. The problem is, as I said, the current generation of tvs blur the picture a *lot* and pixelation doesn't show up (but its still there!). Think about years down the line when you might be watching on a better tv

I'll say this again; if your comparing quality, and you want to do it more accurately, do not use a device that blurs the picture, you can't accurately compare results like that. You want a device that plays it back so its clearer to show which program did the better job and which program you should use.

I don't see how "well I play it on a tv" makes any difference at all, your talking about the quality of two rips, you want to see which one is better I mean I play back on a tv normally, but that doesn't effect the fact that with two rips one maybe substandard. It's a damn sight eaiser telling the difference on a monitor, and therefore my recommendation is to use that.

If your not bothered about getting the best rip then that doesn't matter, but to be honest, I don't see why you wouldn't care about making sure you get the best rips though. But testing quality on a tv isn't the best way of doing a test at all, unless of course the difference between the rips is huge then they will show up on a tv. In my experience though, the pixelation doesn't show up on cheaper gear and tvs because of the field blend they use in playback...but that doesn't in anyway mean that the quality is the same, your talking about a digital mpeg2 stream, the quality of those don't change, just the quality of the picture produced by the playback device