or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripping Blu-Rays II - Page 93

post #2761 of 5693
I need some help regarding Forced Subs. I ripped the Star Wars The Complete Saga with MakeMKV. I noticed there were about 6 or 8 subs with the title (Forced) for both English and Spanish. So, I ripped them all with all of the English and Spanish subs. However, I know I made a mistake for ripping all of the subs, and I was wondering if there is a way to remove all of the subs, and just keep the actual Forced Sub track?

I've never used MergeMKV, and I want to ask for help rather than messing the files up. Furthermore, I want to keep the HD and AC3 sounds tracks. I've played a few of the movies, and tried to find the actual forced sub track, but there are 3 of them that do the same thing. I tried ClownBD, but it wouldn't ripped the first episode at all, so I ended up using MakeMKV, which worked fine.

I've also installed the forced sub patch. Thanks for any help.
post #2762 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Well granted I did get my 3ware 9650-24's when they first came out so they were a bit on the expensive side.

I use mine for more than storing movies so hardware with bbu was a must. With such large arrays it became important to do raid 6 instead of 5, which is also the reason for going hardware.

I've tried port multipliers but every one I've tried has slowed down my write performance. Which are you guys using with success, maybe I'll try it again?

What write speeds do you feel it's not adequate? With my SM MV8 cards (3X) and 24 drives I still get 24-35MB/s.

Just wondering?
post #2763 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post

What write speeds do you feel it's not adequate? With my SM MV8 cards (3X) and 24 drives I still get 24-35MB/s.

Just wondering?

I got about the same with my SM MV8 cards. With the Highpoint RocketRAID cards I am using now I get from 50-100MB/s (very grateful for as I am almost done transferring nearly 20GB of data)
post #2764 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don't see how you can reduce a BD to 5GB while maintaining the HD sound as is. So you must not be just compressing the video but also using AC3 or the regular Dolby Digital sound.

Resident Evil Retribution.. Just ripped and encoded last night. 45GB BD. Reduced to 6GB with 3 audio tracks. 1 mixed down to AAC stereo. 1 mixed down to AC3 5.1 and 1 DTS-HD MA passthrough. If you were to view this rip side by side with the actual Blu-ray I'd bet my life savings you can't tell the difference.
post #2765 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by GusGus748s View Post

A 4TB hard drive is only $150 dollars. I am not rich either I just manage my money wisely so I can afford my hobbies. I've encoded movies before with Handbrake, and waiting 3 to 4 hours to go from 20 - 35 GB to 4 GB is a waste of time for me. Furthermore, I did noticed a difference, and at times the file create by Handbrake wouldn't work correctly. That's why I built my own server with some old parts that I had laying around, and keep buying HDD when they go on sale.

I am not trying to start an argument about this. You got to do whatever works for you.

Yeah. I'm not spending a couple hundred dollars every month on new disks when I can fit all that same content on 1 disk. Whether I have the money or not is irrelevant. It's a waste of money. If there is something I want from the disc then I'll put the disc in my player....
post #2766 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

If you were to view this rip side by side with the actual Blu-ray I'd bet my life savings you can't tell the difference.

That's a risky bet with no mention of equipment, display, display size, etc.
post #2767 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Resident Evil Retribution.. Just ripped and encoded last night. 45GB BD. Reduced to 6GB with 3 audio tracks. 1 mixed down to AAC stereo. 1 mixed down to AC3 5.1 and 1 DTS-HD MA passthrough. If you were to view this rip side by side with the actual Blu-ray I'd bet my life savings you can't tell the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

That's a risky bet with no mention of equipment, display, display size, etc.

^ Strong this considering a DTS-MA track is usually 2-4GB and a 5.1ch AC3 is usually 500MB+, so you are basically left with a 2GB video file ...
post #2768 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

That's a risky bet with no mention of equipment, display, display size, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbone1026 View Post


^ Strong this considering a DTS-MA track is usually 2-4GB and a 5.1ch AC3 is usually 500MB+, so you are basically left with a 2GB video file ...

I may not be able to tell the difference but only with my eyes closed wink.gif

Bill
post #2769 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbone1026 View Post


^ Strong this considering a DTS-MA track is usually 2-4GB and a 5.1ch AC3 is usually 500MB+, so you are basically left with a 2GB video file ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrfattbill View Post


I may not be able to tell the difference but only with my eyes closed wink.gif

Bill

+1
post #2770 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbone1026 View Post


^ Strong this considering a DTS-MA track is usually 2-4GB and a 5.1ch AC3 is usually 500MB+, so you are basically left with a 2GB video file ...

And?

You guys seem completely oblivious to the compression abilities available. It's like someone told you that you have to maintain the full video size or it's crap and you took it as gospel and never looked back. I was the same way for a while. Until a handful of movies filled up my drive and I started researching how to re-encode.

edit: I just checked 6 different DTS-HD MA tracks and the biggest one was 1082 MB (1 hr 39 minute). So you're a bit off on how much space HD audio takes up.
Edited by itznfb - 5/11/13 at 12:58pm
post #2771 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

That's a risky bet with no mention of equipment, display, display size, etc.

Not even the smallest amount of risk.
post #2772 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

And?

You guys seem completely oblivious to the compression abilities available. It's like someone told you that you have to maintain the full video size or it's crap and you took it as gospel and never looked back. I was the same way for a while. Until a handful of movies filled up my drive and I started researching how to re-encode.

edit: I just checked 6 different DTS-HD MA tracks and the biggest one was 1082 MB (1 hr 39 minute). So you're a bit off on how much space HD audio takes up.

You are saying a 2GB video file looks virtually the same as the original lossless. That in itself is a bit far fetched , compression has not come that far that you can nearly compress a file 80-90% and get equivalent quality. There are also other factors such as viewing size, etc... Even on my tablet I can see the difference with that type of compression (just looking at stuff like the colors, black levels, etc...)

As far as DTSMA, you are only looking at the size of the core DTS, see below for a typical full DTSMA track

post #2773 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbone1026 View Post

You are saying a 2GB video file looks virtually the same as the original lossless. That in itself is a bit far fetched , compression has not come that far that you can nearly compress a file 80-90% and get equivalent quality. There are also other factors such as viewing size, etc... Even on my tablet I can see the difference with that type of compression (just looking at stuff like the colors, black levels, etc...)

As far as DTSMA, you are only looking at the size of the core DTS, see below for a typical full DTSMA track


No. I'm looking at the DTS-HD MA track. Where are you getting a lossless video from? Movies on Blu-ray have been compressed to hell and back and they are compressed with the ancient and crappy mpeg2 or mpeg4. Which is why you can re-compress them with x264 and basically not lose anything.
Quote:
Even on my tablet I can see the difference with that type of compression

When someone makes a statement like this I basically have to tap out. You're just making stuff up now. "that type of compression". You're talking about it like I'm doing something extreme. I'm using pretty conservative settings that most people would consider not compressing it enough. Most people will tell you BD compressed with a constant quality of 23~24 is just as good as the original. I use a constant quality of 20. You guys live in a placebo world of pixel peeping saying "I think I can see a difference! Unacceptable!"
post #2774 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Not even the smallest amount of risk.

post #2775 of 5693
This being the AV Science Forum, I would certainly like to see a blind test shootout of what eagle-eyed home theater people can and cannot see. But not so interested that I am going to do anything about it myself.

From my notes, Handbrake with Normal profile (default q=20), compressed "Resident Evil: Retribution" by 6.29x, giving a final file size of 3.5G.

This however was with main and commentary audio tracks converted to AAC, not retaining the hidef originals.

Results have always looked excellent to me, but my standards may be slack, my equipment second rate, my viewing angle too small, etc.

-Bill
post #2776 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcclain View Post

This being the AV Science Forum, I would certainly like to see a blind test shootout of what eagle-eyed home theater people can and cannot see. But not so interested that I am going to do anything about it myself.

From my notes, Handbrake with Normal profile (default q=20), compressed "Resident Evil: Retribution" by 6.29x, giving a final file size of 3.5G.

This however was with main and commentary audio tracks converted to AAC, not retaining the hidef originals.

Results have always looked excellent to me, but my standards may be slack, my equipment second rate, my viewing angle too small, etc.

-Bill

Twice I've won $100 from each of my 3 pixel peeper friends using 2 P60VT60's sitting side by side. A couple weeks ago with a 14GB file for Avatar and last night with a 6GB file for Resident Evil Retribution. Both times they started nitpicking the actual Blu-ray.... no I'm not saying that's scientific... just anecdotal and a little humorous.
post #2777 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Resident Evil Retribution.. Just ripped and encoded last night. 45GB BD. Reduced to 6GB with 3 audio tracks. 1 mixed down to AAC stereo. 1 mixed down to AC3 5.1 and 1 DTS-HD MA passthrough. If you were to view this rip side by side with the actual Blu-ray I'd bet my life savings you can't tell the difference.
First of all, you'd have to pay me your life savings just to watch that movie, but second, I guarantee I could tell the difference. I can tell the difference in the 12-15 GB compressed videos I have which started out as 35GB so I know I can tell the difference in your 2-5GB version. Are they watchable and enjoyable...yes. Are they close in quality...perhaps. Are they worth the time and effort...no.
post #2778 of 5693
Quote:
Twice I've won $100 from each of my 3 pixel peeper friends using 2 P60VT60's sitting side by side. A couple weeks ago with a 14GB file for Avatar and last night with a 6GB file for Resident Evil Retribution. Both times they started nitpicking the actual Blu-ray.... no I'm not saying that's scientific... just anecdotal and a little humorous.
Cool, just do that 28 24 more times and you'll pay for one of them high falootin sets. Why on earth do you have two $3000 TVs sitting side by side? eek.gif
edit: bad math...
post #2779 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by blipszyc View Post

First of all, you'd have to pay me your life savings just to watch that movie, but second, I guarantee I could tell the difference. I can tell the difference in the 12-15 GB compressed videos I have which started out as 35GB so I know I can tell the difference in your 2-5GB version. Are they watchable and enjoyable...yes. Are they close in quality...perhaps. Are they worth the time and effort...no.

I see people say this on the internet all the time. I have yet to meet someone in person that has ever been able to tell the difference right in front of me.
post #2780 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

Cool, just do that 28 more times and you'll pay for one of them high falootin sets. Why on earth do you have two $3000 TVs sitting side by side? eek.gif

lol. I don't. One of those friends has one up stairs and one downstairs and we moved one of them to do this test.
post #2781 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

No. I'm looking at the DTS-HD MA track. Where are you getting a lossless video from? Movies on Blu-ray have been compressed to hell and back and they are compressed with the ancient and crappy mpeg2 or mpeg4. Which is why you can re-compress them with x264 and basically not lose anything.
When someone makes a statement like this I basically have to tap out. You're just making stuff up now. "that type of compression". You're talking about it like I'm doing something extreme. I'm using pretty conservative settings that most people would consider not compressing it enough. Most people will tell you BD compressed with a constant quality of 23~24 is just as good as the original. I use a constant quality of 20. You guys live in a placebo world of pixel peeping saying "I think I can see a difference! Unacceptable!"

Lol at your response. So because you can't see a difference then everyone else who does actually see a difference is in some sort of fantasy world... strong logic.

Not criticizing your choice to compress, that is your own decision and we all speak from personal experience.
post #2782 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcclain View Post

This being the AV Science Forum, I would certainly like to see a blind test shootout of what eagle-eyed home theater people can and cannot see. But not so interested that I am going to do anything about it myself.

From my notes, Handbrake with Normal profile (default q=20), compressed "Resident Evil: Retribution" by 6.29x, giving a final file size of 3.5G.

This however was with main and commentary audio tracks converted to AAC, not retaining the hidef originals.

Results have always looked excellent to me, but my standards may be slack, my equipment second rate, my viewing angle too small, etc.

-Bill

How long does it take to compress the BD down to that size?

I usually complain about having to wait 20 to 30 minutes to rip a title.

I made some changes with my unRAIDs today. I was able to remove one of my external enclosures from my main unRAID setup and move the drives to the main PC enclosure. So then I was able to move that enclosure to my second unRAID so I could remove the the drives I had internally in the main PC enclosure(I have a video card in there that makes things too hot) and put the in the external enclosure. I really need to find a cheap video card that does not put out much heat. Does anyone have any recommendations?

My main unRAID had the video built in to the mother board. But with my second unRAID I repurposed an old motherboard that had a dual core AMD processor on it.
post #2783 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

How long does it take to compress the BD down to that size?

I usually complain about having to wait 20 to 30 minutes to rip a title.

I'm using Intel Core i3-2100, which is at the lower end of Sandy Bridge.

Time averages about the same as the elapsed time of the title itself. This is quite a bit faster than a while ago: either HandBrake has improved or something else on my Linux box has made the difference.

-Bill
post #2784 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post


My main unRAID had the video built in to the mother board. But with my second unRAID I repurposed an old motherboard that had a dual core AMD processor on it.

Why not go headless? That's doable with unRAID, isn't it?

Jeff
post #2785 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbone1026 View Post


^ Strong this considering a DTS-MA track is usually 2-4GB and a 5.1ch AC3 is usually 500MB+, so you are basically left with a 2GB video file ...

Yep. I just ripped the same movie. I call bull****. When I get through the new SSD migration on my server I'll verify.
post #2786 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

How long does it take to compress the BD down to that size?

I usually complain about having to wait 20 to 30 minutes to rip a title.

For me it takes about 15~20 minutes to rip a large Blu-ray and about 3 hours to encode at quality 20 and x264 preset on very slow and the high profile. Most people that complain about encoding quality aren't familiar with x264's configuration options and just use the default settings from Handbrake or Ripbot which provide mediocre results. When in reality you can get the file size much smaller while actually increasing the picture quality with something as simple as using the x264 preset, profile, level and tuning. With the Handbrake nightly builds or Mac build they have made those into sliders and dropdowns that are really easy to configure.
post #2787 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Well granted I did get my 3ware 9650-24's when they first came out so they were a bit on the expensive side.

I use mine for more than storing movies so hardware with bbu was a must. With such large arrays it became important to do raid 6 instead of 5, which is also the reason for going hardware.

I've tried port multipliers but every one I've tried has slowed down my write performance. Which are you guys using with success, maybe I'll try it again?

What write speeds do you feel it's not adequate? With my SM MV8 cards (3X) and 24 drives I still get 24-35MB/s.

Just wondering?

Raid 6 writes are even slower which is the primary reason I use hardware.
post #2788 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just don't see how you can reduce a BD to 5GB while maintaining the HD sound as is. So you must not be just compressing the video but also using AC3 or the regular Dolby Digital sound.

Resident Evil Retribution.. Just ripped and encoded last night. 45GB BD. Reduced to 6GB with 3 audio tracks. 1 mixed down to AAC stereo. 1 mixed down to AC3 5.1 and 1 DTS-HD MA passthrough. If you were to view this rip side by side with the actual Blu-ray I'd bet my life savings you can't tell the difference.

Why can you not believe that I can compress the file to 5gb with hd audio when you got yours to 6gb? Just use tighter compression parameters and you will get there. It might not be worth the time it takes to compress the file though. That will be up to you to decide. Also, I only keep the hd audio because I bitstream.
post #2789 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbone1026 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

And?

You guys seem completely oblivious to the compression abilities available. It's like someone told you that you have to maintain the full video size or it's crap and you took it as gospel and never looked back. I was the same way for a while. Until a handful of movies filled up my drive and I started researching how to re-encode.

edit: I just checked 6 different DTS-HD MA tracks and the biggest one was 1082 MB (1 hr 39 minute). So you're a bit off on how much space HD audio takes up.

You are saying a 2GB video file looks virtually the same as the original lossless. That in itself is a bit far fetched , compression has not come that far that you can nearly compress a file 80-90% and get equivalent quality. There are also other factors such as viewing size, etc... Even on my tablet I can see the difference with that type of compression (just looking at stuff like the colors, black levels, etc...)

As far as DTSMA, you are only looking at the size of the core DTS, see below for a typical full DTSMA track


What most don't realize is that a studio does not compress to the best it can do. What they do is look at how much disc space they have and compress only enough so that it fits on that disc. The reason? Cost. Well, time really but time is money. Why compress it as much as it can go while still retaining the same quality if it means you will have 70% of the disc unused?

So yes, you can co press their files a lot and keep the same quality. Is isn't always true though. For example, the Big Bang theory discs don't compress well because they are already compressed well. You can see why though, they put 16 episodes on one disc vs the normal 4!
post #2790 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by blipszyc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Resident Evil Retribution.. Just ripped and encoded last night. 45GB BD. Reduced to 6GB with 3 audio tracks. 1 mixed down to AAC stereo. 1 mixed down to AC3 5.1 and 1 DTS-HD MA passthrough. If you were to view this rip side by side with the actual Blu-ray I'd bet my life savings you can't tell the difference.
First of all, you'd have to pay me your life savings just to watch that movie, but second, I guarantee I could tell the difference. I can tell the difference in the 12-15 GB compressed videos I have which started out as 35GB so I know I can tell the difference in your 2-5GB version. Are they watchable and enjoyable...yes. Are they close in quality...perhaps. Are they worth the time and effort...no.

Here's the thing, that guys 15gb compressed movie might look like ass while my 5gb movie is pristine. If the guy doing the encoding doesn't understand what the hell the parameters do that he is messing with he could actually end up with a worse looking video.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home