*OPTIMAL* settings for Handbrake? (Blu-ray and DVD rips) - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 90 Old 02-02-2014, 10:37 AM
Member
 
Someone65478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11

I think i'm at a point where i have to decide about the Audio

 

Is it correct to assume in comparison of a mp3 that

 

PCM and DTS HD = Flac

DTS = mp3 320kbps

AC3 = mp3 192 kbps

 

Following that, since i can't extract a PCM with Hanbrake and the fact that i'd like something better than an AC3, i'll have to get the Audio with another software

I've read that MakeMKV can transfer the entire PCM, but it is known that many player have issue reading a PCM Audio

You can convert the PCM with EAC3 into a FLAC (Just did it, gave me a 2,37 gigs file for Gangs of New York

I beleive you can probably do the same for a DTS HD

 

First question would be

 

Is a DTS better than a DTS HD converted to FLAC?

What would be the down side from having a FLAC instead of a PCM?

Someone65478 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 90 Old 02-02-2014, 02:34 PM
Newbie
 
isvein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

When it comes to audio I always do the same.

1track at passthrough 

1track aac 320 Stereo 

 

Else I use CQ RF 18 and most of the other tips in this thread.

 

Only problem I have had so far is The Simpsons the Move BD that gives a lot of artifacts.

isvein is offline  
post #63 of 90 Old 02-02-2014, 03:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 406
There is no point in using LPCM; it's just a waste of space to store the audio uncompressed. If you have LPCM, pack it with FLAC to save some space. If you have Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD MA, they are also lossless, so you can convert them to FLAC without altering the quality. Dolby Digital, DTS, and MP3 are all lossy, and they aren't really comparable, since MP3 does not support surround sound. AAC is more efficient than AC3 and DTS, but if you already have AC3, you should just leave it that way, unless you want to save space by downmixing it to stereo and transcoding to AAC.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #64 of 90 Old 02-02-2014, 04:01 PM
Newbie
 
isvein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

I know that, but I still like to keep one audio track like it is on the disc, and I really don't care that it takes up a bit more space.

The acc track is for devices that can't take HD-audio.

 

But  I wonder what I have to do to get rid of the artifacts on The Simpsons.

isvein is offline  
post #65 of 90 Old 02-02-2014, 04:57 PM
Member
 
Someone65478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11

So basicly, your saying that it is better to Convert a DTS HD to Flac than use a DTS?

 

Most BR with a PCM has PCM and AC3 while most BR with DTS HD will also have DTS and AC3

Someone65478 is offline  
post #66 of 90 Old 02-02-2014, 05:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 406
DTS HD MA is lossless. DTS is lossy. If you want lossless audio, you can't use DTS. I would argue that it's better to convert all lossless formats (LPCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD MA) to a lossy format, because lossless audio is a waste of space if you can't hear a difference, and the main point of transcoding is to save space. Since most BDs have AC3 already, it makes sense to use that for compatibility's sake. I would never consider using DTS, as 1536 kbps is ridiculous for lossy audio when 448 - 640 kbps AC3 will probably sound the same. If you really want to save the most space possible, though, you can encode LPCM to VBR AAC to make your 5.1 or 7.1 take half as much space as the AC3 often does.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #67 of 90 Old 02-02-2014, 11:05 PM
Member
 
Someone65478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11

I thought i've read that it was better to convert a PCM or HD DTS to Flac because Flac had a better compression scheme...while the first two wasted space....

So far, i've made few test, i hardly gain 10-15% in space for converting to Flac...

I though i was supose to gain about 40%...

Someone65478 is offline  
post #68 of 90 Old 02-03-2014, 12:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 406
The compression ratio depends upon the content, and you're probably thinking of the compression ratio FLAC gets as compared to LPCM, which is often ~30%, at least for 44 100 Hz stereo audio. It's supposedly more efficient than either of the proprietary lossless codecs used on BD, but I don't know by how much. I wouldn't expect a significant difference between them, as all lossless codecs offer limited compression compared to lossy ones.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #69 of 90 Old 02-03-2014, 08:55 AM
Member
 
Someone65478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11

Thank you for all your answer Aleron Ives by the way.

 

I did understood your point about AC3...but a DTS (1,5 gigs) seem fine to me in terms of audio

a DTS HD or PCM at 3-4 gigs is a bit too much

 

My issue resides mainly in the fact that when the BR contains a PCM, i don't have a middle size ... a lossy version....

 

What i did is i tried first with those already converted to replace a DTS with a DTS-HD to Flac, but that conversion wasn't great... i was replacing a 1.5 gigs DTS by a 4 gigs Flac instead of the DTS HD at 4.5 gigs....so i was gaining in size....to pass from lossy to loseless...

 

I though that a DTS HD to Flac would make the Flac file equivalent in size to a DTS but thats definitively not the case

So i'll stick with DTS (Lossy sound and lossy image is what i'd like to get as a file and i beleive that RF19 is something that i could call a lossy picture)

 

Now i just need to figure out if i want to try to find something to convert a PCM to a DTS (in terms of audio quality) or should i stick with AC3 like i did in the past....

 

Any suggestion?

Someone65478 is offline  
post #70 of 90 Old 02-03-2014, 04:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 406
Do you have something against AAC? tongue.gif You can easily convert LPCM to 5.1 AAC @ < 400 kbps, which offers even better compression than 640 kbps AC3.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #71 of 90 Old 02-03-2014, 05:01 PM
Member
 
Someone65478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11

Well, well aac, I've never had to work with it, but i assume that if you specifying 5.1, it means that aac don't support 7.1?

 

Anyhow, i'd like 1500 kbps....it will give about 1.5 gigs for audio, fine by me

 

But i'll keep your suggestion in mind

Someone65478 is offline  
post #72 of 90 Old 02-03-2014, 07:40 PM
Member
 
Someone65478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11

I'll try AudioMuxer

 

http://www.surroundbyus.com/sbu/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=135#refdownload

 

When i'll have time to

 

Otherwise i've read that tsMuxer and eac3 could do it

Someone65478 is offline  
post #73 of 90 Old 02-04-2014, 02:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone65478 View Post

i assume that if you specifying 5.1, it means that aac don't support 7.1?

The easiest way to encode AAC is to use Nero's encoder, which only supports 5.1. AAC itself supports 7.1, but you need to use Apple's encoder with a frontend like qaac to take advantage of it, which is slightly more time consuming to set up. Using qaac also gives you the advantage of Apple's slightly superior encoding engine, as qaac usually scores slightly higher than Nero in listening tests. If you're using the high quality settings that you'd probably select for converting BD audio, there would be no difference, though. The encoders match each other at bitrates > 192 kbps.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #74 of 90 Old 02-14-2014, 07:17 PM
Member
 
Someone65478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Ok well i've found a way to re-encode PCM to DTS

Perhaps another question, is it ok to say that older the movie, harder it is to compress and therefor bigger the output.......

After encoding 10 movies, i had an average of 8,5 gigs per movie which is nice at 19 RF

But some older movies such Gangs of New York and now the first James Bond ...i'm averaging 12,5 gigs per movie...which is less nice
Someone65478 is offline  
post #75 of 90 Old 02-14-2014, 10:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,452
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone65478 View Post

Ok well i've found a way to re-encode PCM to DTS

Perhaps another question, is it ok to say that older the movie, harder it is to compress and therefor bigger the output.......

After encoding 10 movies, i had an average of 8,5 gigs per movie which is nice at 19 RF

But some older movies such Gangs of New York and now the first James Bond ...i'm averaging 12,5 gigs per movie...which is less nice
How? A DTS License ain't cheap: http://www.dts.com/professionals/licensing.aspx
olyteddy is offline  
post #76 of 90 Old 02-14-2014, 11:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 406
Older films probably have more grain, which causes the bitrate to rise. If you want the bitrate to stay lower, you can either use a bigger RF or deblock more heavily, e.g. with 1:1 or 2:2, instead of the default 0:0. Stronger deblocking will cause grain to be detected as blocking and get removed, which will make the video softer (blurrier) and mitigate the rise in bitrate.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #77 of 90 Old 02-15-2014, 06:28 PM
Member
 
Someone65478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Oh i mean't PCM to Flac..... wink.gif

I'll try the deblocking, will see the result, thanks
Someone65478 is offline  
post #78 of 90 Old 02-16-2014, 09:37 PM
Member
 
Someone65478's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Humm deblock 2x2 got me from 13,7 gigs to 13,3 ....i guess i should be using the maximum deblocking? ....i'll have to read whats the downside of using that
Someone65478 is offline  
post #79 of 90 Old 02-16-2014, 10:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 406
The maximum value is |6|. If you go too high, everything will get detected as blocks, turning your video into a blurry mess that looks like a runny water colour painting. If you go too low, nothing will get detected as blocks, which yields the same effect as the --no-deblock switch (giving you blocky XviD-like video). It's generally not a good idea to go beyond |2|.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #80 of 90 Old 03-01-2014, 05:41 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,086
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 191 Post(s)
Liked: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone65478 View Post

Oh i mean't PCM to Flac..... wink.gif

I'll try the deblocking, will see the result, thanks

I never bothered using FLAC. Is there a specific reason why people do this ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #81 of 90 Old 03-01-2014, 05:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
techmattr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 613
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
Liked: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I never bothered using FLAC. Is there a specific reason why people do this ?

To save space. The LPCM tracks typically compress down about 1/2 their original size. The original LPCM tracks are usually between 7 and 8GB. So you can save a decent chunk if you have a lot of LPCM movies.
techmattr is offline  
post #82 of 90 Old 03-01-2014, 06:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aleron Ives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Liked: 406
FLAC is also an FOSS standard, so you don't need annoying proprietary decoders to play it the way you do with DTS-HD MA.
Aleron Ives is offline  
post #83 of 90 Old 03-30-2014, 04:20 PM
Newbie
 
betterquality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10

I too am interested in the specifics of what is actually happening/works, and will be ultimately acceptable  Our idea of quality may vary, but I have done much research, and over thousands of hours of trial have come to what I feel acceptable operating criteria versus results. 

 

 

If one is willing to accommodate the time required, opt for 'very slow'  X254 preset. 

Placebo, which I've used often, nets no noticeable improvement. Very slow seems the perfect marriage.

 

Fine tuning other detail, and with a two-pass, 2800 kbs (minimum), with normal viewing distances,

see nothing to criticize, even when comparing to the original Blu-ray source.

 

I am in the 'quality business' where faithfulness and integrity are vital.

 

I will share more if you like,

 

best regards--

betterquality is offline  
post #84 of 90 Old 04-09-2014, 05:15 PM
Newbie
 
shmezbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hey All,

Thanks, it was fun to read this thread, and see that there are others out there as crazy as I am, trying to rip and compress my movie library...

Anyhow - I have a comment re: compressing blu-ray rips in Handbrake, and file sizes.
You are correct, films with more grain / noise do not compress as well. Older films tend to be grainier, and thus more of a challenge to balance file size vs. quality.

Increasing the Deblocking filter settings is not the best way to deal with grain.
What works best for me, is
1. Judicious use of the Denoise filter (I rarely go higher than the "weak" preset), and
2. Adding a bit of noise reduction in the x264 encoder options, in the Advanced tab. Add in something like :nr=200 in the options string.

I used to be happy with 8-10 GB encodes for noisy content, but now using the options above, I can usually get them into the 5-7 GB range, with negligible loss of quality.

This does not produce a pixel-perfect copy of the source material. The grain will be softened very slightly, but even that slight softening allows the encoder to save gigabytes!

Check out this guy's blog posts on Handbrake settings - he taught me everything I needed to know about it:

http://mattgadient.com/category/encoding/

Hope that helps someone, happy handbraking!
shmezbot is offline  
post #85 of 90 Old 04-10-2014, 04:59 PM
Senior Member
 
bennynihon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just one other thing worth mentioning. For certain movies or scenes, removing too much grain or not having enough to begin with can lead to some really bad banding issues with the encodes. One solution to this problem is to use the 10-bit color depth encoding of x264 (also known as hi10p), but this format is unfortunately supported by very, very few hardware players. You're pretty much limited to playing it on a PC with something like VLC or MPC-HC. The other option is to actually add grain to your source so that x264 can better handle the encode without the nasty banding side effect. I've used AviSynth to add dither and fed the output into the command line x264 encoder. The results are quite nice, though much slower with the AviSynth filtering and not nearly as convenient as Handbrake. Of course, for movies that already have a substantial amount of grain, it's unnecessary to add some. In fact, you could potentially remove some to reduce the encoded file size. So I've started to create an AviSynth script that analyzes several chunks of a movie, determines the average grain, and depending on whether it's above or below a happy medium it will either add dither or remove grain to create a more optimal compromise between grain level, encoding size, and de-banding.

One scene that I used a lot for my testing of the AviSynth filters was in 007 Skyfall where Bond has that fight scene at the top of a building with that jellyfish light in the background. Before that fight sequence he walks down a hallway and pushes open a door. It's at that moment, the door shows some really bad banding. It's a terrible combination of a dark scene and a strobing blue light on a reflective surface, which leads to a lot of banding. Even something like CRF 18 looks awful compared to the original.
bennynihon is offline  
post #86 of 90 Old 05-04-2014, 10:36 AM
Newbie
 
THRobinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donny Bahama View Post

So far you are 100% correct. I wish people would either answer the post in the spirit intended or not answer at all. I didn't put this out there to start a debate.
That's fine. Feel free to reply within those parameters...

For animated movies I use these settings...
For movies with lots of action/fast motion I use...
etc.

In the same boat, trying to get some semblance of a starting point with some rips I'm doing from DVD for a TV series... saw that comment and instantly knew your frustration. I don't post much anymore on forums because of that alone...

Am finding some useful info in this thread though... I'm using VidCoder (which uses Handbrake) and test is getting better. Hopefully with some of the info here I'll finally get something I'm happy with. 21min episodes, aiming for 225mb MP4... should be do-able. smile.gif
THRobinson is offline  
post #87 of 90 Old 06-29-2014, 09:21 AM
Member
 
jasrun2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Thumbs up BluRay Handbrake

Hi.. Donny and others, I dont know if you are still looking at this, but now after 6 months of use, I have some good experience.

Background:
Viewing = Panasonic 60ST60 at 8.5' ~ 30° FOV
Also pixel peeping on 27" iMac Monitor
MKV files played back through Sony S5100 BD.

First my goal is to reduce file size to ~ 1/2 original with no discernable change in quality. I hate compression artifacts like you get from streaming (Netflix or Amazon).

I saw your post and it got me to thinking.. so I did some further experimenting. My reference disc is Promethius,, great fine detail structure and very difficult dark / smooth gradients. (For example at 6:43 in the cave on Isle of Skye or at 32:25 first exploring the dark ship)

Original file size MakeMKV = 32.89 G, HB = 14.78 G.
MKV file type
Codec = H.264
Const. Quality
FPS = Same as Source
Variable Framerate
RF = 16
X264 = faster
Tune = none
Profile = main
Level = 4.0

Audio 1. = DTS 5.1 passthru
Audio 2. = DTS MA 7.1 passthru (The MKV - DTS MA crashes my Sony Bluray - bitrate is too high, regular DTS at 1.5 plays fine)

Hope this might be of some value! I have not really fooled with exploring more compression, because HD storage is so cheap, and my second goal was to be able to fit the files on std BDR disc (<25 G)... JAS
jasrun2 is offline  
post #88 of 90 Old 06-29-2014, 09:31 AM
Member
 
jasrun2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Forgot One Thing

I am using 2009 MacPro 2.6 quad, 16 GB memory.... Handbrake processing uses ± 100% of all 8 cores and took
1 hr 36 min to transcode the 32.9 GB file! This is not very fast computer, Geekbench ~ 5000. I am satisfied with the time.
jasrun2 is offline  
post #89 of 90 Old 08-15-2014, 03:18 PM
Senior Member
 
ixion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 406
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Great thread. After many A/B tests and literally years of using Handbrake, I’ve settled on the settings below. My settings are dependent on the source material and where I plan to watch it (e.g. large projection screen or iPad). I'm hoping this information will be useful for someone.

Watch on “Projector”:
I have a top rated 1080p projector with a 106” 16:9 screen and I sit 14’ away.
I find that keeping the original resolution with RF21 is transparent for Bluray movies and RF19 is transparent for progressive DVD SD movies. Interlaced DVD movies always suffer some quality degradation when converting with Handbrake, but I do it anyway with RF19 and it’s good enough.

Watch on “iPad”:
I have an iPad 3 with 2,048 x 1,536 resolution.
I find that converting Bluray movies down to 720p with RF23 is a good balance of high quality and small file size.

Conversion hardware:
I have a Core i7 2600k running at 4.5GHz (8 threads). Most 1080p movies convert at a rate of between 35-40 fps. Some higher, some lower, it depends on the movie.

File Size Statistics:
After converting my library of ~200 Bluray movies with the settings below, I achieved a 73% reduction in file size (from 4.5TB to 1.2TB) with no perceivable loss of quality (at least to me in my viewing environment).

Constant width in Handbrake:
Since most movies are widescreen with black bars, when I say “1080p”, I’m really referring to a constant width of 1920. And when I say “720p”, I mean constant with of 1280. And for SD material, I use a constant with of 720. So in Handbrake, I always set the preset to the max width (either 1920, 1280 or 720) and set the height to 0. By doing this, Handbrake will crop the black bars and ignore the actual real height and will preserve the aspect ratio (using my settings below).

My Handbrake settings:

Source: Bluray 1080p Movie
Watch on: Projector
Format: MKV
Picture: 1920 width, loose anamorphic modulus 2, autocrop
Filters: all off
Video: H.264, RF21, FPS same as source, x264 medium, tune None, profile High, Level 4.0
Audio: Auto Passthru

Source: Bluray 1080p TV Show
Watch on: Projector
Format: MKV
Picture: 1920 width, loose anamorphic modulus 2, autocrop
Filters: all off
Video: H.264, RF23, FPS same as source, x264 medium, tune None, profile High, Level 4.0
Audio: Auto Passthru
Note: only difference between this setting and movies is that I consider most TV Shows to be of lesser importance in terms of cinematic quality, so I use RF23 instead of RF21. Plus unlike movies, most TV Shows have no black bars so the full 1920x1080 resolution results in large files, another reason why I lower the quality to RF23.

Source: DVD Movie (SD)
Watch on: Projector
Format: MKV
Picture: 720 width, loose anamorphic modulus 2, autocrop
Filters: all off if movie is progressive, or “deinterlace=slower” if movie is interlaced
Video: H.264, RF19, FPS same as source, x264 medium, tune None, profile High, Level Auto
Audio: Auto Passthru
Note: I use MediaInfo to determine if the movie is progressive or interlaced, I also verify it in VLC by turning deinterlaced setting on and off to see if there is a difference, if no difference, then the movie is progressive

Source: Bluray 1080p Movie
Watch on: iPad
Format: MP4 (M4V file type)
Picture: 1280 width, loose anamorphic modulus 2, autocrop
Filters: all off
Video: H.264, RF23, FPS peak framerate 30, x264 medium, tune None, profile High, Level 3.1
Audio: AAC, Bitrate 160, Samplerate Auto, Mixdown Stereo
Note: Since this is strictly for watching on an iPad and I don’t care about surround sound, I find that mixing down the audio to Stereo instead of DolbyPL2 results in less audio delay and higher quality, in my experience.

Source: Bluray 1080p TV Show
Watch on: iPad
Format: MP4 (M4V file type)
Picture: 1280 width, loose anamorphic modulus 2, autocrop
Filters: all off
Video: H.264, RF24, FPS peak framerate 30, x264 medium, tune None, profile High, Level 3.1
Audio: AAC, Bitrate 160, Samplerate Auto, Mixdown Stereo

Source: DVD Movie (SD)
Watch on: iPad
Format: MP4 (M4V file type)
Picture: 720 width, loose anamorphic modulus 2, autocrop
Filters: all off if movie is progressive, or “deinterlace=slower” if movie is interlaced
Video: H.264, RF21, FPS peak framerate 30, x264 medium, tune None, profile High, Level 3.1
Audio: AAC, Bitrate 160, Samplerate Auto, Mixdown Stereo
Note: I use MediaInfo to determine if the movie is progressive or interlaced, I also verify it in VLC by turning deinterlaced setting on and off to see if there is a difference, if no difference, then the movie is progressive
Brajesh likes this.
ixion is offline  
post #90 of 90 Old 09-01-2014, 08:01 PM
Member
 
ckronengold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Boston Strong / Jersey Strong
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Feeling a little better about my settings after reading the last post.
I've been using RF22 for the past year or two, keeping the original resolution, and been pretty happy.
I've been watching on a 60" plasma from about 9-10 ft away, and never thought twice about it.

But reading through this thread, I started to wonder if 22 was a little to much compression for when I jump up to 110" on a projector, so I'm going to run my own test to see if there's any noticeable difference.

Would welcome any input on my methodology. I've ripped one chapter of one of the spiderman films at RF18, RF20, RF21, and RF22. Using Adobe Premiere Pro, I'm going to put either 2 clips up on the screen at the same time. I know i'm going to be cutting off some content, but maybe one on top of each other might be good enough for comparison sake. Start with 18 vs 22, where I should, theoretically, see any differences most clearly.

Here's my question -- any suggestions for the settings when exporting from Adobe? I don't want to introduce new artifacts. My first test is encoding right now at 100% quality, 1920x1280, 23.98 fps, progressive. I have one clip sitting on top of the other. See attachment.

If it comes out ok, I'd be happy to share the video file for people to run their own tests.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	test.jpg
Views:	118
Size:	21.3 KB
ID:	241426  

Media Room: Onkyo NR-709 / OPPO-103
Paradigm Mini Monitors v2 / Atoms (rears) / CC-370
Den: Samsung 59D6500 Plasma & Monoprice in-walls
Server: WHS2011, i5 2500k CPU
HTPC1(LR):Win8 Pro 64-bit, i5 750 Radeon HD 5850
HTPC2(BR):Win8 Pro 64-bit, i3 2105, Radeon 6770
ckronengold is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off