or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripping Blu-Rays II - Page 97

post #2881 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Are you "extrapolating" from your experience with DVDs upscaling to 1080p or have you seen both an upscaled full BD rip on a 4k display and then the same BD but re-encoded on the 4k display?

It sounds to me like we might be getting some "opinion" from you. That's fine, but I'd prefer to know what is opinion.

Jeff

That's just a guess on my part how well BD re-encodes will scale. I don't know of anyone that has played back a BD re-encoded file on a 4K TV nor do I know anyone that owns one. I've only had a chance to play with a couple of them and while the 4K demos look amazing the current BD content in my opinion looks significantly better on 1080p native resolution displays. Even the guy running the The Hobbit as a demo wasn't that impressed. He claimed BD would start shipping with 4K / 1080p dual disc packs like they do currently with 1080p and DVD by Q3 of this year. That's entirely possible but I haven't heard such a claim anywhere else.

At any rate... for me personally I probably won't get a 4K TV for ~5 years but it is going to mean a complete change for the home streaming crowd.
post #2882 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Agreed. If I'm going to buy a drive I'm going to get one with the longest warranty. That would be Western Digital drives at this point.

WD Green and Seagate have the same 2 year warranty.
post #2883 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

WD Green and Seagate have the same 2 year warranty.

Yeah if I really needed a large capacity drive I'd most likely have to get a WD Red, Black or RE. I don't mind paying extra for a longer warranty or overall higher quality drive... as long as that higher price is a reasonable price. I don't think the prices are reasonable at this point. Seagate is getting close.... but I'd much rather not buy Seagate. I've had much better luck with WD. This HDD talk is getting off topic though. There is a ridiculous thread already talking about HDD pricing: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1460910/wd-red-vs-wd-green-vs-seagate-3tb-hard-drive-speeds
post #2884 of 5723
@ itznfb: About 40 posts ago I asked that you and that other ultra-compress guy (DotJun) post specific settings you've used for a particular movie. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen them. This would be useful to me so I can judge for myself whether there truly is no perceptible difference or if all this talk of 'no harm from compression' is merely an extended bloviation.
post #2885 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

bloviation.
Great word, I had to look that one up
post #2886 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by scolumbo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

It's much like using the ancient ARC compressor on a document file as compared with a more efficient compressor such as ZIP - the content is identical in both cases but one results in a significantly smaller file size.

I'm no expert in compression algorithms, but I don't believe you can reduce a movie by 80-90% and not lose data. It just won't be bit-for-bit identical.

Now whether it is discernible or not is a different discussion.

Compressing a movie isn't the same as compressing audio or stills. You are not trying to get but for bit exact with a movie. What you are trying to accomplish is to compress the movie while retaining the same quality as the original while it is PLAYING.

What this means is that the areas of the movies that can be compressed the most are fast moving scenes. If you ever want to see where compressed movies differ from a lossless/raw movie then it will be greatest in these scenes.

The reason why you can get away with it on these scenes is that people are NOT supposed to watch movies frame by frame!

So yes, when I say that my compressed movies are pretty damned equal to the quality of the bluray that I made the backup of, I mean it. Why the hell would I compress if the outcome was going to be grossly different from the source when I have 48 x 3tb discs of storage? I've been doing this since back in the divx/xvid days so I have had a lot of time, practice and patience to perfect my parameters. I had also stated that I've seen exactly what they do at the studio, well Sony pictures at least, as far as compression schemes goes because I talk to their engineers about it every now and then when I pay my friends there a visit.
post #2887 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

The BD content is already compressed but they use a fairly old (by computing standards) technology. This means that the movie compresses down to a fairly large size.
As I noted above, 90% of todays BD are compressed with H.264/AVC (MPEG-4, part 10) which is the modern codec implemented by Handbrake, etc. So it's all the same. Since H.264/AVC is already a lossy codec, render/re-compression is a corruption of the original that will suffer a generational loss even if you keep the size the same (the old photo-copy of a photo-copy effect). The hallmark of the H.264/AVC codec is that PQ degradation is gradual as you bit-starve the encoding -- 

 

Got it - thanks for the info. I must have bee=n stuck in MPEG-2 mode or something :)

 

 

Quote:
the rendering gets progressively softer with loss of fine detail (especially shadow detail) that you may not notice (depending on both your biological and electronic equipment) or even care about, but it is there nonetheless and there are lots of people who do indeed notice. If one likes to re-compress to save disk space and they are happy with the resulting renderings, that is fine, nobody can argue with what one sees in their setup. 

 

Oh that would be me - it would have to be as good as it can possibly be or I wouldn’t rest. Even if I couldn’t see the obvious differences, I'd always be looking for them if I suspected they might be there.

 

Quote:
But for me (and I emphasize this is my personal taste), re-compressing a BD original is like eating Scrapple or Spam -- it may taste good fried up with some eggs but once you know the details of what they put into it and how it is made, that knowledge will never allow it to taste the same and you'll never put it in your mouth again.

 

LOL. I was already convinced - now I feel ill biggrin.gif


Yes they use h.264 which is inferior to x.264 which is what most people use.
post #2888 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I think if compressing didn't require an additional process that consumes HOURS per title people- myself included- would be much more onboard with at least trying it out. Heck, most would prolly go for it in a NY minute. But unless you're ripping EVERYTHING you get your hands on or have fantastically huge collections, grabbing (2) 4TB hard drives for under $300 instead of spending the aforementioned time is simply the preferred methodology for most.

James

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. It might not be for everyone, but it is for me. I do have a fantastically large collection of discs, primarily TV series. I do have dedicated encoding computerS that can run 24/7 at work. Those computers are also dual Xeon so they are pretty speedy as far as encoding time goes that is why I have such brutal parameters. I also have huge gobs of storage.

Maybe it's just me, but if the price of gas drops to a buck a gallon tomorrow I think I'd still drive my Prius to work and back.
post #2889 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by blipszyc View Post

I guess one advantage to compressing and re-encoding everything is that you can avoid problems with streaming branches and perhaps forced subs. Everything would be encapsulated in the new file.

This works far better than you can imagine. I don't know if you watch anime but a lot of the discs are 1 big file with 4 episodes in it. Without encoding I would have to watch that four episode file at once instead of four diff episode files. What I'm saying would make more sense if you ran mediaportal as your front end. Maybe other front ends are like mediaportal but I have no experience in those other ones so I cannot say one way or another.
post #2890 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

I am fine admitting this in an opinion statement: People who are ripping full copies for the sole purpose of image quality are suffering from a placebo affect and/or haven't been able to compress a movie properly. Again, that's my opinion. I still don't have an issue with people buying HDDs and array controllers to store full copies just because they enjoy it and that's what they want to do. I spend money on things other people think is a waste so does everybody. My issue is that a lot of people around here convince others that re-compressing a disc is a sin and that you must purchase thousands of dollars worth of storage equipment. I see it constantly on this forum. someone will bring up their strategy for ripping/encoding/streaming for review and they will get bashed for not saving full copies. I see it in every single thread. I'll pick on Gusgus as he is one of the worst offenders. Every thread on this topic he bashes those who compress BD saying why don't you just buy the DVD. Which is a ridiculous statement since even with tons of PQ loss a compressed BD still looks infinitely better than a DVD.

This is exactly my problem with most people regarding this topic. People that compress movies get bashed by those who don't compress as if we are doing some god awful act lol

If someone posts a simple "just ripped x movie as an iso onto my server", people chat about it.

If someone posts "just got done encoding x movie which was a pain to work on cause of x complexity and y noise", they get crucified.

Such double standards in this forum which amazes me because I would have figured that options is a good thing.
post #2891 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I'm saying the loss of quality when a video is upscaled that far is so great that the difference between a rip and a re-encode is negligible. It's not going to be any different than a DVD upscaled and a re-encoded DVD upscaled. They will both look about the same but both still look like crap. The upscaled BD vs the upscaled BD re-encode will probably have less of a difference than the current DVD scenario just due to the amount of additional resolution that already exists.

Are you "extrapolating" from your experience with DVDs upscaling to 1080p or have you seen both an upscaled full BD rip on a 4k display and then the same BD but re-encoded on the 4k display?

It sounds to me like we might be getting some "opinion" from you. That's fine, but I'd prefer to know what is opinion.

Jeff

What sucks is if I took the time out to test this out, tht is to prove that upscaling my encode vs bluray to a 4k you will just reply saying things like "sorry but that is your subjective opinion and I cannot believe that you cannot see the difference when it obviously has to be there". frown.gif
post #2892 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

@ itznfb: About 40 posts ago I asked that you and that other ultra-compress guy (DotJun) post specific settings you've used for a particular movie. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen them. This would be useful to me so I can judge for myself whether there truly is no perceptible difference or if all this talk of 'no harm from compression' is merely an extended bloviation.

I posted my params for you not once, but twice.

I also forgot to mention that I run the 10bit x.264_64.exe since I have 10 bit monitors.

Btw, above all other things, IMO a 10 but panel will do more towards quality than anything else.
post #2893 of 5723
...
Edited by PobjoySpecial - 5/16/13 at 2:42pm
post #2894 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

What sucks is if I took the time out to test this out, tht is to prove that upscaling my encode vs bluray to a 4k you will just reply saying things like "sorry but that is your subjective opinion and I cannot believe that you cannot see the difference when it obviously has to be there". frown.gif

Just to be clear, "I cannot believe that you cannot see" are your words and not mine. The OP seems to have an uncommon experience base - and one that makes their opinion on that subject matter valuable here (which is a status that I'd extend to you, btw), but I still need to know what is opinion and speculation, regardless how qualified, from direct experience.

Having said that, we are dealing with PERCEPTUAL encoding and whether any given person will not perceive a difference depends, as someone has already posted, on that persons biology and viewing/listened gear. And we are all outliers, you know! wink.gif

Jeff
post #2895 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

You've been explaining for pages now, and I still don't know.

You claim to have ~130,000GB of storage available. That is ~4500 Blu Ray movies or ~27,000 of your 5GB wonder encodes. That is ~1 year and ~6 years of straight video, respectively. You are compressing to gain 5 years of extra content? How long do you intend to live? wink.gif

It's a more bloviation than sense situation. wink.gif
post #2896 of 5723
You guys are brutal. For those to lazy to look it up.


blo·vi·ate (blv-t)
intr.v. blo·vi·at·ed, blo·vi·at·ing, blo·vi·ates Slang
To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner: "the rural Babbitt who bloviates about 'progress' and 'growth'" (George Rebeck).
post #2897 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Yes they use h.264 which is inferior to x.264 which is what most people use.
Seriously? How do you figure that one.
"x264 is a free software library for encoding video streams into the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC format.[1] It is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License."
post #2898 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by PobjoySpecial View Post

You claim to have ~130,000GB of storage available.
Yes, 48x3TB = 144TB. That raised my eyebrows also. I believe that would be the record here -- not even aaronwt has that much.
post #2899 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

This is exactly my problem with most people regarding this topic. People that compress movies get bashed by those who don't compress as if we are doing some god awful act lol

If someone posts a simple "just ripped x movie as an iso onto my server", people chat about it.

If someone posts "just got done encoding x movie which was a pain to work on cause of x complexity and y noise", they get crucified.

Such double standards in this forum which amazes me because I would have figured that options is a good thing.

"Crucified" is a but much, don't you think? If anything, I think you underestimate what ANY person would think about the compressing methodology after learning that it takes HOURS of extra time PER DISC and you end up with an inferior copy...yes it's inescapable, it is inferior no matter how you cut it. Throw out the few guys here who are perhaps a bit more matter-of-fact than a layman, but I would bet you that virtually anyone would want to know why you take the significant amount of extra time (and work) to make a something that's less than the original. It's so painfully counter-intuitive that any reasonable person would scratch their head if it simply meant saving $150 for literally, hundreds of full length films.

Basically, I don't think either side will ever be convinced...either way of going about the process is simply too engrained within the fabric of what people value much too differently: time.

James
post #2900 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Having said that, we are dealing with PERCEPTUAL encoding and whether any given person will not perceive a difference depends, as someone has already posted, on that persons biology and viewing/listened gear. And we are all outliers, you know!
Yes, it is perception based on a whole host of situational factors. So I have no problem accepting their word that they have found a set of parameters that produce a highly re-compressed file that they perceive to be visually identical to the original BluRay.

They need to accept that there are a whole lot of people who do perceive a difference and that they are in the minority. This thread sits in a forum about streaming media and media streamers. People in other threads discuss the video quality of the HD offerings from the streaming services like Netflix or Amazon -- who use similar brutal compression to make their offerings stream-able. I have not found many who feel their HD content looks as good as an original BluRay.
post #2901 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

Yes, 48x3TB = 144TB. That raised my eyebrows also. I believe that would be the record here -- not even aaronwt has that much.


It's a truly staggering figure. I know I'm not as old (sorry, lol) as some here but I'm a pretty damn big movie guy and once you get up to 4-500 hundred movies (bout 10-12 TB's uncompressed) you HAVE to be reaching. Honestly, see if you can get 100 movies you've seen twice in the last few years.

Re-consumption has got to look something like this:





James
post #2902 of 5723
Ugh, James.
That's just a really disturbing picture.

But I suppose that's just my perception.
post #2903 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

Yes, 48x3TB = 144TB. That raised my eyebrows also. I believe that would be the record here -- not even aaronwt has that much.

Not even close to a record. I have 147+TB and I know of several people on here that are far higher than me.
post #2904 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killroy View Post

Not even close to a record. I have 147+TB and I know of several people on here that are far higher than me.

I think anyone with that amount of storage has to be high.

Jeff
post #2905 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

Ugh, James.
That's just a really disturbing picture.

But I suppose that's just my perception.

Sorry but that scene from AC Orange just jumped out at me.

James
post #2906 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I think anyone with that amount of storage has to be high.

Jeff

So if someone has a collection of several thousand comic books, or baseball cards, or 25+ cars, or beanie babies, then they are high? Humans are gatherers and each of us has at least one thing they hoard. I just happen to be a "digital hoarder" as some have labeled it.

I have a problem. I know it, I accept it. But the alternative are far worse. My problem does not interfere with anyone else life. I cannot say as much for people that have a problem with drugs or alcohol. And yes, they are the same type of problem.
post #2907 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

@ itznfb: About 40 posts ago I asked that you and that other ultra-compress guy (DotJun) post specific settings you've used for a particular movie. Unless I missed something, I haven't seen them. This would be useful to me so I can judge for myself whether there truly is no perceptible difference or if all this talk of 'no harm from compression' is merely an extended bloviation.

It wasn't you that I answered but the settings have been posted a couple times:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1336046/ripping-blu-rays-ii/2790#post_23305086
post #2908 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

This is exactly my problem with most people regarding this topic. People that compress movies get bashed by those who don't compress as if we are doing some god awful act lol

If someone posts a simple "just ripped x movie as an iso onto my server", people chat about it.

If someone posts "just got done encoding x movie which was a pain to work on cause of x complexity and y noise", they get crucified.

Such double standards in this forum which amazes me because I would have figured that options is a good thing.

"Crucified" is a but much, don't you think? If anything, I think you underestimate what ANY person would think about the compressing methodology after learning that it takes HOURS of extra time PER DISC and you end up with an inferior copy...yes it's inescapable, it is inferior no matter how you cut it. Throw out the few guys here who are perhaps a bit more matter-of-fact than a layman, but I would bet you that virtually anyone would want to know why you take the significant amount of extra time (and work) to make a something that's less than the original. It's so painfully counter-intuitive that any reasonable person would scratch their head if it simply meant saving $150 for literally, hundreds of full length films.

Basically, I don't think either side will ever be convinced...either way of going about the process is simply too engrained within the fabric of what people value much too differently: time.

James

Crucified is the word I use after a 12 hour shift. I'm normally more civil than that, my apologies smile.gif

As far as storage goes... I have two 3ware 9650se-24 and a bunch of 3tb drives from work hehe

I started to compress vids long ago before I had the storage capacity I do now and it just stuck for me. I've said it before, I'm not wasting time since I have plenty of it considering the whole process only involves about 10-15 min of my actual time. It isn't like I'm sitting there at my chair for hours doing nothing as I wait for it to finish encoding.

The best part of encoding though is that I can burn forced subs in. I can separate multi episode vobs so I can display them in my front end cleaner. I can cut out some stupid extra stuff that seems so common in anime.

Also, I don't compress to try and get maximum compression. My goal isn't streaming. Shoot, my vids won't even play on anything outside of a dual core and forget about dxva hehe
post #2909 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I think anyone with that amount of storage has to be high.

Jeff

The same could be said of someone with no storage(or very little storage). Or even someone who owns a sports car, boat, motorcycle, etc.. It all depends on your point of view. But to each their own. Everyone has their own preferences.
post #2910 of 5723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Yes they use h.264 which is inferior to x.264 which is what most people use.
Seriously? How do you figure that one.
"x264 is a free software library for encoding video streams into the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC format.[1] It is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License."

H.264 is not x.264. H.264 is what businesses use because it licensed out for use. x.264 is not because that would violate the gnu.

Development of h.264 stopped years ago while x.264 is still being developed. A new rev just came out last week in fact.

If you want an example of h.264 look no further than apple QuickTime.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home