It would be great to separate the quality profiles for WEB-DL and WEBRip. WEB-DL are significantly superior to WEBRip and should not be lumped together.
WEBRIP:
Re-encoded --> Recorded/captured from web video stream
Network logos & on-screen ads
Sometimes include abrupt transitions (due to commercial breaks)
Higher occurrence of artifacts, frame skips, audio sync, and picture
issues (due to captured source & commercial splits.)
WEB-DL:
Untouched --> Source file from online distribution website (remuxed/not re-encoded)
No logos or ads
No abrupt transitions (no commercial breaks like blu-ray)
Low to no occurrence of quality issues (similar in quality to blu-ray)
There are a lot more qualities than those specified explicitly in Sonarr. Ever wondered why HDTV (the 480p ones) is considered SDTV and renamed as such? And BDRip is considered DVD?
Essentially we have 3 sources and 3 resolutions. TV, Disk, Web. 480p, 720p, 1080p.
We just donāt want to create too many qualities.
Please bear in mind that there are 3 different WEBRIPs: WEBRIP (480p), 720p.WEBRIP and 1080p.WEBRIP.
Would you add those 3 separately? Do you want HDTV separate too then? What about all BDRip variants out there?
But the bottom line is, such ābadā webrips ought to be nuked and/or blacklisted, itās simply bad quality control by the release group (p2p-group most likely).
My recommendation would be to simply add webrip to your rejected keywords list.
That said, itās not possible in Sonarr to consider one quality equal to the other, while still preserving itās quality name.
If we added some kind of āquality groupsā we would be able to lump together different qualities in those 9 predefined categories, for the majority of users, while allowing advanced users to modify them.
@Taloth, that makes sense. I get it. Thank you for explaining
Obviously for those who donāt want WEBRips at all a rejected keyword would work wonderfully.
However, there is currently no option for those of us who want to replace WEBRips with WEB-DL as they become available. I would like to do this in the same way that I replace HDTV --> WEB-DL --> Blu-ray. I realize now (thanks to your explanation) that this is a challenging scenario. For now I can just do it manually.
An āupgradeā keyword is probably not an option/good idea? (the opposite of rejected keywords.)
I have always been annoyed at the āSceneā for naming the iTunes downloads that are only stripped of DRM and not re-encoded WEB-DLā¦
They should have called them Digital Retail Copy or something like thatā¦
Good thing i donāt mind paying here and there for stuff that is of inadequate quality. I just download from iTunes and remove the DRM myself! So happy got the last version of Requiem before it disappeared from Tor.
I think WEB-DL should be considered as Disk at a lower file size and WebRips as Web
@Taloth, Iām not really sure the example of a BDRip to DVD is the same as Webrip to Web-DL. A BDRip and DVDRip are essentially the same. The source for both is high quality, and the resulting encodes are generally of a comparable quality.
Neither of these things are true for Webrips and Web-DLs. A Webrip is to a Web-DL more like a Telecine is to a DVDRip. Being a screen capture of a stream, a Webrip has many more points of failure or degradation than a simple re-encode. I donāt think this has to do with ābad quality controlā (although that can certainly be a factor), but itās just the nature of the capture method that it is inherently of a lower quality than a WEB-DL.
In short, I think we should group releases of a comparable nature. The mere presence of the word āWebā in each method does not, in my opinion, make them comparable.
It would be nice to have a āpreferredā keyword (similar to āmust containā and āmust not containā). We could set āWEB-DLā as preferred and it would be downloaded if available, but if not, it would download webrip. This could also be used if we have a preferred release group.
