Ripping Blu-Rays II - Page 339 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews

Forum Jump: 
 871Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #10141 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 08:24 AM
One-Man Content Creator
 
wmcclain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,530
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2106 Post(s)
Liked: 1067
Could we keep it technical here? Help people with their technical questions.

-Bill
ScottJ likes 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 online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #10142 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 08:29 AM
Senior Member
 
SandstormGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcclain View Post
Could we keep it technical here? Help people with their technical questions.

-Bill
Definitely. Technically, if content creators/producers could get away with the same picture quality and not use 46GB to do it, they would.

Technically, if you only keep one video track, one audio track and one subtitle track, and then compress that down to half the size, you are going to be destroying the audio/video of the movie, not a big deal for the average joe who is used to downloading 700MB movies from the internet, but not exactly what this forum is all about, from what I can tell.

edit: Nobody is saying you shouldn't do this or there is no reason to do this, I'm simply stating facts about what happens when you do compress blurays by 50% or more.
DrDon likes this.

Last edited by SandstormGT; Yesterday at 08:33 AM.
SandstormGT is offline  
post #10143 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 08:30 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Sounds like you might be using a RAID scheme that is consuming storage space?

I have two 3TB drives each temporarily holding 70-75 1:1 rips of the BD main disc. Those rips average about 40GB. I expect to reduce that to about 25GB/rip when I extract main movie, lossless audio and subs, if any. I project 100 x 25GB rips per 3TB drive. n But even at 40GB, 250 movies should take much more than 3 x 3TB drives.

Jeff
You are correct I am using RAID 6. Don't want to lose any of the work I've done. But any drives I add at this point adds the full drive amount. So I bought another 6TB last night so that will add another 6TB, not 3TB like the first 4 were worth.

I am using MakeMKV to rip, so I only get the main video file, the lossless audio, and all the English subs. That is about 25-40GB depending on the movie. I like using Handbrake to encode them simply because I can hardcode the proper subs in. Using MakeMKV its hard to tell what subs to get, so I simply have to watch each one and figure out the right subs. I have been contributing to one of the Excel sheets to further its data. But once the rip is done, I save 10GB and I know proper subs are in, all without any quality loss that I can tell. Worth it to me.

I also have to rip two audio streams for some if they have Atmos, because I like to watch on my computer and VLC does not like Atmos, so that adds some space. Also Handbrake can't deal with Atmos yet either, at least no way that I've found it can.
pepar and SandstormGT like this.
Raylon is online now  
post #10144 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 08:50 AM
Senior Member
 
SandstormGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raylon View Post
You are correct I am using RAID 6. Don't want to lose any of the work I've done. But any drives I add at this point adds the full drive amount. So I bought another 6TB last night so that will add another 6TB, not 3TB like the first 4 were worth.

I am using MakeMKV to rip, so I only get the main video file, the lossless audio, and all the English subs. That is about 25-40GB depending on the movie. I like using Handbrake to encode them simply because I can hardcode the proper subs in. Using MakeMKV its hard to tell what subs to get, so I simply have to watch each one and figure out the right subs. I have been contributing to one of the Excel sheets to further its data. But once the rip is done, I save 10GB and I know proper subs are in, all without any quality loss that I can tell. Worth it to me.

I also have to rip two audio streams for some if they have Atmos, because I like to watch on my computer and VLC does not like Atmos, so that adds some space. Also Handbrake can't deal with Atmos yet either, at least no way that I've found it can.
I admire you, I wish I had the money at the time to put 6TB drives in my home built NAS but started with (3)3TB WD Red's and slowly added (3) more over the course of a year, now I am looking at either building another NAS or slowly swapping them out with 6TB. I don't like the thought of the array having to rebuild 6 separate times though.
SandstormGT is offline  
post #10145 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 08:56 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandstormGT View Post
I admire you, I wish I had the money at the time to put 6TB drives in my home built NAS but started with (3)3TB WD Red's and slowly added (3) more over the course of a year, now I am looking at either building another NAS or slowly swapping them out with 6TB. I don't like the thought of the array having to rebuild 6 separate times though.

Yea it was expensive to start, and I kept debating with myself between 4 and 6TB drives, but finally I convinced myself that in the long run the extra money would be worth it, and it definitely is. I will max out at 36TB with this setup. Can't imagine maxing that out anytime soon.
Raylon is online now  
post #10146 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 09:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ScottJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 1,730
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 266 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandstormGT View Post
Definitely. Technically, if content creators/producers could get away with the same picture quality and not use 46GB to do it, they would.
Not necessarily. The difference in manufacturing cost of a 30GB disc vs a 46GB disc is zero. Once they compress the movie enough to fit on one disc, there's no point in compressing further.

It can even increase production costs to compress further: more CPU time needed; more time in QA checking for compression artifacts; higher risk of piracy since the file is smaller and more easily copied. Perhaps these are small costs but why spend the money for no gain?
ScottJ is offline  
post #10147 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 09:34 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,970
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post
Not necessarily. The difference in manufacturing cost of a 30GB disc vs a 46GB disc is zero. Once they compress the movie enough to fit on one disc, there's no point in compressing further.

It can even increase production costs to compress further: more CPU time needed; more time in QA checking for compression artifacts; higher risk of piracy since the file is smaller and more easily copied. Perhaps these are small costs but why spend the money for no gain?
I think that was likely part of their decision to use the degree of compression that they do use; it fits the disc plus has the added benefit of being bandwidth- and storage-choking. The former is still the case, but the latter disappeared some years ago.

"Veni, vidi, vino!"
(I came, I saw, I drank wine!)
pepar is offline  
post #10148 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 09:49 AM
Senior Member
 
SandstormGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post
Not necessarily. The difference in manufacturing cost of a 30GB disc vs a 46GB disc is zero. Once they compress the movie enough to fit on one disc, there's no point in compressing further.

It can even increase production costs to compress further: more CPU time needed; more time in QA checking for compression artifacts; higher risk of piracy since the file is smaller and more easily copied. Perhaps these are small costs but why spend the money for no gain?
A valid point, which I think also goes hand in hand with people saying you shouldn't go crazy with compressing blurays. It takes a lot of time and processing power and can introduce more compression artifacts. I consider those reasons to be "CONS" simply because storage, for the most part, is cheap.

If mechanical drives were still hovering at the prices they were after the tsunami, I would say that saving 10GB-20GB per movie and dealing with the quality loss would be a "PRO".

The bottom line is, for 90% of the people posting in this thread, a single 4TB, 6TB or 8TB drive(all readily available), could hold their entire bluray collection.

At 40GB per movie(sometimes a lot less after removing extras), that represents 100 full bluray rips on a 4TB drive(goes for around $125). The amount of time saved and to a certain extent, power saved, by not compressing each one of those disks is not insignificant.

When you start getting into TV shows, I agree, sometimes you just have to make compromises. But for cinematic experiences, I think it is worth it to go all out.
SandstormGT is offline  
post #10149 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 11:07 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,970
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandstormGT View Post
A valid point, which I think also goes hand in hand with people saying you shouldn't go crazy with compressing blurays. It takes a lot of time and processing power and can introduce more compression artifacts. I consider those reasons to be "CONS" simply because storage, for the most part, is cheap.

If mechanical drives were still hovering at the prices they were after the tsunami, I would say that saving 10GB-20GB per movie and dealing with the quality loss would be a "PRO".

The bottom line is, for 90% of the people posting in this thread, a single 4TB, 6TB or 8TB drive(all readily available), could hold their entire bluray collection.

At 40GB per movie(sometimes a lot less after removing extras), that represents 100 full bluray rips on a 4TB drive(goes for around $125). The amount of time saved and to a certain extent, power saved, by not compressing each one of those disks is not insignificant.
I don't understand why everyone doesn't make and keep 1:1 rips. Re-encoding for mobile devices or for other less critical viewing options is completely understandable, but isn't that best done as a stream transcoded on the fly from the mother file? Keeping multiple copies at different bitrates flies in the face of compressing to save storage. Or is even several hundred dollars for storage out of some budgets?

Really, I'd like to know.

Jeff
SandstormGT likes this.

"Veni, vidi, vino!"
(I came, I saw, I drank wine!)
pepar is offline  
post #10150 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 11:50 AM
Member
 
jasonkennethrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raylon View Post
I also have to rip two audio streams for some if they have Atmos, because I like to watch on my computer and VLC does not like Atmos, so that adds some space. Also Handbrake can't deal with Atmos yet either, at least no way that I've found it can.

This is the downfall of MKV containers. MKV cannot retain the AC3 core for TrueHD. M2TS has no issues keeping the AC3 core of TrueHD intact. This is one of the main reasons I prefer Blu-Ray structure (M2TS) over MKV.
jasonkennethrose is online now  
post #10151 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 11:51 AM
Senior Member
 
groove93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Statesboro, GA
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
I don't understand why everyone doesn't make and keep 1:1 rips. Re-encoding for mobile devices or for other less critical viewing options is completely understandable, but isn't that best done as a stream transcoded on the fly from the mother file? Keeping multiple copies at different bitrates flies in the face of compressing to save storage. Or is even several hundred dollars for storage out of some budgets?

Really, I'd like to know.

Jeff
Plex was the solution for me. I use 1:1 rips and don't compress anything when I rip my movies. I allow for Plex to transcode for my mobile devices without the need to compress the file, or create separate files just for mobile devices. My Nvidia Shield plays these same movies with lossless audio, and no transcoding whatsoever.
pepar likes this.
groove93 is offline  
post #10152 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 12:00 PM
Senior Member
 
SandstormGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
I don't understand why everyone doesn't make and keep 1:1 rips. Re-encoding for mobile devices or for other less critical viewing options is completely understandable, but isn't that best done as a stream transcoded on the fly from the mother file? Keeping multiple copies at different bitrates flies in the face of compressing to save storage. Or is even several hundred dollars for storage out of some budgets?

Really, I'd like to know.

Jeff
That seems the best to me, which is why I started doing it that way. Not to mention the simplicity of management.

If I need to stream from my server and have internet connection, Plex easily handles this and you can adjust the bitrate to meet your needs before you ever play the file. If I am not going to have a internet connection or it is simply poor, you can sync(which automatically transcodes) to your device for local playback.

Streaming remotely doesn't always mean it is to a phone or tablet. Sometimes I will go to a friends house and we will watch a movie, or when we are playing poker, we will put on Top Gear or something like that.

To each his own, I won't mention it anymore, but I certainly didn't spend $500+ dollars on bluray's to then use a ton of hours processing them down to half their size/quality to then play them back on my $3000 OLED65E6P. After those purchases, if I couldn't afford to store my bluray's digitally because I lacked the mechanical HDD space, I would simply play the bluray disk(s) in my bluray player and not worry about it while I saved up money for more HDD space.
SandstormGT is offline  
post #10153 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 12:10 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,970
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Liked: 471
I did think of circumstances where I would rip and compress heavily my only copy ... if I were a borrower and/or renter and just wanted a copy I'd never watch on a display that would show the quality of a Blu-ray. What a movie collection I would have!

"Veni, vidi, vino!"
(I came, I saw, I drank wine!)
pepar is offline  
post #10154 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 12:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
Haywood Jablomi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 357 Post(s)
Liked: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
I don't understand why everyone doesn't make and keep 1:1 rips. Re-encoding for mobile devices or for other less critical viewing options is completely understandable, but isn't that best done as a stream transcoded on the fly from the mother file? Keeping multiple copies at different bitrates flies in the face of compressing to save storage. Or is even several hundred dollars for storage out of some budgets?

Really, I'd like to know.

Jeff
I have shifted toward making 1:1 Blu-Ray rips than then making an additional compressed copy, but that does take a lot more time and a lot more space. Transcoding 1:1 rips on the fly requires quite a lot of horsepower and is impractical if you have the potential for concurrent users. Given that I can make a compressed rip that looks as good as Vudu and plays on absolutely everything, I get why people do that. I only have one device in my house that can play the 1:1 stuff, though I plan to add more.
pepar and SandstormGT like this.

I don't care about apathy

Main System: Sony XBR75X940C * Onkyo TX-SR805 * Marantz MM-9000 * MSI Cubi Plex Media Player * Samsung Blu-Ray * Roku 3 * Squeezebox * Paradigm Studio/40 v.2 * Paradigm Studio/CC v.2 * Paradigm ADP-370 * SVS PB12-Plus/2
Haywood Jablomi is offline  
post #10155 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 12:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
I don't understand why everyone doesn't make and keep 1:1 rips. Re-encoding for mobile devices or for other less critical viewing options is completely understandable, but isn't that best done as a stream transcoded on the fly from the mother file? Keeping multiple copies at different bitrates flies in the face of compressing to save storage. Or is even several hundred dollars for storage out of some budgets?

Really, I'd like to know.

Jeff
My reasons are:

1. Constant computer usage. Once I get my entire collection ripped I will start running my server off of my NAS, so I can finally turn my computer off. NAS can't handle a 1080 transcode.

2. Multiple users. I have 4-5 people who could watch my server at any one time. Having the computer transcode that all wouldn't work. Single file it just has to stream and not transcode works.

3. 600+ Bluray collection. Every GB saved helps. Also I can't notice a difference between my 30GB file and my 15GB file. Looks identical to me.
Raylon is online now  
post #10156 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 01:26 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,970
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raylon View Post
My reasons are:

1. Constant computer usage. Once I get my entire collection ripped I will start running my server off of my NAS, so I can finally turn my computer off. NAS can't handle a 1080 transcode.

2. Multiple users. I have 4-5 people who could watch my server at any one time. Having the computer transcode that all wouldn't work. Single file it just has to stream and not transcode works.

3. 600+ Bluray collection. Every GB saved helps. Also I can't notice a difference between my 30GB file and my 15GB file. Looks identical to me.
Indeed, your usage makes sense given your circumstances. BTW, what is your main display and seating distance? I have made the 30/15 (roughly) comparison and can see a difference on my front projector system.

My BD collection is 250-ish now and heading to 300. I calc I will need 9TB for the a 300 title collection. Main movie, lossless audio and subs, if any.

"Veni, vidi, vino!"
(I came, I saw, I drank wine!)
pepar is offline  
post #10157 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 02:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 12,693
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1895 Post(s)
Liked: 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandstormGT View Post
I wish I had the money at the time to put 6TB drives in my home built NAS but started with (3)3TB WD Red's and slowly added (3) more over the course of a year, now I am looking at either building another NAS or slowly swapping them out with 6TB. I don't like the thought of the array having to rebuild 6 separate times though.
That is a main advantage of using a "small" PC as a server running a disk farm with soft RAID. I always buy drives based on the lowest $/GB ratio. My first 2 drives were 2TB, then 3TB drives took over the lead and I bought a number of them; now 4TB are the $/GB leaders. I use external eSATA drive bays and FlexRAID-F for snapshot RAID of a 24TB array, so all my disks of all sizes are in service and part of the protected array. The only caveat is the parity drive(s) have to be >= to the largest drives int he array.

Hardware RAID is an expensive overkill for a media server which does not need continuous transparent RAID since it is only written to when new media is added. Also, with soft RAID if you get a failure above the tolerance level, you don't lose the entire remaining array like you do with hardware RAID.

- 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 #10158 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 02:26 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,970
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 807 Post(s)
Liked: 471
Still using unRAID,. Kelson?

"Veni, vidi, vino!"
(I came, I saw, I drank wine!)
pepar is offline  
post #10159 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 03:07 PM
Senior Member
 
SandstormGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raylon View Post
My reasons are:

1. Constant computer usage. Once I get my entire collection ripped I will start running my server off of my NAS, so I can finally turn my computer off. NAS can't handle a 1080 transcode.

2. Multiple users. I have 4-5 people who could watch my server at any one time. Having the computer transcode that all wouldn't work. Single file it just has to stream and not transcode works.

That is exactly why I hate current off-the-shelf NAS's. I really like the Synology OS but they made no product that came with a processor that could handle what I wanted so I built my own and loaded XPEnology on it. I just found a post over on the 'Roll your own Synology DiskStation for NAS' that I made back in 2014:

Spoiler!


Last edited by SandstormGT; Yesterday at 03:10 PM.
SandstormGT is offline  
post #10160 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 03:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 202
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 123 Post(s)
Liked: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Indeed, your usage makes sense given your circumstances. BTW, what is your main display and seating distance? I have made the 30/15 (roughly) comparison and can see a difference on my front projector system.

My BD collection is 250-ish now and heading to 300. I calc I will need 9TB for the a 300 title collection. Main movie, lossless audio and subs, if any.
Samsung UN65KS8000 65" screen from about 10' away, so I really could crank up the compression and not see a whole lot. Also I'm not a real big 'perfect image quality' guy, I'm more about the sound. I like my lossless audio from MakeMKV, don't really need the bleeding edge perfect IQ. I have my 4k UHD movies for that. Until I got a job and made money, in college I was more than happy watching my 70MB compressed TV shows from EZTV on my 46" 1080p TV. So now going up to nearly full quality 20GB Bluray titles is amazing to me.
pepar and SandstormGT like this.
Raylon is online now  
post #10161 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 03:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 12,693
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1895 Post(s)
Liked: 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Still using unRAID,. Kelson?
I've never used UnRAID. Initially Win-7 based and now Win-10. Aside from controlling the disk farm, the i3 box runs Plex server, Mezzmo DLNA server and kmttg TiVo server.

- 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 #10162 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 03:56 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 12,693
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1895 Post(s)
Liked: 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
This is the downfall of MKV containers. MKV cannot retain the AC3 core for TrueHD. M2TS has no issues keeping the AC3 core of TrueHD intact. This is one of the main reasons I prefer Blu-Ray structure (M2TS) over MKV.
All my BD rips are .m2ts -- I preferred native BluRay format from the start. I use Clown_BD and include only the single HD audio track. I've noticed that when I open up titles like Star Trek Beyond and 10 Cloverfield Lane in MediaInfo I see that the single audio track contains "Atmos/True HD/AC3". I don't have an Atmos audio rig so when I play the title through my WD Live-SMP, True-HD gets fed to my AVR.

After your post, I think I'll convert one of them to MKV and see what happens when I play it through the Live-SMP.

- 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 #10163 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 08:04 PM
Member
 
jasonkennethrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post
All my BD rips are .m2ts -- I preferred native BluRay format from the start. I use Clown_BD and include only the single HD audio track. I've noticed that when I open up titles like Star Trek Beyond and 10 Cloverfield Lane in MediaInfo I see that the single audio track contains "Atmos/True HD/AC3". I don't have an Atmos audio rig so when I play the title through my WD Live-SMP, True-HD gets fed to my AVR.

After your post, I think I'll convert one of them to MKV and see what happens when I play it through the Live-SMP.
Playing a M2TS you should see TrueHD track and a AC3 sub track. (Great for backward compatibility)

Playing a MKV you will only see the TrueHD track as the AC3 sub track will be stripped.
jasonkennethrose is online now  
post #10164 of 10167 Unread Yesterday, 09:46 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 12,693
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1895 Post(s)
Liked: 1118
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonkennethrose View Post
Playing a MKV you will only see the TrueHD track as the AC3 sub track will be stripped.
So I ran the BD.m2ts rip of StarTrek Beyond through MakeMKV. In MakeMKV one separately selects the HD audio and AC3 audio. If I select only the HD audio, the resulting MKV contains a single audio track that contains Atmos/TrueHD. If I select both the HD audio and AC3 audio, the resulting MKV now contains 2 audio tracks -- the first containing Atmos/TrueHD and the second containing the AC3 track. So other than having the audio split between 2 tracks, the MKV can contain the same audio information as the .m2ts if the proper selections are made.

- 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


Last edited by Kelson; Yesterday at 09:50 PM.
Kelson is offline  
post #10165 of 10167 Unread Today, 07:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mrfattbill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,008
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 90 Post(s)
Liked: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
I don't understand why everyone doesn't make and keep 1:1 rips. Re-encoding for mobile devices or for other less critical viewing options is completely understandable, but isn't that best done as a stream transcoded on the fly from the mother file? Keeping multiple copies at different bitrates flies in the face of compressing to save storage. Or is even several hundred dollars for storage out of some budgets?

Really, I'd like to know.

Jeff
For my use I keep an uncompressed 1:1 movie with HD audio and then if there is something my son is in love with I will transcode that and toss it onto his iPad (wifi only). When we are in the house he has access to Plex if needed, which is the ONLY reason I have it on my server at all.

Bill
mrfattbill is online now  
post #10166 of 10167 Unread Today, 07:56 AM
Member
 
jasonkennethrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post
So I ran the BD.m2ts rip of StarTrek Beyond through MakeMKV. In MakeMKV one separately selects the HD audio and AC3 audio. If I select only the HD audio, the resulting MKV contains a single audio track that contains Atmos/TrueHD. If I select both the HD audio and AC3 audio, the resulting MKV now contains 2 audio tracks -- the first containing Atmos/TrueHD and the second containing the AC3 track. So other than having the audio split between 2 tracks, the MKV can contain the same audio information as the .m2ts if the proper selections are made.

I didn't say that a MKV couldn't contain multiple audio tracks. I did say that it would strip the AC3 core from the TrueHD track. Adding the AC3 core back as a new track seems messy to me when it can remain interweaved in one track in a M2TS container. (Great for backwards compatibility).


I make my movie only backups to be as compatible as I can so no matter what player I use it won't get confused by video, audio, or subtitle choices.
jasonkennethrose is online now  
post #10167 of 10167 Unread Today, 07:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ken.F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Rockhill, PA
Posts: 4,091
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1387 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
I don't understand why everyone doesn't make and keep 1:1 rips. Re-encoding for mobile devices or for other less critical viewing options is completely understandable, but isn't that best done as a stream transcoded on the fly from the mother file? Keeping multiple copies at different bitrates flies in the face of compressing to save storage. Or is even several hundred dollars for storage out of some budgets?

Really, I'd like to know.
If you only have a 1:1 rip the server will need to transcode that file on the fly every time a remote user watches it. Having a compressed copy reduces the need to transcode the same file over and over again. I do keep 1:1 rips of my favorite titles, but for the ones I know I won't watch more than once I only keep the 1:1 rip until I'm finished watching it. I then delete the 1:1 rip leaving only the compressed copy on the server for remote users. That makes it easier for the server to stream to remote users and it helps save storage space. If for some reason I want to re-watch one of those movies with the best picture quality I can always pull the disc out of the rack and put it in my BD player.
Ken.F is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

Tags
3d blu-ray , blu ray , copier , Dune Hd Smart B1 1080p Media Player , home cinema , ripper
Gear in this thread



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