Ripping Blu-Rays II - Page 256 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #7651 of 7821 Old 04-02-2015, 06:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,876
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhughy2010 View Post
I would love it if the videophiles on here did a thorough comparison of a full rip versus a re-encoded (say Handbrake @ x264, 20 RF, Medium preset, High profile, audio passthrough, default on other settings). Do this on an 80 inch screen or greater. I would start re-encoding to save space if this yielded promising results!
I would love it if people would stop asking others to test bit rate(s) and picture quality for them. How the hell would I know what you find acceptable?
olyteddy is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #7652 of 7821 Old 04-02-2015, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DotJun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,226
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolRebel View Post
This is great info! Is there a way to get Handbrake to output a perfect 1 to 1 file? Seems like whenever I use it (admit I'm far from an expert) it spits out a file much smaller than the source.

Handbrake does not do 1:1. It is an app used to compress videos and audio. Well, it's a GUI for those apps if you want to be proper.
DotJun is offline  
post #7653 of 7821 Old 04-02-2015, 06:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,876
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywood Jablomi View Post
Storage for a single BD ISO costs me about $6.50, ...
Really? At 40 movies per Terabyte are you really paying $260 per TB for storage? Wanna buy a bridge?
olyteddy is online now  
post #7654 of 7821 Old 04-02-2015, 06:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kriktsemaj99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 6,339
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 358 Post(s)
Liked: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolRebel View Post
Is there a way to get Handbrake to output a perfect 1 to 1 file? Seems like whenever I use it (admit I'm far from an expert) it spits out a file much smaller than the source.

Audio can be passed through unchanged. Video has to be re-encoded, but when the point is to make a fixed aspect ratio crop (rather than save space) you can adjust the quality settings so that you won't be able to tell the difference from the original. And even then the new encode will often be a bit smaller without noticable loss of quality, because the original may have used a higher bitrate than necessary (also cropping off some of the picture saves space).
kriktsemaj99 is offline  
post #7655 of 7821 Old 04-02-2015, 08:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jhughy2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 1,238
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 459 Post(s)
Liked: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post
I would love it if people would stop asking others to test bit rate(s) and picture quality for them. How the hell would I know what you find acceptable?
Troll
jhughy2010 is offline  
post #7656 of 7821 Old 04-02-2015, 08:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,876
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 333 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhughy2010 View Post
Troll
No, if you follow this thread at all you'd know by now how every poster feels about compression. IMO the only way YOU can tell how much compression is acceptable is for YOU to do some test encodes. My opinion? If the music is good, I'll watch it on YouTube. YMMV...
olyteddy is online now  
post #7657 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 06:20 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 22,759
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1381 Post(s)
Liked: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post
Really? At 40 movies per Terabyte are you really paying $260 per TB for storage? Wanna buy a bridge?
Yes, that $6.50 cost was way, way off. It doesn't come anywhere near that price even after factoring in hardware and electricity. Although I average around 31GB per full BD rip. So around 32 titles per TB for me. It's always been around that average for me even after 2K rips.

53TB unRAID2--38TB unRAID3--33TB unRAID1a
LED DLP
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is online now  
post #7658 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 06:35 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 22,759
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1381 Post(s)
Liked: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post
That's the thing though, I don't have to decide as much on what I want to keep and don't. Plus, knowing I bought the disc and it just sits there really irks me [emoji1]



Let's talk about the whole cost and not just the drives shall we? Incremental or not, storage is definitely not as cheap as people say it is otherwise people wouldn't be trying to find the cheapest drives, instead people would be running small hardware arrays on super fast drives.

Always makes me chuckle when I hear people say storage is cheap. Sure it is, but relative to what?

...................
Realtive to the cost it used to be.

In around 1990/91 I bought my first hard drive. It cost me over $200 and was only 20MB(yes Megabytes). $10,000 per GB.

In the early 2000's the 250GB drives I bought were close to $300 each. Close to $1.20 per GB.

Now you can regularly get 3TB drives for only $90. Only 3 cents per GB. That is extremely inexpensive.
jhughy2010 likes this.

53TB unRAID2--38TB unRAID3--33TB unRAID1a
LED DLP
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is online now  
post #7659 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 06:36 AM
Senior Member
 
nvidio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: beer city (aka Belgium)
Posts: 442
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 200 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post
Always makes me chuckle when I hear people say storage is cheap. Sure it is, but relative to what?
A pair of shoes.
nvidio is online now  
post #7660 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 07:42 AM
Senior Member
 
Haywood Jablomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 266
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
Yes, that $6.50 cost was way, way off. It doesn't come anywhere near that price even after factoring in hardware and electricity. Although I average around 31GB per full BD rip. So around 32 titles per TB for me. It's always been around that average for me even after 2K rips.
I was doing a quick calculation based on 50GB per movie under the assumption we were talking ISO files with all the menus, extras and multiple soundtracks. If you are ripping just the main movie and average 32 titles per TB, then it works out to roughly $4 per movie for me. I am running a QNAP TS-853 Pro 8-Bay NAS with 2GB memory loaded with HGST NAS drives. That box with 8 drives is about $2500 and provides roughly 20TB of usable storage. That means I can store about 640 movies based on the above. My collection is nearly three times that size.

Scott
Haywood Jablomi is online now  
post #7661 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 08:07 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 22,759
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1381 Post(s)
Liked: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haywood Jablomi View Post
I was doing a quick calculation based on 50GB per movie under the assumption we were talking ISO files with all the menus, extras and multiple soundtracks. If you are ripping just the main movie and average 32 titles per TB, then it works out to roughly $4 per movie for me. I am running a QNAP TS-853 Pro 8-Bay NAS with 2GB memory loaded with HGST NAS drives. That box with 8 drives is about $2500 and provides roughly 20TB of usable storage. That means I can store about 640 movies based on the above. My collection is nearly three times that size.
I only do full rips. Out of 2000+ Rips the average file size per BD is only 31GB. There are tons of titles that only use a single layer BD or even a dual layer BD but is only 29GB or so.

I use three unRAID setups. And two of them used mostly spare parts. Although the external enclosures I use were around $100 each. But the HP server I purchased with three external enclosures has 19 drives for around 38TB of storage(unRAID 3).( not sure the exact amount since I can't see my Sig). That total cost was less than $2K with a mix of 2TB and 3TB drives.
aaronwt is online now  
post #7662 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 09:55 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 11,007
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 879 Post(s)
Liked: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post
Always makes me chuckle when I hear people say storage is cheap. Sure it is, but relative to what?
Mass storage is relatively cheap these days but when it comes to video storage it is very expensive relative to just keeping the source on the BD or DVD disk it came on.

IOW, this whole business of ripping and storing video on HDD's -- whether local or whole house NAS units -- is a hobby. You spend money on hobbies. How much you spend depends on what you can afford to commit to the hobby and that determines how many HDD's you can put in service and whether you want to rip the full disk or just the main title or feel the need to compress to save space, etc.

Nobody is doing this to save money -- unless their HDD collection is built around pirated source.
DotJun likes this.

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
post #7663 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 10:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,161
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 490 Post(s)
Liked: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post
Let's talk about the whole cost and not just the drives shall we? Incremental or not, storage is definitely not as cheap as people say it is otherwise people wouldn't be trying to find the cheapest drives, instead people would be running small hardware arrays on super fast drives.

Always makes me chuckle when I hear people say storage is cheap. Sure it is, but relative to what?
My server price from recollection is as follows

$170 - Thermaltake armor
$50 - cx500 PSU
$90 - asrock z77 extreme 4
$40 - Intel g1610
$60 - 16GB ddr3-1866 (craigslist)
$90 - 128GB Vertex 4
$70 - BD/HDdvd/DVD-ROM
$110 - 2xNorco SS-500
$50 - IBM m1015 (flashed to LSI)
$20 - miscellaneous cables (molex to fan, ss-8087 breakout, sata power multipliers, etc)
$40 - windows 8.1 pro w/ wmc
$100 - Flexraid tRAID

Or $890 for the system without storage

Then the HDDs
$250 - 6TB Seagate NAS (parity)
$180 - 2x 3TB Seagate 3000dm001
$105 - 3TB red
$300 - 2x 4TB Seagate 4000dm000
$450 - 3x 4TB Hitachi 7k4000 (craigslist)
$150 - 4TB HGST deskstar NAS

So $1435 for 33TB usable space

Total $2325 for 33TB over time. All those things now would be different prices. The asrock z77, case, and ssd would be cheaper. The ram, non discounted windows, and IBM m1015 would be higher. I wouldn't have to get craigslist pricing on hard drives to get the price I got on the Hitachi drives (though I've not had any problem with them whatsoever)

I also have 15 bays with only 10 being used. Just going with 6TB drives from now on I could get 30 more TB of space. If those came out to $30 per TB (about where I wait for them to hit before buying) I would add $900 more overall or $3225 for 63 TB

So as it stands today, nowhere near $100/TB with plenty of potential to get down to $50 per TB or so as I build out. I only keep main titles, so I'm in the 25GB average BD camp or 40/TB. Definitely less then two dollars for me to store it with today's pricing, closer to $1 over time

I have an i7 but I substituted the celeron price because that would have been all I needed for a server. I chose the i7 to allow my family to transcode from my server. I also have a graphics card for limelight game streaming, but I didn't include that either nor did I include the price of the 256 GB ssd that I actually run in the server (substituted the vertex4 128 price at the time from when I bought 256) because I partitioned the drive giving 128GB as a landing disk for tRAID which was purely a performance decision and unnecessary expense for comparing just the storage pricing
jhughy2010 likes this.
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #7664 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 12:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
cc_in_oh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NE OH
Posts: 566
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 95 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post
Mass storage is relatively cheap these days but when it comes to video storage it is very expensive relative to just keeping the source on the BD or DVD disk it came on.

IOW, this whole business of ripping and storing video on HDD's -- whether local or whole house NAS units -- is a hobby. You spend money on hobbies. How much you spend depends on what you can afford to commit to the hobby and that determines how many HDD's you can put in service and whether you want to rip the full disk or just the main title or feel the need to compress to save space, etc.

Nobody is doing this to save money -- unless their HDD collection is built around pirated source.
Maybe true for ripped DVD's, but not for (legally) recorded TV - mass storage is getting cheaper and more reliable all the time while decent-quality blank DVD media is going the other way...

CC

Who knew "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing???
cc_in_oh is online now  
post #7665 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 01:59 PM
Senior Member
 
hogger129's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The Dark Side Of The Moon
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 43
I ran some encodes with x264 and tbh, I could see some banding even at the Slow speed setting. On Slower and Very Slow, it's not there. I just honestly don't have time sit and wait 4-6 hours on every disc in my collection (running an i7-4790), so decided to use Quicksync.

Something strange was going on with Handbrake too because the file sizes with x264 ended up being larger than the file sizes with Quicksync encodes. I thought the reason x264 was slow as because it's packing more data into a smaller area. When x265 becomes more mature and has more support then I'll take the time and do it properly with x265.

Last edited by hogger129; 04-03-2015 at 02:06 PM.
hogger129 is offline  
post #7666 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 02:09 PM
Senior Member
 
JimSatala77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mecmec View Post
However, I disagree with the statement that EVERY BD requires some level of fussing. My workflow has been anydvd running in the background and IMG burn. Literally one click from when I place a BD in my drive to rip it to an ISO to the hard drive or nas.
I won't argue that a BD.iso rip is not the simplest workflow. However, my response was to @HayWood _Jablomi and in his post that I was responding to he states:
Quote:
I could not possibly care less about menus and extras. I just want a single file per main feature.
That context precludes a simple BD.iso rip, which does mean that some level of fussing is required to do a main_title rip .
Clone BD makes it that simple to do just main titles. ..they it you won't be sorry and I have been using madav to get rid of any banding or artifacts
JimSatala77 is online now  
post #7667 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 02:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 7,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Hey,

I have a quick question.

I noticed a repeated scene on my rip of You're Next so I googled You're Next MakeMKV to look for tips before trying to re-rip it.


In the thread I found people were talking about playlists and mpls options.

I use MakeMKV every day and never heard of that stuff.... I just see titles to choose from and typically get by choosing the big one.

What is this mpls playlist concept? Is there an alternate view option in MakeMKV?

-Brian
Brian Hampton is online now  
post #7668 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 03:11 PM
One-Man Content Creator
 
wmcclain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,325
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 958 Post(s)
Liked: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hampton View Post
Hey,

I have a quick question.

I noticed a repeated scene on my rip of You're Next so I googled You're Next MakeMKV to look for tips before trying to re-rip it.


In the thread I found people were talking about playlists and mpls options.

I use MakeMKV every day and never heard of that stuff.... I just see titles to choose from and typically get by choosing the big one.

What is this mpls playlist concept? Is there an alternate view option in MakeMKV?

-Brian
You can see the MPLS file name in MakeMKV in the info panel when selecting a title, but I don't know of any way to view them without selecting. The titles do seem to be in numeric MPLS order, though.

You can think of a Blu-ray disc as a collection of resources and video segments. The MPLS playlists collect those into a title. Each MPLS may be a different view of the disc. When they introduce hundreds of playlists we begin to suspect they are messing with us.

-Bill
Brian Hampton and jhughy2010 like this.

Review older films here: 1979 and earlier | 1980s | 1990s | Combined reviews: Strange Picture Scroll
Unofficial OPPO FAQS: BDP-103 | BDP-93 | BDP-83 | BDP-80    
wmcclain is offline  
post #7669 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 04:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ken.F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Rockhill, PA
Posts: 2,526
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 465 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hampton View Post
Hey,

I have a quick question.

I noticed a repeated scene on my rip of You're Next so I googled You're Next MakeMKV to look for tips before trying to re-rip it.


In the thread I found people were talking about playlists and mpls options.

I use MakeMKV every day and never heard of that stuff.... I just see titles to choose from and typically get by choosing the big one.

What is this mpls playlist concept? Is there an alternate view option in MakeMKV?



-Brian
On the attached picture look on the right hand pane below "Title Information". The "Source file name" is the mpls you're looking for.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	you're-next-makemkv.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	505.4 KB
ID:	644961  
Brian Hampton likes this.
Ken.F is offline  
post #7670 of 7821 Old 04-03-2015, 11:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,249
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 307 Post(s)
Liked: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post
Try makemkv again, but just rip the main title. Use the settings and set the "minimum time" for a title to be added to 1000 seconds. Then set your language to English and it will avoid selecting all the extra audio/subtitle tracks. That should take care of 99% of your rips. Just rip the largest file. For disney movies there may be 3-4, typically just rip the 800.mpls for those. There are a few annoying titles from Lionsgate and some other rare releases that will fall into that 1% category and be really annoying to rip. Off-hand those titles are Star Wars, John Carter, Hunger Games, and Wild Card. Those titles (and other lionsgate titles I didn't mention) use playlist obfuscation, so makemkv will present you with hundreds of mpls titles to choose from (all of them fake with scenes out of order except one). Just google search [makemkv "title-of-disc-your-ripping" which mpls] for those and typically someone will have already shared the correct mpls and segment map for those pesky titles. Like I said, 99% will just work with 1000 seconds minimum play time and English as your language
Just great. I never knew this. So all of them except "the one" have scenes that are completely out of order? I've never noticed this on any of my MakeMKV rips but I wasn't looking for them to begin with

Edit: Wait so now I'm confused after I saw your last statement. Are you saying the fake ones are only a 1000 seconds long so therefore easily identifiable or could they possibly be the actual full length movie with mixed out of order scenes? I've never bothered thinking that as long as the full movie successfully ripped that I was good to go so I always chose a random mpls and it's worked fine for me so far.

Last edited by Chere; 04-03-2015 at 11:53 PM.
Chere is offline  
post #7671 of 7821 Old 04-04-2015, 12:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,161
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 490 Post(s)
Liked: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chere View Post
Just great. I never knew this. So all of them except "the one" have scenes that are completely out of order? I've never noticed this on any of my MakeMKV rips but I wasn't looking for them to begin with

Edit: Wait so now I'm confused after I saw your last statement. Are you saying the fake ones are only a 1000 seconds long so therefore easily identifiable or could they possibly be the actual full length movie with mixed out of order scenes? I've never bothered thinking that as long as the full movie successfully ripped that I was good to go so I always chose a random mpls and it's worked fine for me so far.
Separate things. First if you don't select a min time of 1000s it will show you every single thing in the disk, all the menu junk, the warning clips, etc. Those are all different short video clips

Second there are only a small handful of discs with playlist obfuscation which will show hundreds of titles where the indirect ones have out of order scenes. If you paid no attention to this and ripped all the titles you would end up with a full TB size rip because of so many duplicate videos

I'd there are a few similar size titles and you pick the biggest one it's not a disc with playlist obfuscation. Any disc from lionsgate for the past couple years have had this, and you'll know. It's not just "pick the biggest one" there are literally 100s with the same file size and run time.

You wouldn't have been able to miss it
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #7672 of 7821 Old 04-04-2015, 02:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Hampton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 7,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 132
Thanks for answers to my question guys. Still learning here and still loving it.
Brian Hampton is online now  
post #7673 of 7821 Old 04-04-2015, 09:11 AM
Senior Member
 
JimSatala77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 48
If you use clone bd and clone dvd you can still keep the menu and select the sound track you want without all that extra crap
JimSatala77 is online now  
post #7674 of 7821 Old 04-04-2015, 09:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DotJun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,226
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post
My server price from recollection is as follows

$170 - Thermaltake armor
$50 - cx500 PSU
$90 - asrock z77 extreme 4
$40 - Intel g1610
$60 - 16GB ddr3-1866 (craigslist)
$90 - 128GB Vertex 4
$70 - BD/HDdvd/DVD-ROM
$110 - 2xNorco SS-500
$50 - IBM m1015 (flashed to LSI)
$20 - miscellaneous cables (molex to fan, ss-8087 breakout, sata power multipliers, etc)
$40 - windows 8.1 pro w/ wmc
$100 - Flexraid tRAID

Or $890 for the system without storage

Then the HDDs
$250 - 6TB Seagate NAS (parity)
$180 - 2x 3TB Seagate 3000dm001
$105 - 3TB red
$300 - 2x 4TB Seagate 4000dm000
$450 - 3x 4TB Hitachi 7k4000 (craigslist)
$150 - 4TB HGST deskstar NAS

So $1435 for 33TB usable space

Total $2325 for 33TB over time. All those things now would be different prices. The asrock z77, case, and ssd would be cheaper. The ram, non discounted windows, and IBM m1015 would be higher. I wouldn't have to get craigslist pricing on hard drives to get the price I got on the Hitachi drives (though I've not had any problem with them whatsoever)

I also have 15 bays with only 10 being used. Just going with 6TB drives from now on I could get 30 more TB of space. If those came out to $30 per TB (about where I wait for them to hit before buying) I would add $900 more overall or $3225 for 63 TB

So as it stands today, nowhere near $100/TB with plenty of potential to get down to $50 per TB or so as I build out. I only keep main titles, so I'm in the 25GB average BD camp or 40/TB. Definitely less then two dollars for me to store it with today's pricing, closer to $1 over time

I have an i7 but I substituted the celeron price because that would have been all I needed for a server. I chose the i7 to allow my family to transcode from my server. I also have a graphics card for limelight game streaming, but I didn't include that either nor did I include the price of the 256 GB ssd that I actually run in the server (substituted the vertex4 128 price at the time from when I bought 256) because I partitioned the drive giving 128GB as a landing disk for tRAID which was purely a performance decision and unnecessary expense for comparing just the storage pricing
Again, I was saying that if storage is so cheap, then people wouldn't be compromising their arrays based on cost. People would run multiple, small arrays on hardware cards using 15k rpm SCSI drives.

If it's so cheap then the cost wouldn't be the number one deciding factor most people use in determining their setup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
I ran some encodes with x264 and tbh, I could see some banding even at the Slow speed setting. On Slower and Very Slow, it's not there. I just honestly don't have time sit and wait 4-6 hours on every disc in my collection (running an i7-4790), so decided to use Quicksync.

Something strange was going on with Handbrake too because the file sizes with x264 ended up being larger than the file sizes with Quicksync encodes. I thought the reason x264 was slow as because it's packing more data into a smaller area. When x265 becomes more mature and has more support then I'll take the time and do it properly with x265.

x264 profiles don't necessarily mean a better pq. You can combat banding a number of ways like increased bit rate, going 10 bit, increasing aq-strength or any other number of options.

You can't compare different encoding methods unless you have controlled settings across the board. Doing high bitrate two pass on one and high crf on another wouldn't make for a fair comparison for example.
DotJun is offline  
post #7675 of 7821 Old 04-04-2015, 12:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
smitbret's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: East Idaho - Pocatello
Posts: 621
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 248 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post
Again, I was saying that if storage is so cheap, then people wouldn't be compromising their arrays based on cost. People would run multiple, small arrays on hardware cards using 15k rpm SCSI drives.

If it's so cheap then the cost wouldn't be the number one deciding factor most people use in determining their setup.




x264 profiles don't necessarily mean a better pq. You can combat banding a number of ways like increased bit rate, going 10 bit, increasing aq-strength or any other number of options.

You can't compare different encoding methods unless you have controlled settings across the board. Doing high bitrate two pass on one and high crf on another wouldn't make for a fair comparison for example.
Agreed, Profiles and Speed don't mean much at all for quality. Speed, Size, Quality...... Pick 2.

The only way to really adjust quality is to lower the CQ level when using the presets or increase the bitrate. Everything else is just an efficiency setting. Even then, it could be argued that bitrate is the only true setting that creates quality. Everything else is 'perceived' quality at a lower bitrate.
smitbret is offline  
post #7676 of 7821 Old 04-04-2015, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,161
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 490 Post(s)
Liked: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post
Again, I was saying that if storage is so cheap, then people wouldn't be compromising their arrays based on cost. People would run multiple, small arrays on hardware cards using 15k rpm SCSI drives.

If it's so cheap then the cost wouldn't be the number one deciding factor most people use in determining their setup.




x264 profiles don't necessarily mean a better pq. You can combat banding a number of ways like increased bit rate, going 10 bit, increasing aq-strength or any other number of options.

You can't compare different encoding methods unless you have controlled settings across the board. Doing high bitrate two pass on one and high crf on another wouldn't make for a fair comparison for example.
I don't feel like it's a compromise worth mentioning. I would love for mass storage to be flash based (everywhere) and on the cheap. It's just not the reality. If it was a reality I would switch for power, heat, and noise reductions. I wouldn't gain any functionality that I don't already have

Playing a single BD, up to and including 3D requires at most 8MB/s and usually less than 5. Four people transcode from my server at any given time, my ISP uplink is the bottleneck not my storage drives. Then ripping optical media, that tops out under 60 MB/s for high performing ODDs. Mine is actually only 4x on dual layers and 8x on single layer which is less than 40 MB/s

My "compromised" solution's drives can be written to typically above 80MB/s with real time parity and no landing disk. With the landing disk I can go to 300

So all use cases are well covered by cheap consumer HDDs. I don't consider anything a compromise at that point, instead it's more like . . . "All these different solutions from cheap HDDs, to enterprise HDDs, to SSDs not only meet your needs but are overkill and some are more overkill than others"

When realizing that conclusion I found it easiest to pick the cheapest and go on with life
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #7677 of 7821 Old 04-04-2015, 08:22 PM
Senior Member
 
JimSatala77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 382
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Solid state drives would actually be the best for permanent storage of video since it's limited life span on the number of times it can be written over would to me mean if you are just reading off it after the initial write it should actually outlast disks which can wear out simply by reading them...it's odd that Many pc makers are utilizing ssd for a buffer that contains the os and constantly overwritten cache...I'm just wondering how long it takes to start losing whole sectors. .
JimSatala77 is online now  
post #7678 of 7821 Old 04-04-2015, 09:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techflaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,082
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quite long, apparently.
aaronwt likes this.

Tech Flaws
Things can only get better
techflaws is offline  
post #7679 of 7821 Old 04-04-2015, 11:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DotJun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,226
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post
I don't feel like it's a compromise worth mentioning. I would love for mass storage to be flash based (everywhere) and on the cheap. It's just not the reality. If it was a reality I would switch for power, heat, and noise reductions. I wouldn't gain any functionality that I don't already have

Playing a single BD, up to and including 3D requires at most 8MB/s and usually less than 5. Four people transcode from my server at any given time, my ISP uplink is the bottleneck not my storage drives. Then ripping optical media, that tops out under 60 MB/s for high performing ODDs. Mine is actually only 4x on dual layers and 8x on single layer which is less than 40 MB/s

My "compromised" solution's drives can be written to typically above 80MB/s with real time parity and no landing disk. With the landing disk I can go to 300

So all use cases are well covered by cheap consumer HDDs. I don't consider anything a compromise at that point, instead it's more like . . . "All these different solutions from cheap HDDs, to enterprise HDDs, to SSDs not only meet your needs but are overkill and some are more overkill than others"

When realizing that conclusion I found it easiest to pick the cheapest and go on with life

If 8tb ssd's were the same price as "cheap consumer hdd's" would you not choose those instead? Again, this whole thing was about a quote that I hear over and over, not the practicality of it all.
DotJun is offline  
post #7680 of 7821 Old 04-05-2015, 12:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,161
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 490 Post(s)
Liked: 367
I think I already said I would choose ssd every time if it were cheaper

I even opined in the htpc forum about how the landscape is set for flash storage to overtake platters in price when you look at how much flash is consumed year over year. If big data centers or corporate it truly make a fill switch to flash I think the tide would begin to turn for us all

My bigger point was simply that it wasn't a performance compromise for the way I use my storage. Its a noise/heat/cost compromise
Dark_Slayer is offline  
Reply Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

Tags
Dune Hd Smart B1 1080p Media Player
Gear in this thread - 1080p by PriceGrabber.com

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