or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripping Blu-Rays II - Page 94

post #2791 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

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.

Meh? I didn't say anything about not being able to get it down to 5gb. I do quite a bit of tweaking to each movie and 6gb was the smallest I could get it without losing any picture quality. Definitely wouldn't say someone else couldn't do a better job though.
post #2792 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

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

Jeff

It is mostly headless but I have the video output for if/when I need to connect it to a monitor. I'd rather have the video card in there for if I need it later than have to put a card in and remove it each time I might need it. The video cards I use are all fanless that I use in my main PCs so I used one of the ones had lying around for the build. But they also have plenty of cooling with larger fans. I don't have large fans in my unRAID setups so I hadn't realized it was getting so hot in my second setup until I checked it out today. I couldn't even touch the video card it was so hot. So I put another fan in there for now, but I would prefer to just get a cheap, low power card to throw in there. All the ones I found were only AGP so they were long over due to go in the trash.
post #2793 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

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.
That smacks of Perpetual Motion to me....'actually increasing the picture quality'?
post #2794 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

That smacks of Perpetual Motion to me....'actually increasing the picture quality'?

I worded that poorly. I meant that the picture quality would be better than the other compressed video not better than the original.
post #2795 of 5693
True. But it still comes down to personal preference. To your eyes, on your equipment you are saying that you can't tell the difference. I may start compressing at some point but right now I still have a bunch of TeraBytes free.
post #2796 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

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.

That's the thing right? The reason I brought this whole thing up was because of people that refuse to compress files because storage is cheap they say, but then later on start saying oh I have to pick and choose what files I will decide to keep once their drives start to get full.

It is one or the other, if storage is so cheap then you can just keep buying them right? You see, I'm saying that even though storage is cheap it doesn't mean that it is free so I will compress to gain more storage.
post #2797 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

True. But it still comes down to personal preference. To your eyes, on your equipment you are saying that you can't tell the difference. I may start compressing at some point but right now I still have a bunch of TeraBytes free.

I have two 24 port 3ware cards and I still compress. To each their own though smile.gif
post #2798 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

That's the thing right? The reason I brought this whole thing up was because of people that refuse to compress files because storage is cheap they say, but then later on start saying oh I have to pick and choose what files I will decide to keep once their drives start to get full.

It is one or the other, if storage is so cheap then you can just keep buying them right?

Wrong.

We just finished a discussion about archiving less because we hardly ever go back and watch the stuff so it's not "one or the other". Others of us can afford the storage we want or need and value time more.
post #2799 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Wrong.

We just finished a discussion about archiving less because we hardly ever go back and watch the stuff so it's not "one or the other". Others of us can afford the storage we want or need and value time more.

When people talk about time and money in this context the only thing I can think of is.. I have a good job.. so yeah I have plenty of money to buy hard drives.. but I have a good job.. so I also have plenty of time to re-encode my files.
post #2800 of 5693
Im curious what your settings are for compressing DotJun and itznfb.

Bill
post #2801 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrfattbill View Post

Im curious what your settings are for compressing DotJun and itznfb.

Bill

Every movie is different. Some require additional parameters but this one was pretty standard and compresses very well at quality 20.

CLI Query: -i "X:\Rip\Resident Evil Retribution (2012)" -t 1 --angle 1 -c 1-16 -o "W:\Encode\Resident Evil Retribution (2012).mp4" -f mp4 -4 -O --decomb -w 1920 -l 800 --modulus 16 -e x264 -q 20 -r 23.976 --cfr -a 2,2,2 -E faac,ffac3,copy:dtshd -6 stereo,5point1,auto -R Auto,Auto,Auto -B 160,640,0 -D 0,0,0 --gain 0,0,0 --audio-fallback ffac3 --subtitle scan --subtitle-forced=1 --subtitle-burned=1 --markers="C:\Users\AppData\Local\Temp\Resident Evil Retribution (2012)-1-chapters.csv" --x264-preset=veryslow --x264-profile=high --h264-level="4.1" --verbose=1

I use this custom profile as a baseline. It works well for most movies. But I tweak or use additional presets as needed. Also, there are plenty of movies where I don't care about video quality. Like some dramas or chick flicks or even movies that are very well lit through all or most of it. Those I'll typically compress the hell out of and take a quality hit just because I don't care. Also, animation hardly takes a hit at incredibly high compression ratios. So taking an animated film on Blu-ray that is ~15GB can be compressed down to 1.5~2GB and still look significantly better than a full size DVD. There is a lot of content that just doesn't make sense for me to keep highest quality video.
Edited by itznfb - 5/11/13 at 4:15pm
post #2802 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

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.
Clown_BD demuxes all the selected streams of the main title into a temporary folder which I always inspect. I find DTS-HD tracks are typically 2GB +/- 0.5GB. BluRay supports 3 codecs: Mpeg-2, H.264/MPEG-4 part 10 (AVC) and VC-1. The only MPEG-2 encoded BD I have come across are the very oldest transfers. 90% of todays BD are H.264/AVC and the other 10% are VC-1. One mainly finds VC-1 on main titles that are around 20 GB or less in size. So you are not re-compressing with a new improved codec using Handbrake. But what you are doing is taking a studio transfer, that was made by professionals using multi-pass encoding software that cost more than your car and butchering it with a freeware encoder made by someone in their spare time.

But hey, if that is what you want to do and you enjoy the results -- I accept that. It's just not for me.
Quote:
When someone makes a statement like this I basically have to tap out. You're just making stuff up now.
Funny, I had the same reaction to your posts. You seem to be intolerant to the majority of other people saying they can see the difference between an original and a re-compressed BD. Perhaps you cannot see the difference with your equipment (electronic and biological) but others can -- including me. I have experimented with re-compression using 2-pass encoders and only going for a 50% reduction in size. I didn't need to see it side-by-side with the original to see the degradation in sharpness and fine detail -- especially shadow detail -- and color balance.

There are others here who re-compress their BD (although not as drastically as you claim) and state they are happy with the results. So, I can accept that you cannot see a difference. But please don't insist that those of us who can see a difference are somehow deluded. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
post #2803 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

Clown_BD demuxes all the selected streams of the main title into a temporary folder which I always inspect. I find DTS-HD tracks are typically 2GB +/- 0.5GB. BluRay supports 3 codecs: Mpeg-2, H.264/MPEG-4 part 10 (AVC) and VC-1. The only MPEG-2 encoded BD I have come across are the very oldest transfers. 90% of todays BD are H.264/AVC and the other 10% are VC-1. One mainly finds VC-1 on main titles that are around 20 GB or less in size. So you are not re-compressing with a new improved codec using Handbrake. But what you are doing is taking a studio transfer, that was made with multi-pass encoding software that cost more than your car and butchering it with a freeware encoder made by someone in their spare time.

But hey, if that is what you want to do and you enjoy the results -- I accept that. It's just not for me.
Funny, I had the same reaction to your posts. You seem to be intolerant to the majority of other people saying they can see the difference between an original and a re-compressed BD. Perhaps you cannot see the difference with your equipment (electronic and biological) but others can -- including me. I have experimented with re-compression using 2-pass encoders and only going for a 50% reduction in size. I didn't need to see it side-by-side with the original to see the degradation in sharpness and fine detail -- especially shadow detail -- and color balance.

There are others here who re-compress their BD (although not as drastically as you claim) and state they are happy with the results. So, I can accept that you cannot see a difference. But please don't insist that those of us who can see a difference are somehow deluded. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

AVC and VC-1 are just derivatives of mpeg and h264. They are nothing special. I actually have tons of Blu-ray that are mpeg4 and very few that are AVC or VC-1. Out of the hundred or so I've ripped in the last couple months 70% or more were mpeg4. A lot of the movies I have are 10+ years old though so that may factor in to what compression is used. You're also ignoring the point DotJun made about them filling the disc just to fill the disc. They haven't compressed the movie anywhere near it's potential compression without noticeable loss. Also, they aren't using some super secret compression algorithms and super secret hardware that the public has never seen. One of the guys I know who does this for a living runs compression against the original film with a dual socket Xeon Dell workstation that cost about $4K. Most people assume they are using some 100 processor machine we couldn't even dream of in some lab somewhere. Nope. He's doing it right on his desktop in his cubicle. edit: to add, he wouldn't tell me what software he was using but he said it wasn't proprietary and that I could purchase it if I wanted. Though I don't know what it is. His company contracts with Universal.

Also, saying you're using a 2 pass encoding means nothing. It makes more sense to let the software spend more time per frame analysis than it does to make multiple passes. That's what constant quality settings do. They allow the software to analyze a frame for as long as it needs to in order to determine how it is able to compress a given frame. If you're getting a significant loss of quality at 50% then you're doing something very very wrong.

Again, you say my compression is drastic but it isn't. Not even close. My compression is incredibly conservative compared to most. That's what you're missing here. I'm someone who chooses larger file sizes to preserve quality. You guys thinking these file sizes are small just goes to show how out of the loop on current compression results you guys are. DotJun is a quick example thinking my 6GB file is nothing special.

Sorry. But as I said... until the day I find someone that can sit in front of me and pick out the compressed video vs the actual disc I'm going to have to say guys like you are either suffering from placebo or the compressed files you're testing against just aren't done well. Which is entirely possible.
post #2804 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

AVC and VC-1 are just derivatives of mpeg and h264. They are nothing special.
VC-1 is a Microsoft derivative of MPEG-4 part-2.
H.264/AVC is MPEG-4 part 10 -- not the same.
So saying all your movies are MPEG-4 doesn't really mean anything,
As I said all movies today are either H.264/AVC or VC-1 so they are all MPEG-4 in one part or another.

Handbrake encodes in H.264/AVC which is the pervasive codec in BluRay. Your statements about multi-pass encoding and frame analysis shows me you don't really understand H.264/AVC encoding which is all about forward and backward predictive frames and variable GOP lengths.

But like I said, if you have figured a way to twiddle the settings in Handbrake to give you a render/re-compression you are happy with -- who am I to object. It's just not for me. I have no inclination to corrupt the original transfer.
post #2805 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

That's the thing right? The reason I brought this whole thing up was because of people that refuse to compress files because storage is cheap they say, but then later on start saying oh I have to pick and choose what files I will decide to keep once their drives start to get full.

It is one or the other, if storage is so cheap then you can just keep buying them right? You see, I'm saying that even though storage is cheap it doesn't mean that it is free so I will compress to gain more storage.

So you are saying those who compress don't have to worry about storage? I don't compress so I built myself a server that allows me for a great deal of expansion without having to worry about "choosing" what to keep. What's to say that someone who is going to compress builds a scaled down system to meet their needs. Isn't there as much chance that they will run out of storage or have to choose as much as someone who doesn't compress? Drives will eventually get full compressing or not compressing, and it is as much dependent on the user specific setup of when that occurs as it is if you compress vs. not.
post #2806 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbone1026 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

That's the thing right? The reason I brought this whole thing up was because of people that refuse to compress files because storage is cheap they say, but then later on start saying oh I have to pick and choose what files I will decide to keep once their drives start to get full.

It is one or the other, if storage is so cheap then you can just keep buying them right? You see, I'm saying that even though storage is cheap it doesn't mean that it is free so I will compress to gain more storage.

So you are saying those who compress don't have to worry about storage? I don't compress so I built myself a server that allows me for a great deal of expansion without having to worry about "choosing" what to keep. What's to say that someone who is going to compress builds a scaled down system to meet their needs. Isn't there as much chance that they will run out of storage or have to choose as much as someone who doesn't compress? Drives will eventually get full compressing or not compressing, and it is as much dependent on the user specific setup of when that occurs as it is if you compress vs. not.

My point is that it will take far longer to get to that point if you compress.

At 35gb per file you will fill up a 1tb drive with 28 movies. Even at 8gb files I can store 125 movies on that same drive.
post #2807 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrfattbill View Post

Im curious what your settings are for compressing DotJun and itznfb.

Bill

program --preset slower --tune film --crf 20.0 --deblock -2:-2 --bframes 8 --ref 10 --aq-mode 2 --subme 10 --no-dct-decimate --no-fast-pskip --output "output" "input"

I also do a slight de-noising with mctemporaldenoise.

Yes I know some of the things I do like fastpskip and amount of ref is insane but I have the time and CPU power to waste hehe
post #2808 of 5693
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:35pm
post #2809 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

Some day everyone will come to the conclusion that compressing movies is a *BIG* waste of time. If you are running out of HDD space, I recommend (in order of preference):

1) Stop stealing media
2) Stock collecting junk
3) Buy more HDDs

1) I buy the cheapy blurays. You can get them way cheap at Fry's bargain bins. Used ones at blockbuster are way cheap also.
2) most of my stuff is for my kids. TV series and movies.
3) my whole reason for bringing up compression is because of people that claim "storage is cheap" but then whine about their current drives filling up.
post #2810 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

My point is that it will take far longer to get to that point if you compress.

At 35gb per file you will fill up a 1tb drive with 28 movies. Even at 8gb files I can store 125 movies on that same drive.

I get your point, yet I would feel disappointed having the storage to spare, loading it up with compressed movies. Nonetheless, taking the extra time to encode compressed movies. On a 1TB, I'd understand wanting to compress for a little extra room to work with. Anything beyond 2TB or 3TB, just leave it uncompressed.

Considering the cost of storage has dropped even further on drives with 4TB or less, I don't see any reason not having the ability to enjoy full-tilt, uncompressed Blu-ray A/V. I'm the same way ripping all my CDs to FLAC for good measure. Granted, the drives do fill up fast once you're on roll ripping Blu-rays and CDs uncompressed, you'll realize backing up all your media uncompressed is helping you profit from your investment on the hard drive(s).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

I have no inclination to corrupt the original transfer.

Amen.
Edited by L33TX43RT - 5/12/13 at 12:10am
post #2811 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

3) my whole reason for bringing up compression is because of people that claim "storage is cheap" but then whine about their current drives filling up.
Maybe my memory is not what it used to be, but I've been around this forum for a while and I can't remember reading anybody who rips full bitrate BD "whining" about storage. They either add more HDD or prune their collections, but nobody really "whines". And I would not classify discussions about deciding on a storage cap and pruning to be "whining".

I have multi-bay enclosures with empty bays -- and we all know that nature abhors a vacuum.
post #2812 of 5693
How about we get back to the original topic here.
post #2813 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

My point is that it will take far longer to get to that point if you compress.

At 35gb per file you will fill up a 1tb drive with 28 movies. Even at 8gb files I can store 125 movies on that same drive.

You obviously miss my point. Each person's setup will determine how quick they fill up their storage (you seem to make the assumption that everyone had the same setup as you so the "non compressors" will run out of space sooner ...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GusGus748s View Post

How about we get back to the original topic here.

However, agreed completely with Gus as the purpose of this thread to discuss various ripping methods (both for compressing and not compressing)
post #2814 of 5693
Well I tired Clown BD again. I had tried it out a year or two ago back when I was on Windows 7 and I must have deleted it. So I installed it again and did a test with it. It seemed to take a very long time. How long should it take when I use Clown BD to rip and extract just the movie?
post #2815 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

Well I tired Clown BD again. I had tried it out a year or two ago back when I was on Windows 7 and I must have deleted it. So I installed it again and did a test with it. It seemed to take a very long time. How long should it take when I use Clown BD to rip and extract just the movie?

takes me approx 30-45 minutes
post #2816 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbone1026 View Post

takes me approx 30-45 minutes

I think it took me over an hour with the test I did. I was using a Core2Quad at 3.2 Ghz. I know it was alot slower than I would have liked since just doing a full rip was much faster for me.

I do need to upgrade my PC. I have never gone this long(4+ years)without upgrading my main PC. I was going to upgrade it a few months ago until I found out that the fourth generation Core i7 chips were coming out in early Summer. So I'm hoping to get a 4th gen Core i7 system put together this Summer. Or I'm seriously thinking about buying a PC pre-built. I haven't bought a pre-built desktop PC in seventeen years. Although if I do that I'll probably need to get a system with a 3rd gen Core i7 to get the best deal on it. Since they should drop the prices on the older systems.
post #2817 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

Well I tired Clown BD again. I had tried it out a year or two ago back when I was on Windows 7 and I must have deleted it. So I installed it again and did a test with it. It seemed to take a very long time. How long should it take when I use Clown BD to rip and extract just the movie?

If you are remuxing to the same drive the temp files are on that will slow it down some. Im sure you know that but its worth mentioning just in case.

Bill
post #2818 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrfattbill View Post

If you are remuxing to the same drive the temp files are on that will slow it down some. Im sure you know that but its worth mentioning just in case.

Bill

Thanks, I didn't even think about that. I think when I used it before I put those locations on separate drives. I guess I should try throwing another SSD in there to try it with. My current SSDs only have around 40GBs of free space so I used a platter drive for all the Clown BD storage locations.

Actually I forgot I added a couple of USB 3.0 hubs a few months ago. I can just use those with my USB 3.0 enclosures for the temp storage. Then I don't have to mess with putting another SSD inside the PC case.
post #2819 of 5693
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:38pm
post #2820 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

Well I tired Clown BD again. I had tried it out a year or two ago back when I was on Windows 7 and I must have deleted it. So I installed it again and did a test with it. It seemed to take a very long time. How long should it take when I use Clown BD to rip and extract just the movie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

Thanks, I didn't even think about that. I think when I used it before I put those locations on separate drives. I guess I should try throwing another SSD in there to try it with. My current SSDs only have around 40GBs of free space so I used a platter drive for all the Clown BD storage locations.

Actually I forgot I added a couple of USB 3.0 hubs a few months ago. I can just use those with my USB 3.0 enclosures for the temp storage. Then I don't have to mess with putting another SSD inside the PC case.

It's not a CPU intensive operation at all, (or shouldn't be).
The speed is directly related to the speed of the source and destination drives. I recently did some remuxing from a USB-2 drive that topped out at about 40MB/sec. It took forever even with the destination and temp file drives on SATA interface. Later I did some similar work using a USB-3 source drive and the difference was amazing.

You can make your source and destination drives the same, as long as your temp file is located on a different, (and fast), drive.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home