or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ripping Blu-Rays II - Page 114

post #3391 of 5693
Thanks for all the info!

For all my testing I used The Hobbit on Blu-Ray.

I went ahead and just tried DVDFab since it has a free trial, though I was less than please with the results.

With my initial testing I used CUDA, which I eventually found to provide a less quality video. After running in software mode with 1-pass and high quality, I found that CUDA hadn't even been saving time. It actually took the same amount of time using software and provided a better quality video, however I still wasn't happy with the results. Videos were pixelated, especially in dark scenes being the worst (grey pixelation in areas that should be much darker compared to the original source).

After, I ran many tests with handbrake, using various suggested settings I was able to find around the forums and other sites. Ultimately, I still was not too pleased with the results.

My goal was to take some 1080p Blu-Ray movies and convert them to 720p (4-6gb) for ones that I am not too concerned about quality and retain 1080p (7-10GB) for movies I am picky over. I tried both 720p and 1080p conversions but the results were similar to DVDFab, although not as bad.

Last night, I just let a final attempt run with Handbrake. I setup as follows:

High Profile
Mkv Container

Anamorphic: Strict
Cropping: Automatic
Detelecine: Default
Decomb: Default
Deinterlace: Off
Denoise: Off
Deblock: Off
Grayscale: Unchecked

Video Codec: H.264
Framerate: Same as source with variable ticked
Constant Quality 18 RF
Use Advanced Tab instead: Unchecked
x264 Preset: Medium
x264 Tune: None
Fast Decode: Unchecked
H.264 Profile: High
H.264 Level: 4.1

Audio Track Source: DTS-HD MA
Codec: Auto Passthru

No subtitles

Chapter Markets created


The result was an almost 11GB file with quality that doesn't even match many other 720p files I have seen, let alone 1080p. My biggest grip is just the pixelation, I am not sure what I am doing wrong at this point.

Any advice?

Thanks!
post #3392 of 5693
I confess I only ever used Handbrake for a test encode or two some time ago, but a CRF18 encode should look very good.

Anyway, you didn't select an X264 tune. Any particular reason you didn't use Tune: Film, as suggested earlier? I would presume Handbrake would use a default tune if you leave it unselected.

Keep in mind that if you keep the DTS-MA audio, that accounts for what? 3 GB or so of your 11 GB total? It so happens I still have on my computer a test of The Hobbit using Ripbot at CRF20, Tune: Film, audio re-encoded to AC3, and the file size is over 8 GB. So something is not right with your settings, but I can't tell you exactly what it is. Your output file size should be considerably larger.

Mind you, every program that uses the x264 encoder uses different profiles/tunes/presets, according to the developers' judgment.

I don't quite understand the framerate: same as source with variable ticked. Maybe a Handbrake user can explain.

One minor thing, but using automatic cropping can lead to odd results on occasion You may run into a movie with aspect ratio changes (like Tron: Legacy), or the calculation may go wrong somehow. Which means that it's safer to calculate the cropping manually, but that's a bit of a pain. I personally don't bother cropping as black bars do not require any significant bits.

Anyway, I'm not quite clear if you used CUDA for your final encode. If you did, then no wonder the result looked poor. BTW, what display are you using to view your videos?
post #3393 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

I confess I only ever used Handbrake for a test encode or two some time ago, but a CRF18 encode should look very good.

Anyway, you didn't select an X264 tune. Any particular reason you didn't use Tune: Film, as suggested earlier? I would presume Handbrake would use a default tune if you leave it unselected.

Keep in mind that if you keep the DTS-MA audio, that accounts for what? 3 GB or so of your 11 GB total? It so happens I still have on my computer a test of The Hobbit using Ripbot at CRF20, Tune: Film, audio re-encoded to AC3, and the file size is over 8 GB. So something is not right with your settings, but I can't tell you exactly what it is. Your output file size should be considerably larger.

Mind you, every program that uses the x264 encoder uses different profiles/tunes/presets, according to the developers' judgment.

I don't quite understand the framerate: same as source with variable ticked. Maybe a Handbrake user can explain.

One minor thing, but using automatic cropping can lead to odd results on occasion You may run into a movie with aspect ratio changes (like Tron: Legacy), or the calculation may go wrong somehow. Which means that it's safer to calculate the cropping manually, but that's a bit of a pain. I personally don't bother cropping as black bars do not require any significant bits.

Anyway, I'm not quite clear if you used CUDA for your final encode. If you did, then no wonder the result looked poor. BTW, what display are you using to view your videos?

Because I completely missed changing settings under Optimize Video. Guides I found did not mention preset and mentioned tune being set to none. I will try again using the suggestions!

Also, I have been running AnyDVD and pointing handbrake to the drive instead of ripping first. I found it interesting that the software was able to complete the entire process in less time than AnyDVD takes to rip the movie in the first place. Right now I am allowing it to rip to a folder and it's quoting almost 1h 30min. The overall time to run in Handbrake was just over 1 hour.

The guides I have found indicate to leave the framerate as indicated in my post. Variable, with the alternative being constant and possibly causing framerate issues. Same as source unless specifically intending otherwise.

Yes, I was using CUDA for both. I am shocked it didn't save a single minute though still.

Dont remember the model of my display but I have reference videos to compare quality of something already processed. It's an ASUS 27", haven't viewed any of these on my TV yet.
post #3394 of 5693
Oh my, AC-3 audio, down-rezing and compressing video and now cropping ...

I suggest a separate thread for this as it is not related to the topic. Yeah, that's right. Most of us are videophiles and audiophiles looking for the most convenient way to watch hi-Rez video and listen to lossless audio. IMO, all this in my opening sentence is OT.

Jeff
post #3395 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Oh my, AC-3 audio, down-rezing and compressing video and now cropping ...

I suggest a separate thread for this as it is not related to the topic. Yeah, that's right. Most of us are videophiles and audiophiles looking for the most convenient way to watch hi-Rez video and listen to lossless audio. IMO, all this in my opening sentence is OT.

Jeff

Is this to me? If so, how is it not related to the topic?
post #3396 of 5693
@Pyrophoric, if you're getting noticeable pixelation to the point where it's unwatchable at RF18 then something is way off. Start off using the "High Profile" Preset. Container Mkv. Picture tab: Anamorphic: None, check Keep Aspect Ratio. Cropping Automatic. Filters tab: leave at defaults. Video tab: Video Codec: H.264 (x264), Framerate: whatever your fps is for the source, most likely 23.976, select Constant Framerate, set x264 Preset: Slower or Very Slow. If it's Animation then set x264 Tune to Animation otherwise leave it at None. Uncheck Fast Decode. H.264 Profile: High H.264 Level: 4.1, Constant Quality 16 RF, 14 RF if downsizing to 720p. That's a good starting point. If you're for some reason not satisfied with the results then I'd suggest just using MakeMKV and deal with the size.
post #3397 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

Oh my, AC-3 audio, down-rezing and compressing video and now cropping ...

I suggest a separate thread for this as it is not related to the topic. Yeah, that's right. Most of us are videophiles and audiophiles looking for the most convenient way to watch hi-Rez video and listen to lossless audio. IMO, all this in my opening sentence is OT.

Jeff

Most people in this thread want to discuss ripping Blu-ray discs... regardless of method. Hence the discussion topic of Handbrake in the original post.
post #3398 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrophoric View Post

Because I completely missed changing settings under Optimize Video. Guides I found did not mention preset and mentioned tune being set to none. I will try again using the suggestions!

You've played MKV with this gear and can confirm it is well supported and displays ok using other files?

My notes show The Hobbit (2D) compresses about 5.71x with HandBrake for a resulting size of 6.3G. This is converting the audio to AAC, so retaining the hidef version will give a bigger file.

I use the command line version, Standard profile and default q=20, all parameters left as defined in the profile. I'm not seeing pixelation or other quality issues.

-Bill
post #3399 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcclain View Post

You've played MKV with this gear and can confirm it is well supported and displays ok using other files?

My notes show The Hobbit (2D) compresses about 5.71x with HandBrake for a resulting size of 6.3G. This is converting the audio to AAC, so retaining the hidef version will give a bigger file.

I use the command line version, Standard profile and default q=20, all parameters left as defined in the profile. I'm not seeing pixelation or other quality issues.

-Bill

You even left even the x264 preset at medium??

I just tried again moving it to very slow at q 22 and the picture was much better, I might move to 20 now and compare.
post #3400 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrophoric View Post

You even left even the x264 preset at medium??

I just tried again moving it to very slow at q 22 and the picture was much better, I might move to 20 now and compare.

Using the Very Slow setting will often allow you to use a higher quality setting while retaining a smaller file size. Doesn't work with every video though. Some videos just blow up around 16-15 RF and end up being double the size of the source.
post #3401 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrophoric View Post

Is this to me? If so, how is it not related to the topic?

My post is content-related, not member related.

I'd bet that 90% or more members on this thread either rip the entire Blu-ray or just main movie, hi-res audio and subs. And, while they might ALSO convert that mother file for viewing on "other devices", they keep that original rip pristine and unadulterated.

IMO, which I expect to be ignored smile.gif, this chatter about "compressing" the file size ... in any and all ways mentioned in the post tha caused me to post my thoughts ... is OT because it is not part of or necessary to "Ripping Blu-rays."

If someone is going to compress (down-rez with AC-3) a Blu-ray for their "archive" why not just use a DVD? I suppose that's rhetorical as everyone doing it seems to think they are getting BD quality at DVD file sizes and therefore would have all sorts of rationalizations or even outright denials.

I am only concerned about the thread health and think this is tangential at best, and is of interest to only a few. Therefore, another thread would be appropriate. Like I said, I expect to be ignored ... and maybe flamed first. wink.gif

Jeff
Edited by pepar - 7/11/13 at 12:30am
post #3402 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

Most people in this thread want to discuss ripping Blu-ray discs... regardless of method. Hence the discussion topic of Handbrake in the original post.

I've said what I had to say, stand by what I said and won't derail the thread by belaboring the point.

Jeff
post #3403 of 5693
Arbiter of the Thread status - Denied tongue.gif
post #3404 of 5693
^ I've never "reported" a single post in my ten year or so history of visiting internet forums, but you're about an inch away with your non-topical, abrasive, baseless, inciting, vomit...ditto for your idiotic drivel just a page earlier. Seeing you're sitting at a CPU hundreds of miles away there's not much else anyone can do, so I'll ask again to stop embarrassing yourself (for the sake of us all), stay on topic, and commence opining on (again, non-topical) matters (like what does or doesn't go on at universities and why tuition is so "high") you clearly know absolutely nothing about. Sorry, but you're not special. Follow the rules of the forum like everyone else. Thanks in advance.

Now, returning to the subject. I don't necessarily disagree with you, Jeff, but I think itznfb has a valid point in keeping the dialog open to all methodologies of pulling and storing data off a disc. If anything, this at least provides some consolidation. But if someone wants to create a thread dedicated to compressing files I would likely visit that too as I'm sure sooner or later a scheme will emerge that will be appear very equitable to folks like me who are on the fringe.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 7/11/13 at 5:55am
post #3405 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

I'd bet that 90% or more members on this thread either rip the entire Blu-ray or just main movie, hi-res audio and subs. And, while they might ALSO convert that mother file for viewing on "other devices", they keep that original rip pristine and unadulterated.
If anything, this thread demonstrates that there is no "one way" to rip a BluRay and there are as many variations of the end result as there are ways to achieve it. Although it is not something I would ever select as part of my end result, I would count re-compression as a valid element of someone else's end result as much as I would count codec, container or stream selection. As such I consider discussion of re-compression to be very much on-topic. I'm not ignoring your opinion -- I respect it, I just don't share it.

I suspect people are naturally creatures of habit. Some start with an end result in mind and seek a ripping process they can live with to get there -- others look for a ripping process that takes as little time, effort and often $$, as possible and accept/adapt-to the result they get. We all spent incredible time winding our way through the maze of options to finally select a process that costs us acceptable time and effort and gives us a result we are happy with. After doing so we are unlikely to change and more likely to proselytize. I think it's the zealous proselytizing of pristine vs. re-compressed that has raised hairs. One can just as easily get into an MKV vs. the world argument -- I would surely be in the minority on that one.

Having said all that, I do think a separate thread on re-compression would be a good idea because the process has a lot of complexity and subtlety that merits extended and focused discussion. I would certainly participate in such a thread just to learn from those who are actively involved in it.
Edited by Kelson - 7/11/13 at 6:37am
post #3406 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post

If someone is going to compress (down-rez with AC-3) a Blu-ray for their "archive" why not just use a DVD? I suppose that's rhetorical as everyone doing it seems to think they are getting BD quality at DVD file sizes and therefore would have all sorts of rationalizations or even outright denials.

I guess you can look at it like a source....What's better a BD from a 4K source or 2K?
post #3407 of 5693
For Pyrophoric:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyrophoric View Post


Last night, I just let a final attempt run with Handbrake. I setup as follows:

High Profile
Mkv Container

Anamorphic: Strict
Cropping: Automatic
Detelecine: Default
Decomb: Default
Deinterlace: Off
Denoise: Off
Deblock: Off
Grayscale: Unchecked

IIRC, the detelecine filter should only be used if your video source is interlaced content (almost all 480i60 SD DVDs). For encoding bluray movie content (1080p24), set the detelecine filter to OFF (same goes for all other filters except for Decomb filter---set the decomb filter to default. Hope this helps. smile.gif
post #3408 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Arbiter of the Thread status - Denied tongue.gif

Just another data point.
post #3409 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ I've never "reported" a single post in my ten year or so history of visiting internet forums, but you're about an inch away with your non-topical, abrasive, baseless, inciting, vomit...ditto for your idiotic drivel just a page earlier. Seeing you're sitting at a CPU hundreds of miles away there's not much else anyone can do, so I'll ask again to stop embarrassing yourself (for the sake of us all), stay on topic, and commence opining on (again, non-topical) matters (like what does or doesn't go on at universities and why tuition is so "high") you clearly know absolutely nothing about. Sorry, but you're not special. Follow the rules of the forum like everyone else. Thanks in advance.

Now, returning to the subject. I don't necessarily disagree with you, Jeff, but I think itznfb has a valid point in keeping the dialog open to all methodologies of pulling and storing data off a disc. If anything, this at least provides some consolidation. But if someone wants to create a thread dedicated to compressing files I would likely visit that too as I'm sure sooner or later a scheme will emerge that will be appear very equitable to folks like me who are on the fringe.

James

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post

If anything, this thread demonstrates that there is no "one way" to rip a BluRay and there are as many variations of the end result as there are ways to achieve it. Although it is not something I would ever select as part of my end result, I would count re-compression as a valid element of someone else's end result as much as I would count codec, container or stream selection. As such I consider discussion of re-compression to be very much on-topic. I'm not ignoring your opinion -- I respect it, I just don't share it.

I suspect people are naturally creatures of habit. Some start with an end result in mind and seek a ripping process they can live with to get there -- others look for a ripping process that takes as little time, effort and often $$, as possible and accept/adapt-to the result they get. We all spent incredible time winding our way through the maze of options to finally select a process that costs us acceptable time and effort and gives us a result we are happy with. After doing so we are unlikely to change and more likely to proselytize. I think it's the zealous proselytizing of pristine vs. re-compressed that has raised hairs. One can just as easily get into an MKV vs. the world argument -- I would surely be in the minority on that one.

Having said all that, I do think a separate thread on re-compression would be a good idea because the process has a lot of complexity and subtlety that merits extended and focused discussion. I would certainly participate in such a thread just to learn from those who are actively involved in it.

If another thread is started, I suggest someone knowledgeable and actively using these tools start it and "reserve" the second post as well. I'd further recommend an FAQ be assembled and linked in the first or second post. I have in mind the excellent Audyssey FAQs that have been assembled but some very avid members, (Hi Keith!) If another thread is not desired, I would suggest the FAQ anyway as a basic guide. People would still come here to ask questions that are not addressed. The asking of these questions can be used to flesh out the FAQ.

Just a thought.

Jeff
post #3410 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by rexdragon View Post

For Pyrophoric:
IIRC, the detelecine filter should only be used if your video source is interlaced content (almost all 480i60 SD DVDs). For encoding bluray movie content (1080p24), set the detelecine filter to OFF (same goes for all other filters except for Decomb filter---set the decomb filter to default. Hope this helps. smile.gif

Yeah those should be the default settings for the "High Profile" Preset.
post #3411 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post


If another thread is started, I suggest someone knowledgeable and actively using these tools start it and "reserve" the second post as well. I'd further recommend an FAQ be assembled and linked in the first or second post. I have in mind the excellent Audyssey FAQs that have been assembled but some very avid members, (Hi Keith!) If another thread is not desired, I would suggest the FAQ anyway as a basic guide. People would still come here to ask questions that are not addressed. The asking of these questions can be used to flesh out the FAQ.

Just a thought.

Jeff


Yes, good ideas. Now, seeing this person is NOT me, I'll humbly return to the weeds. smile.gif

James
post #3412 of 5693
I would create a thread dedicated to encoding but honestly I would lose interest in it quickly and never keep it updated. Then everyone would complain about the OP not updating the first post...

When we have glass disk then I guess no one will have any reason to compress. http://www.orc.soton.ac.uk/5dopticalstore.html This is one of those awesome technology breakthroughs you hear about for a couple weeks and then never see anything come to market.
post #3413 of 5693
Yes, my tech-hound brother sent me this link yday, incredible if it flies, heh?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57593154-1/a-360tb-disc-that-holds-data-for-more-than-1-million-years/

James
post #3414 of 5693
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by itznfb View Post

I would create a thread dedicated to encoding but honestly I would lose interest in it quickly and never keep it updated. Then everyone would complain about the OP not updating the first post...
.

Then forget I said anything. smile.gif But maybe members could try to keep the conversation above some of the personal comments that this subject occasionally lapses into. wink.gif

Jeff
post #3415 of 5693
Just about the time when I start to feel comfortable with this ripping process, a monkey wrench falls into the gears. Has anyone here ripped Hancock? I know the disc has a rated and unrated version. There are 4 large main titles to choose from. All have 16 chapters. Two of them are 23.2 GB and the other two are 25.7 GB. How do I know which one to use?

Geee, I hope this is on topic.
post #3416 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefuel View Post

Just about the time when I start to feel comfortable with this ripping process, a monkey wrench falls into the gears. Has anyone here ripped Hancock? I know the disc has a rated and unrated version. There are 4 large main titles to choose from. All have 16 chapters. Two of them are 23.2 GB and the other two are 25.7 GB. How do I know which one to use?

Geee, I hope this is on topic.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/760714/unofficial-blu-ray-audio-and-video-specifications-thread/1050#post_15151906
post #3417 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefuel View Post

Just about the time when I start to feel comfortable with this ripping process, a monkey wrench falls into the gears. Has anyone here ripped Hancock? I know the disc has a rated and unrated version. There are 4 large main titles to choose from. All have 16 chapters. Two of them are 23.2 GB and the other two are 25.7 GB. How do I know which one to use?

Geee, I hope this is on topic.

This comes up a lot on various titles.

Did you say you have the DVDFab trial version? It is very good at finding the real main feature. But: if there actually are multiple versions on the disc (theatrical and extended, for example) you have to decide which you want. Play the disc and note the running time of each title. Try to match that up with the what's available when ripping.

Note that we suspect the studios put multiple playlists on the disc for just this purpose: to make copying more difficult.

-Bill
post #3418 of 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcclain View Post


Note that we suspect the studios put multiple playlists on the disc for just this purpose: to make copying more difficult.

-Bill

Actually most of them are just reference files for menus and disc features... it just ends up making it a little more difficult. Always check the NEW Unofficial Blu-ray Audio and Video Specifications Thread first though since chances are pretty good someone else has already figured it out! smile.gif
post #3419 of 5693
^^ Thanks for those links!!

Jeff
post #3420 of 5693

WOW TMI for a newb. I'm using MakeMKV and the results from that post don't quite jive with what I'm seeing. I have figured out that the longer of the two is the unrated version.
I want the theatrical version. That narrows it down to two.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home