or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripping Blu-Rays II - Page 113

post #3361 of 5693
Of course I think the easiest way is to just rip the entire disc with no compression. This is what I've been doing with my BDs since 2009. I've tried out the other methods but nothing could be easier than just sticking the disc in and having a rip done 30 minutes later. Although I still have the option to go back to the ISo later if I wanted to compress it. But other than testing things out I have not done this.
post #3362 of 5693
$109 3Tb drives at newegg.. external..
post #3363 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

Of course I think the easiest way is to just rip the entire disc with no compression. This is what I've been doing with my BDs since 2009. I've tried out the other methods but nothing could be easier than just sticking the disc in and having a rip done 30 minutes later. Although I still have the option to go back to the ISo later if I wanted to compress it. But other than testing things out I have not done this.

+1 on ripping the entire disc. I used to use dvd decrypter, dvd shrink and AnyDVD, but have been using dvd fab for years. With the cost of storage today, it's more time efficient for me just to store content on hard disk without further processing and conversions to other formats. I have been using AnyDVD to back up my HD DVD collection as of last week...
post #3364 of 5693
Is anybody here using YAMJ and Ember Media Manager? Successfully using, that is.

Jeff
post #3365 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by myoda View Post

I have been using AnyDVD to back up my HD DVD collection as of last week...

Which then, of course, brings up the question:

How many movies do you have that you're very likely NEVER to watch again?

wink.gif

post #3366 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by LastButNotLeast View Post

Which then, of course, brings up the question:
How many movies do you have that you're very likely NEVER to watch again?
wink.gif

My wife packs 2 weeks worth of clothing for a one week vacation BECAUSE SHE LIKES OPTIONS. wink.gif

Jeff
post #3367 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

My wife packs 2 weeks worth of clothing for a three day vacation BECAUSE SHE LIKES OPTIONS. wink.gif

Jeff

changed the above to reflect my wife's packing....Drove to Columbia MO for a four day stay, and you would have thought we were packing for doomsday and leaving our home forever...
post #3368 of 5693
^^ yep. rolleyes.gif
post #3369 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

My wife packs 2 weeks worth of clothing for a one week vacation BECAUSE SHE LIKES OPTIONS. wink.gif

Jeff

This sounds like me but only because I want to be prepared. Ever since I had a trip to Dallas, that was supposed to be for a few days, that ended up being over 3.5 weeks. I like to take alot more with me than I actually need.
post #3370 of 5693
I don't know what the gripe is about compression wait times. It's not like one sitting there for hours waiting for it to finish.

Start it before bed. Wake up. Go to work. Most likely done before I even get home.

Some people will say, what if I want to watch it now? Then watch the disc and compress it after duh smile.gif
post #3371 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I don't know what the gripe is about compression wait times. It's not like one sitting there for hours waiting for it to finish.

Start it before bed. Wake up. Go to work. Most likely done before I even get home.

Some people will say, what if I want to watch it now? Then watch the disc and compress it after duh smile.gif
yeah, it's just that simple. Can you come over and take care of the 1100 blu rays I have not to mention the hundred or so HD dvd's I have...
post #3372 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by comicguy View Post

yeah, it's just that simple. Can you come over and take care of the 1100 blu rays I have not to mention the hundred or so HD dvd's I have...

I have 1000's of discs as well. In about 1.5 month's (not really keeping at it either) I'm already through over 1/2 my collection. Whenever it's rainy out or just really bored I'll start ripping a bunch of discs. When I fill up an extra 2TB HDD I have I queue them all up and re-encode them to an extra 640GB HDD. And it'll save me hundreds if not thousands of dollars of HDD costs in the long run.
post #3373 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by comicguy View Post

yeah, it's just that simple. Can you come over and take care of the 1100 blu rays I have not to mention the hundred or so HD dvd's I have...

Maybe you're looking for the "Loading Blu-rays into a changer" thread? wink.gif

Jeff
post #3374 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by comicguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I don't know what the gripe is about compression wait times. It's not like one sitting there for hours waiting for it to finish.

Start it before bed. Wake up. Go to work. Most likely done before I even get home.

Some people will say, what if I want to watch it now? Then watch the disc and compress it after duh smile.gif
yeah, it's just that simple. Can you come over and take care of the 1100 blu rays I have not to mention the hundred or so HD dvd's I have...
Again, it's not like I'm sitting there waiting for them to finish. I also have a large collection, but I have a dedicated computer at work (server farm actually), that I can have crunch away 24/7 so yea maybe a little easier for me to swallow.

Regardless, even if I only had my home computer I would encode my favorite stuff first and finish the rest at leisure. It's not a race after all smile.gif
post #3375 of 5693
I can't help but bite on these compression dialogs mainly because I believe so much of it is based on faulty or even completely inaccurate assumptions...

Cost. Surely you don't believe you're going to save thousands of dollars on hardrives? I just picked up (3) 4 TB's for $167 apiece. I'd be willing to bet we'll see TEN TB drives at less than that within 5 years when they'll need to be replaced. Time has proven over and over again that space expands exponentially while the cost contracts dramatically. Just wait until you can fit 100 TBs into a lunch box. But perhaps you're one of these guys punishing down 30-40 redbox frisbees a month...so you may need two lunchboxes.

Time? In 45 or so days you're halfway through your "1,000's of discs" collection? This, after you said you:

Put a disc in before you go to bed.
Wake up.
Go to work.
And then come home and it's prolly done?

Lmao, AND you don't "keep at it"?

Ill let others run the math on the above, but by rough calcs you'd get through MAYBE 3-4 a day. Maybe. Doesn't even remotely add up to getting half way through thousands of discs in 45 days. Maybe 150. Maybe.

This is all run off your submissions, no one else's.

Cost + Time + Quality + the ongoing evolution of HDD space and reduction of cost = pretty much why 98% of the folks doing this have chose not to go your route.

And I don't think anyone is really telling you your way is "wrong" (or maybe they have, I'm just not keeping score) you're just not convincing anyone here as I believe the vast majority believe the above are pretty salient reasons to just rip and go.

Have a good one.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 7/9/13 at 7:50pm
post #3376 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I can't help but bite on these compression dialogs mainly because I believe so much of it is based on faulty or even completely inaccurate assumptions...

Cost. Surely you don't believe you're going to save thousands of dollars on hardrives? I just picked up (3) 4 TB's for $167 apiece. I'd be willing to bet we'll see TEN TB drives at less than that within 5 years when they'll need to be replaced. Time has proven over and over again that space expands exponentially while the cost contracts dramatically. Just wait until you can fit 100 TBs into a lunch box.

Time? In 45 or so days you're halfway through your collection? This, after you said you:

Put a disc in before you go to bed.
Wake up.
Go to work.
And then come home and it's prolly done?

Lmao, AND you don't "keep at it"?

Ill let others run the math on the above, but by rough calcs you'd get through MAYBE 3-4 a day. Maybe. Doesn't even remotely add up to getting half way through thousands of discs in 45 days. Maybe 150. Maybe.

This is all run off your submissions, no one else's.

Cost + Time + Quality + the ongoing evolution of HDD space and reduction of cost = pretty much why 98% of the folks doing this have chose not to go your route.

And I don't think anyone is really telling you your way is "wrong" (or maybe they have, I'm just not keeping score) you're just not convincing anyone here as I believe the vast majority believe the above are pretty salient reasons to just rip and go.

Have a good one.

James
I'm not really trying to convince anyone to do it.

The scenario I gave above for encoding overnight is for the typical person, not me. As I stated before, I have the capability to run 24/7. I also stated I'm in no hurry. So whether I finish my library in a day or ten years doesn't matter to me.

So as far as time spent goes it is inconsequential to me. The hdd cost on the other hand could mean a lot to a data hoarder like me though biggrin.gif

Btw I've been doing this since the divx days so I know enough to not try and talk people outside of doom9 into encoding vids.
post #3377 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I can't help but bite on these compression dialogs mainly because I believe so much of it is based on faulty or even completely inaccurate assumptions...

Cost. Surely you don't believe you're going to save thousands of dollars on hardrives? I just picked up (3) 4 TB's for $167 apiece. I'd be willing to bet we'll see TEN TB drives at less than that within 5 years when they'll need to be replaced. Time has proven over and over again that space expands exponentially while the cost contracts dramatically. Just wait until you can fit 100 TBs into a lunch box. But perhaps you're one of these guys punishing down 30-40 redbox frisbees a month...so you may need two lunchboxes.

Time? In 45 or so days you're halfway through your "1,000's of discs" collection? This, after you said you:

Put a disc in before you go to bed.
Wake up.
Go to work.
And then come home and it's prolly done?

Lmao, AND you don't "keep at it"?

Ill let others run the math on the above, but by rough calcs you'd get through MAYBE 3-4 a day. Maybe. Doesn't even remotely add up to getting half way through thousands of discs in 45 days. Maybe 150. Maybe.

This is all run off your submissions, no one else's.

Cost + Time + Quality + the ongoing evolution of HDD space and reduction of cost = pretty much why 98% of the folks doing this have chose not to go your route.

And I don't think anyone is really telling you your way is "wrong" (or maybe they have, I'm just not keeping score) you're just not convincing anyone here as I believe the vast majority believe the above are pretty salient reasons to just rip and go.

Have a good one.

James

You're wrong on pretty much every thing you said. First off you're quoting my posts and DotJun's posts as if we are somehow the same person and some of your comments are way off base on that alone.

Second. Yes thousands. I would need 12-13 3TB HDDs to store 1000+ 1.5 hour 1080p videos. With selective compression (downscaling animated films and or dramas and heavier compression on films I don't care about quality) I can easily get those same videos on 2 or 3 3TB HDDs. So yes. Thousands.

10TB HDDs huh? That will never happen for two reasons. New magnetic recording technology isn't really being researched because companies know that SSD capacity and price/gb will surpass HDD in the next couple years and it took over 5 years to go from 1TB to 4TB and we've been stagnant ever since. We may see 10TB SSDs in the next 5 years but I doubt we'll see anything beyond 5TB HDDs.

3-4 a day? Not even close. Depending on settings and my available time I could get through 20 in a day. It only takes a little over an hour for one video and I can queue up as many as I feel like. Again, you're quoting two different people as if our experiences were the same.

98% of people here not compressing huh? I see the same 10-15 guys in every thread on multiple forums harping about not re-encoding. I would hardly call that 98%. As DotJun said I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything different. From my perspective buying 15+ HDDs (including data protection) is a complete waste of money. $1000 is my gasoline for an entire year.

Do whatever works for you. I don't get why the non-re-encode guys get so angry about people re-encoding. Get over it.
post #3378 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Do whatever works for you. I don't get why the non-re-encode guys get so angry about people re-encoding. Get over it.
My bad. I'm replying while I'm in the longer line waits at Disneyland so I didn't even notice it wasn't my post being talked about.

I have also noticed this. You never see the compression guys jump out the woodwork at people who don't compress but it seems the other way around isn't the same. You don't even have to go far for proof of this as it happens many times in this post.

I didn't think it would happen this time though because someone specifically asked about it.
post #3379 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

You're wrong on pretty much every thing you said. First off you're quoting my posts and DotJun's posts as if we are somehow the same person and some of your comments are way off base on that alone.

Second. Yes thousands. I would need 12-13 3TB HDDs to store 1000+ 1.5 hour 1080p videos. With selective compression (downscaling animated films and or dramas and heavier compression on films I don't care about quality) I can easily get those same videos on 2 or 3 3TB HDDs. So yes. Thousands.

10TB HDDs huh? That will never happen for two reasons. New magnetic recording technology isn't really being researched because companies know that SSD capacity and price/gb will surpass HDD in the next couple years and it took over 5 years to go from 1TB to 4TB and we've been stagnant ever since. We may see 10TB SSDs in the next 5 years but I doubt we'll see anything beyond 5TB HDDs.

3-4 a day? Not even close. Depending on settings and my available time I could get through 20 in a day. It only takes a little over an hour for one video and I can queue up as many as I feel like. Again, you're quoting two different people as if our experiences were the same.

98% of people here not compressing huh? I see the same 10-15 guys in every thread on multiple forums harping about not re-encoding. I would hardly call that 98%. As DotJun said I'm not trying to convince anyone to do anything different. From my perspective buying 15+ HDDs (including data protection) is a complete waste of money. $1000 is my gasoline for an entire year.

Do whatever works for you. I don't get why the non-re-encode guys get so angry about people re-encoding. Get over it.

I'm wrong on nothing of substance, sir. But nice try, sounds great, I suppose.

First, I simply combined both of your "proclamations", but here, I'll make it simple for you:

YOU: "I have 1000's of discs as well. In about 1.5 month's (not really keeping at it either) I'm already through over 1/2 my collection. Whenever it's rainy out or just really bored I'll start ripping a bunch of discs. When I fill up an extra 2TB HDD I have I queue them all up and re-encode them to an extra 640GB HDD. And it'll save me hundreds if not thousands of dollars of HDD costs in the long run."

Dot Jun: "Start it before bed. Wake up. Go to work. Most likely done before I even get home."

Pretty straightforward. Sorry if strewing the two together was confusing...mistake on my part.

Ok. Let's start with basic arithmetic. (13) 3 TB drives for 1000 movies? 40 TBs? Nope.

Uncompressed 1080p rips (averaging longer than 90 minutes, btw) average 24.8 gigs, each (my ~300 are about 24.2 if that matters). That's 23 TBs. Or (6) 4 TB drives. We'll leave out the fact that less than a fraction of 1% of the population owns 1000+ movies...you apparently own thousands more than that, still. Ok.

Onward: "DEPENDING on the settings it takes a little more than an hour". Yep. Sure. I'd love to see the RESULTS of these "settings", never mind the rig transcoding 25-35 gig files in an hour. But STILL, at TWENTY a day you have 900. That's not half of thousands. After 45 days. Of non-stop transcoding. With "interesting" settings, I'm certain.

Ask 20 people on this board how long it takes THEM to transcode a ~30 gig film. Oh that's right, you'd be hard pressed to find ten, never mind twenty people on these boards do it for their entire collections (hundreds or thousands of files). Still, I'm 100% positive that the ones that do are going to relay MUCH longer times...but they're (DotJun included) prolly all doing it wrong. rolleyes.gif Go figure.

Now, storage. Costs and expansion. I'm not going to sit here and waste mine and others time re-counting the history of DATA STORAGE over the last THIRTY YEARS...or ten for that matter. It's all on the web for you to learn for yourself. Bizarrely, you scoff at the notion that space has 'just" QUADRUPLED in the last 5 years form 1 to 4TBs. Huh? Where do you think we'll be 5 years from now, then? Then you make a grave mistake by assuming I'm speaking of trad HDDs..although I did make my own by typing "HDD" so I suppose that's on me...but you're a smart guy and almost certainly can look beyond that burp. Think: DATA STORAGE.

Regardless of the make-up of the drive vehicle, in 5 years time you won't be saving thousands on 50 TB's of storage. I can guarantee you that. Storage SIZE is dictated by NEED. Honestly: with the exception of those looking to store massive volumes of HD content what percentage of the populace- business and personal- even needs a single 4TB drive right now? 1-2%....and yes, I realize entities exists that require exponentially more. I work at a university with 15,000 students and 3,000 on staff and I'm shocked at what we're running. With 4k on the horizon I can assure you that HDDs and SSDs alike will be- again- expanding dramatically over the next half decade...while prices spiral downward. 5 and maybe 6 TBs HDDs by the end of the year, already. Mark it down.

Yes, 98% do not transcode...maybe a few more to throw stuff on an ipad like me on occasion. But we can set up a poll if you like. Again, the VAST majority are tickled pink to rip a disc in 20-40 minutes and store 35-40 movies on a single TB without touching another key...in full quality. 3 (4) TB drives puts 99% in awfully good shape. The redbox raiders? Again, maybe not.

The time and "effort" put into the whole deal? Incalculable, highly variable, and more than what the lion's share even want to visit. Let's just leave it at that.

Last..."angry"? Who's angry? Sounds like another straw man to me. Perhaps "miffed" is a better word. Especially at the rabid defense propped up by- literally- 2 or 3 people. Swing the hammer the other way, I can take it. I haven't even written off the whole idea in the first place...just isn't an issue for me.


James
Edited by mastermaybe - 7/10/13 at 7:31am
post #3380 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I don't get why the non-re-encode guys get so angry about people re-encoding.
Oh, that's easy.
What generally triggers it, is when someone comes on a thread and (often arrogantly) declares that (s)he can take a 40GB BluRay rip, already encoded as H.264, and re-compress it down to the size of a DVD with absolutely no loss in quality. And then usually goes on to imply how dumb we are not to re-compress because the studios only make the files so big to fill up the disk and we are deluding ourselves thinking we can see a difference.
post #3381 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

My bad. I'm replying while I'm in the longer line waits at Disneyland so I didn't even notice it wasn't my post being talked about.

I have also noticed this. You never see the compression guys jump out the woodwork at people who don't compress but it seems the other way around isn't the same. You don't even have to go far for proof of this as it happens many times in this post.

I didn't think it would happen this time though because someone specifically asked about it.

He was talking about your post.... any my posts but as if both statements were posted by one person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I'm wrong on nothing of su........ it. I haven't even written off the whole idea in the first place...just isn't an issue for me.


James

Pretty much nothing in your post makes sense. False claims, bad math and assumptions on who does what....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

Oh, that's easy.
What generally triggers it, is when someone comes on a thread and (often arrogantly) declares that (s)he can take a 40GB BluRay rip, already encoded as H.264, and re-compress it down to the size of a DVD with absolutely no loss in quality. And then usually goes on to imply how dumb we are not to re-compress because the studios only make the files so big to fill up the disk and we are deluding ourselves thinking we can see a difference.

Other than saying it's a waste of money when did anyone imply other people were "dump" for using full rips? I've had personal experience with quite a few people just like yourself at conferences, meetups and work where they make ridiculous claims that movies can't be re-encoded without major loss of quality. Yet not one of those people has ever been able to see any difference between the original BD rip and a re-encoded file. I've said it before, until I meet someone that can pick the re-encoded file from the original then I have no evidence to your claim.
post #3382 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I've had personal experience with quite a few people just like yourself at conferences, meetups and work where they make ridiculous claims that movies can't be re-encoded without major loss of quality.
See what I mean? Now why did you have to characterize that as "ridiculous" with all that it implies about the claimant?

I'm always amused how people are willing to concede that the PQ of Internet-streamed HD movies, with their highly reduced bitrates, are inferior to watching the original BD transfer -- yet when they are the ones doing the bitrate reduction the result looks just as good.
post #3383 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

He was talking about your post.... any my posts but as if both statements were posted by one person.
Pretty much nothing in your post makes sense. False claims, bad math and assumptions on who does what....
Other than saying it's a waste of money when did anyone imply other people were "dump" for using full rips? I've had personal experience with quite a few people just like yourself at conferences, meetups and work where they make ridiculous claims that movies can't be re-encoded without major loss of quality. Yet not one of those people has ever been able to see any difference between the original BD rip and a re-encoded file. I've said it before, until I meet someone that can pick the re-encoded file from the original then I have no evidence to your claim.

Point out the "false claims", "bad math" or disprove any of my "assumptions" which strike me as conservative, if anything. More talk.

Plenty of "sense" going on, you just have to be able (and willing, crucially) to process it, I'm afraid.

James
post #3384 of 5693
You can throw the entire quality bit out the window as far as I'm concerned. Ok, for the sake of argument we'll say they're equal...or at least indiscernible to the typical bloke.

It's much more centered around time AND the fact that the size reduction is simply not needed for 99+% of collections when you're looking at $35-$40 a TB. Future? Storage will go up. Cost will go down. This is a certainty.

Play with those jacks for awhile.


James
post #3385 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

See what I mean? Now why did you have to characterize that as "ridiculous" with all that it implies about the claimant?

I'm always amused how people are willing to concede that the PQ of Internet-streamed HD movies, with their highly reduced bitrates, are inferior to watching the original BD transfer -- yet when they are the ones doing the bitrate reduction the result looks just as good.

Because speaking in absolutes when someone has no experience in said topic is ridiculous. Making a claim that a re-encoded file cannot be of the same quality without actually seeing the files makes no sense. You can't really compare 300Kbps-700Kbps internet streams with 5Mbps - 15Mbps local files. Not really sure where you're going with that.
post #3386 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post


Do whatever works for you. I don't get why the non-re-encode guys get so angry about people re-encoding. Get over it.

Angry? Seems to elevate the "discussion" to an undeserved status. I'm sure most of us are in an amused state and are otherwise ignoring the entire brouhaha. smile.gif

Jeff
post #3387 of 5693
I agree with Kelson in that much of this stems from the perception (I'll avoid stating it as fact) that we form from some that imply that those who transcode have somehow got it all figured out while us neandethals are simply wasting space and money while beating our heads against the wall, drooling all over the place. Now some of that's prolly in my own mind, admittedly. biggrin.giftongue.gif

Funny, it's a similar vibe that I get from these "organic people", when in reality, most of them have no freakin clue what they're talking about, which I (thankfully) find to be the precise converse to people like itznfb and Dot Jun who at least know very much what they're doing even if we don't agree with some of their premises.

For fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5amLAMRQk5I

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 7/10/13 at 10:44am
post #3388 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

You can't really compare 300Kbps-700Kbps internet streams with 5Mbps - 15Mbps local files. Not really sure where you're going with that.
HD Internet streams are 5-8Mbps so not really sure where you are coming from with 300-700Kbps.
post #3389 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

HD Internet streams are 5-8Mbps so not really sure where you are coming from with 300-700Kbps.

Maybe from Vudu XD HDX. Even the new Netflix HD isn't anywhere near that. Everything I've read says Vudu XD HDX uses a max bitrate of 9 Mbps and Netflix HD uses a max of 8 Mbps. Which lines up with what I see on my side when using Vudu XD HDX. According to Netflix's blog about their press release when they first announced the HD feature their 1080 content topped out at 4800Kbps but most people won't see that throughput. Their current standard content tops out around 1.5Mbps but again.. most people don't see that throughput as it's a max. The peak I have seen from both Hulu and Netflix has been 700Kbps.

additionally... they are also using on the fly transcoding focused on bitrate rather than quality and dynamically changing those parameters based on current conditions which is the primary reason for internet streams looking like crap.
Edited by itznfb - 7/10/13 at 11:41am
post #3390 of 5693
No wonder school tuition is so high these days. They don't do any work.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home