or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripping Blu-Rays II - Page 95

post #2821 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgrimes View Post

It's not a CPU intensive operation at all, (or shouldn't be). . . . You can make your source and destination drives the same, as long as your temp file is located on a different, (and fast), drive.
I agree, it is not if you are ripping directly from a disk. Then you are limited by the drives read-rate and whether or not you have disabled riplock. I used to rip full-disk BD using DVD Fab on a 10 yr old P4 with 1GB RAM and IDE drives -- it only took ~40 min per disk. Now I rip on an i7 with faster SATA drives that have had riplock removed and generally still takes ~30 min, ripping two at a time.

Clown_BD runs very quickly when processing a full disk rip from a HDD. I also use two internal HDD for the process: the demux folder is on a separate drive and the final TSMuxer output goes back on the original drive. That way it is always reading from one drive and writing to another. Even with SATA III drives the speed improvement is huge compared to using a single drive for all R/W operations.
post #2822 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbone1026 View Post

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.

I have 4TB of total storage for my media. I have about 800 DVDs and about 150 Blu-ray. I won't ever need to buy another hard drive due to capacity. My entire collection and any future purchases will fit on my current storage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GusGus748s View Post

How about we get back to the original topic here.

Try reading the thread title bud. This is the original topic.
post #2823 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) Stop collecting junk
3) Buy more HDDs

Helluva post my friend.

I spend 88 cents apiece ($140 4TB HDD / 160 films) to store my full rips while saving the time and hassle of compressing them down.

It would be extremely difficult to get me to change my mind.

James
post #2824 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

Hey!! Fantastic Four is one of the BD titles I have watched, at least part of it, multiple times redface.gif .

I'm like that with "Into The Blue" ... "parts" of it. wink.gif

Jeff
post #2825 of 5693
When playing Blu-rays from a server, is there any benefit in using EZRX with 145MB/s "host to/from drive" transfer over the EARX w/110MB/s? Nuevo huevo is enticing me again with $90 pricing on the 2TB EARX. The EARX has substantial savings in power consumption, especially at idle, over the EZRX.

Jeff
Edited by pepar - 5/12/13 at 2:10pm
post #2826 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

I agree, it is not if you are ripping directly from a disk. Then you are limited by the drives read-rate and whether or not you have disabled riplock.

is there a Riplock for Dummies tutorial? Seems like something I should research as I am about to (finally) execute the unRAID server in the basement ...

Thanks,

Jeff
post #2827 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

When playing Blu-rays from a server, is there any benefit in using EZRX with 145MB/s "host to/from drive" transfer over the EARX w/110MB/s? Newegg is enticing me again with $90 pricing on the 2TB EARX. The EARX has substantial savings in power consumption, especially at idle, over the EZRX.

Jeff

Pretty sure the highest bluray goes is 50Mbps so no.
post #2828 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Pretty sure the highest bluray goes is 50Mbps so no.

MegaBITS per second? The drive specs are in megaBYTES.

Mbps vs MB/s ...

Jeff
post #2829 of 5693
Thread Starter 
@DOTJUN:

I'm game. In fact, I'm completely open to the idea as I have the new Star trek BDs that I'd really like to compress, if possible. So I'd like to run a test compression on a movie. Then I'll run it on my home theater setup.

So why don't you post your Handbrake compression settings, a little tutorial if you will, and I'll check it out.

Then I'll post what I think and if it works out well, I may even add it to the original post as a recommendation.


So post some instructions/settings and let's go from there.


EDIT @OTHERS: I'd like to see a couple others try DOTJUN's compression settings too. I think it is worthwhile investigation into whether we can discern the difference and at what compression levels. I have some ideas myself, due to what I've seen others do, but I'd like to see an honest evaluation.


EDIT #2 - Please knock off the pricing talk. I think it's ok to say I can get XTB for $Y, but posting specific deals from certain websites is a violation of the rules and could end up in a thread lock.
Edited by agogley - 5/12/13 at 2:02pm
post #2830 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

@DOTJUN:

I'm game. In fact, I'm completely open to the idea as I have the new Star trek BDs that I'd really like to compress, if possible. So I'd like to run a test compression on a movie. Then I'll run it on my home theater setup.

So why don't you post your Handbrake compression settings, a little tutorial if you will, and I'll check it out.

Then I'll post what I think and if it works out well, I may even add it to the original post as a recommendation.


So post some instructions/settings and let's go from there.


EDIT @OTHERS: I'd like to see a couple others try DOTJUN's compression settings too. I think it is worthwhile investigation into whether we can discern the difference and at what compression levels. I have some ideas myself, due to what I've seen others do, but I'd like to see an honest evaluation.


EDIT #2 - Please knock off the pricing talk. I think it's ok to say I can get XTB for $Y, but posting specific deals from certain websites is a violation of the rules and could end up in a thread lock.

I don't use handbrake so I'm not familiar with it. I use either cli or megui depending on my needs.

I had posted my typical x264 parameters already. I do tweak it depending on source material sometimes though if I'm not happy with something. I also do a slight denoising with mctemporaldenoise so you will have to get that setup also.

I'm not saying compressing is for everyone and I can totally understand the value of spending more time watching instead of encoding, but for me, I have the time to do so because I have dedicated computers to do it with at work.

Also, someone was saying something about professionals at studios that know this and that are the ones compressing using million dollar codecs. Yes they are expensive software, but mainly because everything that is labeled "business" use is inflated by a huge amount. I go down to Sony pictures a lot and I see what the process is like, so when I say that they are mainly compressing just to fill space, I mean it.
post #2831 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post


EDIT #2 - Please knock off the pricing talk. I think it's ok to say I can get XTB for $Y, but posting specific deals from certain websites is a violation of the rules and could end up in a thread lock.
Could you post a link to the forum rule that addresses this? I did not post a link to a "deal."

Jeff
post #2832 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I spend 88 cents apiece ($140 4TB HDD / 160 films) to store my full rips while saving the time and hassle of compressing them down.

Plus the marginal costs for the rest of the computer (SATA cards, drive bays, etc). But even if that stuff cost as much as the HDDs it would still only cost $1.76 per movie.

That means, no matter how little time it takes to recompress a movie, the most I could possibly save is $1.76 per movie. My time is worth far more than that to me.

But, I can understand how some people are willing to do it. Perhaps they have far more time than money, or they do it for the thrill of it, or bragging rights to be able to say "I fit 1000 movies in the space of 100!" I get it. I certainly spend far more time than I care to admit on my home theater hobby, but that's what makes it a hobby. I enjoy doing it.

My point is, there's no purpose in arguing about whether recompressing is right or wrong. To each his own.
post #2833 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Pretty sure the highest bluray goes is 50Mbps so no.

MegaBITS per second? The drive specs are in megaBYTES.

Mbps vs MB/s ...

Jeff

You asked about "playing" bluray from the server. The question was about whether having a faster drive is beneficial.

My answer is no. Not for "playing" because bluray burst speed is 50Mbps or to be exact 54Mbps.

So yes it is beneficial for transferring stuff to and from your drive but no not for playing.
post #2834 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I spend 88 cents apiece ($140 4TB HDD / 160 films) to store my full rips while saving the time and hassle of compressing them down.

Plus the marginal costs for the rest of the computer (SATA cards, drive bays, etc). But even if that stuff cost as much as the HDDs it would still only cost $1.76 per movie.

That means, no matter how little time it takes to recompress a movie, the most I could possibly save is $1.76 per movie. My time is worth far more than that to me.

But, I can understand how some people are willing to do it. Perhaps they have far more time than money, or they do it for the thrill of it, or bragging rights to be able to say "I fit 1000 movies in the space of 100!" I get it. I certainly spend far more time than I care to admit on my home theater hobby, but that's what makes it a hobby. I enjoy doing it.

My point is, there's no purpose in arguing about whether recompressing is right or wrong. To each his own.

I never said compressing is for everyone. It works for me because My cost for storage is slightly higher due to hardware raid card. Also I have dedicated computers at work for encoding. Seriously it takes a whole 10-15 mi for setup, the rest is wait time. It isn't like I'm sitting there waiting the whole time for it to finish I have other movies I've already finished to watch.
post #2835 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

You asked about "playing" bluray from the server. The question was about whether having a faster drive is beneficial.

My answer is no. Not for "playing" because bluray burst speed is 50Mbps or to be exact 54Mbps.

So yes it is beneficial for transferring stuff to and from your drive but no not for playing.

Ah yes, thank you. I was not thinking about the task of building and maintaining a library.

Jeff
post #2836 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

You asked about "playing" bluray from the server. The question was about whether having a faster drive is beneficial.

My answer is no. Not for "playing" because bluray burst speed is 50Mbps or to be exact 54Mbps.

So yes it is beneficial for transferring stuff to and from your drive but no not for playing.

Ah yes, thank you. I was not thinking about the task of building and maintaining a library.

Jeff

Also remember that the more discs you add to the raid array the faster your transfer speed becomes regardless of the original disc speed.
post #2837 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJ View Post

Plus the marginal costs for the rest of the computer (SATA cards, drive bays, etc). But even if that stuff cost as much as the HDDs it would still only cost $1.76 per movie.

That means, no matter how little time it takes to recompress a movie, the most I could possibly save is $1.76 per movie. My time is worth far more than that to me.

But, I can understand how some people are willing to do it. Perhaps they have far more time than money, or they do it for the thrill of it, or bragging rights to be able to say "I fit 1000 movies in the space of 100!" I get it. I certainly spend far more time than I care to admit on my home theater hobby, but that's what makes it a hobby. I enjoy doing it.

My point is, there's no purpose in arguing about whether recompressing is right or wrong. To each his own.

I think this issue is like so many on a forum in that people decide how they want to do it and then rationalize it however they can. Where it gets to be a problem is when someone criticizes the decisions arrived at by others when those differ.

I have done testing with MP3s and various compression levels and I still use Lossless even when I could not hear a difference above 192.

Jeff
post #2838 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Also remember that the more discs you add to the raid array the faster your transfer speed becomes regardless of the original disc speed.

Doesn't that depend on the Raid Level? Not sure that is the case with unRAID's

jeff
post #2839 of 5693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I don't use handbrake so I'm not familiar with it. I use either cli or megui depending on my needs.

I had posted my typical x264 parameters already. I do tweak it depending on source material sometimes though if I'm not happy with something. I also do a slight denoising with mctemporaldenoise so you will have to get that setup also.

I'm not saying compressing is for everyone and I can totally understand the value of spending more time watching instead of encoding, but for me, I have the time to do so because I have dedicated computers to do it with at work.

Also, someone was saying something about professionals at studios that know this and that are the ones compressing using million dollar codecs. Yes they are expensive software, but mainly because everything that is labeled "business" use is inflated by a huge amount. I go down to Sony pictures a lot and I see what the process is like, so when I say that they are mainly compressing just to fill space, I mean it.

Ok, I get that you believe that compression could push storage to 5GB for an average BD. I'm willing to entertain that concept. But that doesn't really help us that much if somebody wants to follow in your footsteps. Have you considered downloading Handbrake to see if you can duplicate your work using that program? Then you could post the settings you believe are best so we can duplicate and test. Otherwise, we just have to take your word for it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Could you post a link to the forum rule that addresses this? I did not post a link to a "deal."

Jeff

It's a long standing rule. http://www.avsforum.com/t/849797/newbie-question-about-price-talk. If you didn't do anything wrong, then why do you assume you need to comment?

The bottom line is that I don't want this thread...you know the one I started...to turn into a discussion about the latest prices of hard drives at Newegg.
Edited by agogley - 5/12/13 at 2:56pm
post #2840 of 5693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I think this issue is like so many on a forum in that people decide how they want to do it and then rationalize it however they can. Where it gets to be a problem is when someone criticizes the decisions arrived at by others when those differ.

I have done testing with MP3s and various compression levels and I still use Lossless even when I could not hear a difference above 192.

Jeff

If you guys want to move this discussion forward start posting specifics about what you did and what your result was. As it stands now, we only have some general idea of what compression settings to use which leaves a lot of open territory.

Tell us what you did and how you got there. Then we can have a better discussion.
post #2841 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post


It's a long standing rule. http://www.avsforum.com/t/849797/newbie-question-about-price-talk. If you didn't do anything wrong, then why do you assume you need to comment?

The bottom line is that I don't want this thread...you know the one I started...to turn into a discussion about the latest prices of hard drives at Newegg.

smile.gif

Never heard of it..

Jeff
post #2842 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

If you guys want to move this discussion forward start posting specifics about what you did and what your result was. As it stands now, we only have some general idea of what compression settings to use which leaves a lot of open territory.

Tell us what you did and how you got there. Then we can have a better discussion.

While the process of one member can be explained and then duplicated by others, the results are subjective. Plus, I'd bet that, regardless the discussion, no minds will be changed.

Jeff
post #2843 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I think this issue is like so many on a forum in that people decide how they want to do it and then rationalize it however they can. Where it gets to be a problem is when someone criticizes the decisions arrived at by others when those differ.

I have done testing with MP3s and various compression levels and I still use Lossless even when I could not hear a difference above 192.

Jeff

If you guys want to move this discussion forward start posting specifics about what you did and what your result was. As it stands now, we only have some general idea of what compression settings to use which leaves a lot of open territory.

Tell us what you did and how you got there. Then we can have a better discussion.

I'm using tapatalk and it isn't letting me link to other posts right now but I wrote a detailed, well started to anyway, method of doing what you are asking. Just look up posts I started and you should see the correct one easily. I stopped writing the guide because people seem to not be interested in anything outside handbrake/makemkv.
post #2844 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

If you guys want to move this discussion forward start posting specifics about what you did and what your result was. As it stands now, we only have some general idea of what compression settings to use which leaves a lot of open territory.

Tell us what you did and how you got there. Then we can have a better discussion.

While the process of one member can be explained and then duplicated by others, the results are subjective. Plus, I'd bet that, regardless the discussion, no minds will be changed.

Jeff

Honestly I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on the subject matter at hand. I was merely venting that day biggrin.gif
post #2845 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

If you guys want to move this discussion forward start posting specifics about what you did and what your result was. As it stands now, we only have some general idea of what compression settings to use which leaves a lot of open territory.

Tell us what you did and how you got there. Then we can have a better discussion.

While the process of one member can be explained and then duplicated by others, the results are subjective. Plus, I'd bet that, regardless the discussion, no minds will be changed.

Jeff
Well isn't that the point of trying to duplicate some of these seemingly ungodly high compressions? Obviously PQ after compression is subjective.
post #2846 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I have done testing with MP3s and various compression levels and I still use Lossless even when I could not hear a difference above 192.

Jeff

I think this point is a major difference between those who use compression and those that don't. I use FLAC for music because it's the better archival method vs. MP3, even if I can't distinguish the difference in quality between FLAC and a 256 MP3. With FLAC I can always easily convert it to another lossless format (e.g. APE, AIFF, etc.) or even a lossy format. Converting from MP3 to another lossy format is not wise.

I feel the same way about movies. If I have the ISO, it's the closest to what's on the disc. I can always use compression later, but I want to start with an archival-quality digital copy, at least for long-term storage. If it's for ripping movies for the kids to watch that will get deleted when they get tired of watching it, maybe not so important.
Edited by scolumbo - 5/12/13 at 8:26pm
post #2847 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolumbo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I have done testing with MP3s and various compression levels and I still use Lossless even when I could not hear a difference above 192.

Jeff

I think this point is a major difference between those who use compression and those that don't. I use FLAC for music because it's the better archival method vs. MP3, even if I can't distinguish the difference in quality between FLAC and a 256 MP3. With FLAC I can always easily convert it to another lossless format (e.g. APE, AIFF, etc.) or even a lossy format. Converting from MP3 to another lossy format is not wise.

I feel the same way about movies. If I have the ISO, it's the closest to what's on the disc. I can always use compression later, but I want to start with an archival-quality digital copy, at least for long-term storage. If it's for ripping movies for the kids to watch that will get deleted when they get tired of watching it, maybe not so important.

I view it the same way except that I compress everything to my liking knowing that I have the untouched disc in the garage if I ever want to transcode to something different. The only time this ever happens is if my kids are wanting something on their iPad for a trip.
post #2848 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolumbo View Post

I think this point is a major difference between those who use compression and those that don't. I use FLAC for music because it's the better archival method vs. MP3, even if I can't distinguish the difference in quality between FLAC and a 256 MP3. With FLAC I can always easily convert it to another lossless format (e.g. APE, AIFF, etc.) or even a lossy format. Converting from MP3 to another lossy format is not wise.

I feel the same way about movies. If I have the ISO, it's the closest to what's on the disc. I can always use compression later, but I want to start with an archival-quality digital copy, at least for long-term storage. If it's for ripping movies for the kids to watch that will get deleted when they get tired of watching it, maybe not so important.

I do end up with a rip of the main movie, lossless audio and any forced subs, but it is all bit-for-bit identical to the BD. Other than losing all the extras and the crap they try to force us to watch, I never considered "losing" data from the movie itself. I'd guess that most people with a dedicated home theater (BIG screen and proper surround config) would take the same path. If someone starts out looking at compression for their streaming/achiving, then likely they had some concerns about storage going in and/or their usage is such that the 1080/24p and lossless surround on the BD isn't important.

Jeff
post #2849 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I view it the same way except that I compress everything to my liking knowing that I have the untouched disc in the garage if I ever want to transcode to something different.

For discs that I treasure, I'll always want an archival backup, preferably an ISO. It may not be common, but I've had discs become unplayable. I want to rip the disc and put it away. Then, if it means compressing a movie for the iPad while traveling, I'm working with the ISO, not handling the disc again. I just don't want to handle (or mishandle) physical media more than I have to. This is even more critical for discs that are OOP, such as music DVD-As and SACDs, but the principle is the same.
post #2850 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolumbo View Post

For discs that I treasure, I'll always want an archival backup, preferably an ISO. It may not be common, but I've had discs become unplayable. I want to rip the disc and put it away. Then, if it means compressing a movie for the iPad while traveling, I'm working with the ISO, not handling the disc again. I just don't want to handle (or mishandle) physical media more than I have to. This is even more critical for discs that are OOP, such as music DVD-As and SACDs, but the principle is the same.

Funny enough having kids is what got me started with ripping my media collection for fear that they would quickly ruin discs (which they have already done with the handful we have lying around). Same as you, if I need to make a mobile copy, I will just take care of that separately when the need arises. For me personally, I rather have the original disc rip, and if proven that it is a waste at some point in the future so be it. To me it is better then being in the opposite position. There is no right answer, just what fits each users needs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home