Storing Movies on HD - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 12:12 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
BenPlace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Near Chicago IL
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would like to start storing my DVD movies on my HD for immediate access.
I bought a 200Gig HD, but that will only hold about 42 movies.
I read somewhere that you can convert a DVD to Divx format that takes up 10% of the space of DVD format, and keeps the full quality Audio and Video of the movie. Now, being able to store 420 movies is a different story all together. Has anyone done this? Is there an easy way to do it? Is it even true? Thanks in advance for the help.
BenPlace is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 12:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Darrel Johansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: ...upstairs, in the dark, in Tempe
Posts: 1,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Anything that reduces the size is going to affect the quality in some way. I've been putting some of the reference quality DVDs on my PCs hard drive using DVD Decrypter and DVD Shrink. You can compress the movies more with DVD Shrink, but I usually don't. You can choose to just keep the movie and get rid of the extras, alternate audio tracks, P&S version (if on the same DVD), etc. That way you can get DVDs down to 3-5 Gb each. If you can live with compression, you can squeeze them more with DVD Shrink.
Darrel Johansen is offline  
post #3 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 12:23 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
BenPlace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Near Chicago IL
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here is the link to the program I was talking about.
I understand that Mpeg-4 is compression program, like MP3 where you can recompress the files to a smaller size without losing any noticable quality.
The statment says DVD to Divx, same quality, 10% size
Program
BenPlace is offline  
post #4 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 12:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stgdz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MNsnowta in april :(
Posts: 2,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
google autoGK


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
stgdz is offline  
post #5 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 01:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
jflatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 847
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
You can follow a lot of the HDTV to WMV thread if you want to compress it. I have used WM9 and gotten movies to about 1.5 Gig at 90% video compression and 75% audio compression. It is very watchable, but still just not as good as the original DVD.
jflatt is offline  
post #6 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 01:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Karyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally posted by BenPlace
The statment says DVD to Divx, same quality, 10% size
Program
It's advertising. Advertising is not necessarily true. If it were true, DVDs would use that format (or use that format to create HD DVD taking up the same amount of space as DVDs today).
Karyk is offline  
post #7 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 02:54 PM
Senior Member
 
bluegreenturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Karyk
It's advertising. Advertising is not necessarily true. If it were true, DVDs would use that format (or use that format to create HD DVD taking up the same amount of space as DVDs today).
Uhhhh, that's just not true.

DVDs use one form of compression, MPEG-2. MPEG-2 works in a certain way.

DivX is a different kind of compression. It works in a different way, using a different compression algorithm.

DVD's standardized on MPEG-2, that doesn't mean that there haven't been new developments since that standard was adopted, so very long ago. The assertion that new formats get adopted instantly is of course not true. DivX or something like it may indeed be used in future formats, maybe not HD-DVD, maybe something else.

I have stored many movies using DivX. Can you get the same quality from a 700 MB divx as a 4.5 (or 9) GB DVD? No, but when you rip them you're starting with the already compressed DVD. Try doing a 3 cd (2100MB) rip of a dvd and take a look at the quality. It's pretty good. Take the original film transfer (NOT DVD) and use DivX from the start and see what you get - it will exceed DVD quality in the same amount of data space.
bluegreenturtle is offline  
post #8 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 06:02 PM
Senior Member
 
dcdell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by stgdz
google autoGK
I will second this! AutoGK ( Auto Gordian Knot ) is a great little program. I have been using this for a few weeks and have been very happy with the results. Its as easy as DVD Shrink ( maybe easier- if thats possible ) and I rip my DVDs to about 1.4 GB. 250 Gig HD will give me ~150 movies- not bad. It retains full DD 5.1 sound and very good picture.

I just wish it did not take 5-6 hours- PER MOVIE to rip :mad:

Doug

There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness"



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dcdell is offline  
post #9 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 07:34 PM
Senior Member
 
dcdell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by stgdz
google autoGK
I will second this! AutoGK ( Auto Gordian Knot ) is a great little program. I have been using this for a few weeks and have been very happy with the results. Its as easy as DVD Shrink ( maybe easier- if thats possible ) and I rip my DVDs to about 1.4 GB. 250 Gig HD will give me ~150 movies- not bad. It retains full DD 5.1 sound and very good picture.

I just wish it did not take 5-6 hours- PER MOVIE to rip :mad:

Doug

There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness"



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
dcdell is offline  
post #10 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 07:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Darrel Johansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: ...upstairs, in the dark, in Tempe
Posts: 1,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is all very interesting. I'm wondering if those using these compression programs are viewing on a large screen? I'm just a little skeptical that you can squeeze a DVD into 10% of the size and come up with a comparable image.
Darrel Johansen is offline  
post #11 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 09:52 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mr.Poindexter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Clovis, California
Posts: 7,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 23
You can't, period! The quality degredation will be more and more noticeable the more you compress. When you are down to 10% of the original DVD, it will look about like VHS.

I went with a media server and couldn't stand the loss of quality so I just bit the bullet and put together a 3.5TB server.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mr.Poindexter is offline  
post #12 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 10:40 PM
Senior Member
 
bluegreenturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 433
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mr. Poindexter is of course, right. Currently, with *current* compression algorithms, there's nothing that will be the same quality as DVD using up 10% of the space. You can get something that looks pretty darn good though at half or a third the space though. Again, if you didn't have to start with the DVD, you could have something quite nice. DivX applied to HD can get some really good results.
bluegreenturtle is offline  
post #13 of 32 Old 02-27-2004, 11:39 PM
Member
 
kairos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I had hundreds of movies on a media server in divx, and the quality was great. Since then I upgraded my standard tv to a projector and I find myself deleting all my old movies as the quality sucks. It all depends on the type of tv you watch it on.

I feel if one wants to convert to divx they should not due so because of space, but to make a HD DVD from the source. I have been re-encoding all my dvds this way. They take the same amount of space as a normal dvd, but at twice the resolution using xvid.
kairos is offline  
post #14 of 32 Old 03-12-2004, 06:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Scarpad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I guess I don't get that if you start with a standard DVD Resolution of 720x480 snf you upconvert that to a higher Res , I don't see how it can look better than its source? Don't you need to start with a source with higher res?
Scarpad is offline  
post #15 of 32 Old 03-12-2004, 11:17 AM
Senior Member
 
MonsterHTPC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A third approval for Gordian Knot. I used the original Gordian Knot for years, while a bit daunting to get into it was great, and let me play with alot of settings to tweak the image.

Finally the author made Auto GK which is awesome for users who want to get into this capability. Use Auto GK for a while, its very user friendly, then if later you want to have more control, think about playing with Gordian Knot.

I agree with Kairos however on the display. IMHO as far as PQ is concerned and not Hard drive space, I would encode movies to match their source resolution if the display had a greater resolution than the source. If the Display has less resolution than the source, encode them to match the resolution of the display. IE the whole Lowest common denominator theory.

Chris

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MonsterHTPC is offline  
post #16 of 32 Old 03-12-2004, 01:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sailn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: East Coast US
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think the real problem is that you are applying lossy compression to a lossy comprressed source. DVD is mpeg2, which in it's day wasn't bad, but is clearly not state of the art (please tell the blu-ray people to get a clue). I have converted raw dv video to both xvid ( another mpeg4 codec) and dvd and even on my 8 ft screen, I can't see a difference. Of course compressing from dvd to dvix or xvid will look like hell on a large display. However on a small (less than 32 inch) tv, the difference might not be that noticeable.

BTW, Mr. Poindexter, which hardware raid controller did you end up using. Do you think the dual xeon processors where worth the added cost.

Sailn...
Sailn is offline  
post #17 of 32 Old 03-12-2004, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
getme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why not just do this for overly long movies that are flippers or multiple discs?

the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled... People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance. Cicero , 55 BC
getme is offline  
post #18 of 32 Old 03-12-2004, 02:13 PM
Senior Member
 
MonsterHTPC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The problem you come into when comparing qualities is the program used to encode. Alot of them offer alot of customization, so one user may get totally different results using the same codec (DivX, Xvid etc..)

If you use the same resolution and the same bitrate as the source you shouldn't notice any loss in PQ. Course you probably won't see a huge decrease in file size, especially not 10% of the original.

Chris

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MonsterHTPC is offline  
post #19 of 32 Old 03-12-2004, 04:34 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Mr.Poindexter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Clovis, California
Posts: 7,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Salin, I went with a pair of the 3Ware Escalade 7506-8 cards. The dual XEON processors are not needed for a server, but they do work nice for workhorse crunching, like encoding WM9 files and such. I did like the 64 bit PCI slots, but you pretty much have to buy a server board to get those.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mr.Poindexter is offline  
post #20 of 32 Old 03-12-2004, 08:57 PM
Senior Member
 
automagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: deer park, Tx usa
Posts: 498
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
try dvdshrink
automagic is offline  
post #21 of 32 Old 03-12-2004, 09:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
monomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: up north
Posts: 1,767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
For reductions down to say 80% of the original's size, DVDShrink is great... but if you what to compress even more you'll have to re-encode with CCE or TMPGEnc... you just might get acceptable quality down to 40% of the original... but in the end what you'll be satisfied with will really depend on the playback system and your display's capabilities.

"For deep bass, the listener is not really listening to the speaker, but rather, is listening to the room as it is being played by the speaker."

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
monomer is offline  
post #22 of 32 Old 03-12-2004, 11:34 PM
Member
 
EazyduzIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hitachi have released a 400GB drive. At some point as storage capacity grows, this surely would render compression of DVD format as irrelevant for most people?

Edit: On second thoughts, nix that. Storage demands will continue to grow as people continue to find uses to fill them. In this case, just another reason to have more DVD quality movies kept on their HDD's. My first HDD was a massive 15GB till I filled it, which I have since replaced with a 7K250 160GB.
EazyduzIt is offline  
post #23 of 32 Old 03-13-2004, 10:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
monomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: up north
Posts: 1,767
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Let's see here, that's a 400Gb drive divided by 4.7Gb per movie (just my guess as to the AVERAGE size of a movie)... that equals about 85 movies! Though very impressive indeed, there are quite a few people on this forum that have mentioned having DVD collections upwards of 500 movies and one guy 'bragged' of his 2700+ movie collection... WOW! absolutely boggles the mind. I still believe the most efficient method of storage is the DVD itself or on a DVD-R backup of the DVD... having all those HDDs spinning up just to keep a collection on movies 'on tap' (that you will probably only ever watch once every 10 years) seems like such a waste... shoot! the HDD is likely to crash before you'd ever watch all 85 movies the second time through. In any case, if you're ripping to the hard drive, see my signature.

"For deep bass, the listener is not really listening to the speaker, but rather, is listening to the room as it is being played by the speaker."

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
monomer is offline  
post #24 of 32 Old 03-13-2004, 11:07 AM
Senior Member
 
MonsterHTPC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
As mentioned its all preference. lower quality less size more per HD etc..

I have a ton of movies encoded at around 500meg an hour. the quality is just above a normal good Standard TV tube, your basic S-Vid style quality. (might post res, bitrate etc.. but busy atm.) I have a spare LCD in the office here and when working I que up a few movies and let them play. Mostly its for background noise and something to look at when my brain needs a break from working or gaming. No its not DVD quality its more VHS quality but it does what it needs to do and allows me to store alot of movies on there. I would say I have watched all my movies like this at least a dozen times each on random . . .

Doing rough math in my head that means i sit in the office alot UG!! scary sometimes hehehe.

Chris

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
MonsterHTPC is offline  
post #25 of 32 Old 03-13-2004, 12:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
loraan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I use DVDShrink to rip DVDs to HD, then AutoGK to encode to DivX. I don't do this for movies, as the quality loss is unacceptable. Quality and convenience is why I bought it on DVD in the first place! What would I get out of having it on my hard drive that would make up for the lower quality? But the DVDShrink+AutoGK method is GREAT for TV shows on DVD. For me, quality is less important on TV shows than it is on movies. And the ability to have, for example, the entire 10 seasons of "Friends" in my medial library, ready for watching when friends come over, more than makes up for the loss of quality.

I typically use DVDShrink to re-author the disk, ripping just the episodes and the main soundtrack uncompressed to the hard drive. Then I use AutoGK to encode the VOBs to DivX. For animated shows like "South Park" and "Dilbert", I've gotten very good quality out of about 25% quality, which results in a file size between 80 MB and 150 MB per 22 minute episode. For non-animated shows, I usually end up with closer to 180 MB to 200 MB per episode before quailty deteriorates unacceptably.

AutoGK rocks.
loraan is offline  
post #26 of 32 Old 03-13-2004, 12:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Versa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cedar Rapids Iowa
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've got about 750 Xvid/Divx/5divx3 movies on my server, the poorly encoded ones you can tell are bad, but not nearly as bad as VHS. The good encodes (2 cd Xvid +ac3) are indistinguishable from the original dvd. I took Doctor Zhivago (2 discs, about 12 gigs) and compressed down to a 1.5 gig and 1 gig file and it looks perfect. Some of the encodes look even better then the original, as an example I encoded Force10, which is a widescreen nonanamorphic video with black stripes on top and bottom encoded into the disc, I was able to cut out the top and bottom black stripes so it looks good on my widescreen HDTV.

Hell, I take 25 gig mpeg2 HDTV 1280x720 captures and using Xvid compress down to 5 gigs and they still look virtually indistinguishable from the original on my 30 inch HDTV (referencing my pearl harbor hdtv encode).
Versa is offline  
post #27 of 32 Old 03-15-2004, 05:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Scarpad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
I'm doing exactly that building and creating a media server using J River Media Center 10 which I'm really liking. It will serve my Music collection as well as my "TV on DVD" collection, and I completely agree with the above poster I don't see a reason to rip movies to the HD, Hell I'm seeing less and Less reason to own alot of movies lately. I'm up to about 800 disks and I'm asking myself when I'm ever gonna get around to watching my backlog disks never mind stuff I watched already. I may eventually pare doen my collection. Anyhoo. TV Shows by their nature makes them infinitely more rewatchable and its easier to queue up an ep than grab the digipack, unfold it all, grab the disk etc.

I'm interested in everyone's settings for AutoGK. I'm using Xvid and I started encoding at 512 with about 65%. I was'nt too thrilled with the quality becasue you could see alot of Artifacts and dot crawl around the images on the screen. So I went to 640 at 75% and this seems very good but my encodes are around 450 megs for a half hour shour and around 700 megs for an hour eps, of course this varies on source.

It seems like some here are getting much lower sizes so I have to ask are you settling for much worse quality are are you using the SW better than I am ? I will be playing these on a Samsung 30" Widescreen set. I'll start out at S video using my Geforce 4 ti4200 card , but I want to eventually go with a Radeon and a Transcoder. Still thou I don't mind Interlace becasue I usually use my sets decent panoramic setting on 4:3 source material to stretch them out (To avoid burn in more than anything else I have Grey Sidebars)

Do you all think I should be transcoding lower? I have about 400GB but it will still fill up quick....
Scarpad is offline  
post #28 of 32 Old 03-15-2004, 07:29 AM
Member
 
BigBreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think people really under estimate how many movies 85 is. I thought I had a decent collection until I starting ripping mine and realized that I only had about 30 worth the time and effort to rip. Said another way:

When you factor in the cost of the movie ($15) and the time to rip it($10?), the cost of the 5-7gigs for storage ($3-4) is not significant. I have been buying 250 gig HDs for $110-150 and am WAY ahead of my movie buying already. Movies right now are actually SMALL compared to computer technology in HDs and ripping speed.

My advice is to rip at full quality. The time and effort to save HD space isn't worth it. Pretty soon you'll be able to JBOD 2 pata 250gig drives on one cable for about $200 bucks. That is enough space for atleast 150 movies. By the time you rip 150 movies you'll be able to buy a pair of 400gig drives for $250.
BigBreaker is offline  
post #29 of 32 Old 03-15-2004, 08:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Scarpad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 1,373
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 18
well I agree and that's why in my message I say I'm not using Divx on Films I'm only doing that because of the sheer number of TV episodes I have. I might eventually rip a few films to the HD and theyll probably be stuff like Star Trek , Indiana Jones, Bond, Star wars, things with high rewatchability, and they'll get ripped sans extras a full size. I'm still interested in those doing specifically 30 -60 min TV show what settings they are using.
Scarpad is offline  
post #30 of 32 Old 03-15-2004, 10:42 AM
Senior Member
 
Versa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cedar Rapids Iowa
Posts: 462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
It seems like some here are getting much lower sizes so I have to ask are you settling for much worse quality are are you using the SW better than I am ?
Most likely, yes i am using the software better then you. First of all, I don't use AutoGK. I use dvd2avi + avisynth 2.5 +vdub + Xvid 1.0 RC3. ALWAYS use two pass encoding, one pass SUCKS. Then i always look at the statistics file that is created furing the first pass and look at hteh number of B frames, motion, and recommended file size for maximum quality. I normally take the recommended file size and divide by two, sometimes three to get the file size I shoot for, depending on a number of things in the stats file. And ALWAYS deinterlace before encoding, otherwise the file size will jump up dramatically and quality will definitly worsen.

For non HDTV I usually am able to get perfect quality at 250 megs per 22 minutes and 400-500 megs for 42 minutes.
Versa is offline  
Closed Thread Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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