or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bluray to MKV - Page 2

post #31 of 66
I too think there has been a little exaggerating going on in this thread.

Perhaps some of you should go to Doom9 or Doom10 and read some threads by Dark Shikari (x264 developer), on how constant quality x264 encoding actually works. Many knowledgeable people maintain that a constant rate factor (crf ) of ~18 or a bit lower approaches "transparency" at tune film presets. For you people with superhuman vision and enormous displays, let's put that at crf 17. I defy you to tell the difference between a pressed BD and a crf 17 re-encode reliably, during normal viewing. Normal viewing, that is.

Let's stipulate that yes, any encode/re-encode to a lossy codec will necessarily degrade picture quality, however slightly. And that includes the first one, from master. Also, the bitrate required is source-dependent. A grainy movie like Saving Private Ryan needs bucketloads of bitrate, whereas clean animation like, say, Wall-E needs much less. That's why the final output size of a crf encode is unpredictable, apart from the very general rule that a grainy/noisy source needs more bitrate than a clean one. Encoding the movie Saving Private Ryan at crf 17 will save essentially no space at all, while Wall-E will show a significant file size reduction. And that is despite the fact that main movie on the Wall-E Blu-Ray is considerably smaller than BD25 size. (Which allowed them to stuff all those extras on the disc.)

As has been hinted at, H.264 is far more efficient than MPEG2, and degrades more "gracefully" as bitrate is reduced. But the principle is the same: I,P,B frames in GOPs (Group Of Pictures). Keyframe (I), progressive frames (P) that reference the frame preceding, and bi-directional frames (B) that reference preceding and succeeding frames. Only the keyframe has the full information, the other types use motion vectors and what amounts to error correction. If a re-encode is not too aggressive (~crf 17), it may only reduce some of the redundant error correction. Yes, I've oversimplified, but there you are. Most discriminating viewers will find a crf 18-19 encode perfectly acceptable.
Edited by fritzi93 - 1/3/13 at 7:15pm
post #32 of 66
I use MakeMKV then run it through Handbrake on normal preset using constant quality 20. Pass through the HD audio and I swear I can't tell the difference. I think some of the posters on this thread suffer from placebo effect.
post #33 of 66
Thread Starter 
I only got defensive because I thought people were taking offense to my post when all I was trying to be was constructive.

TV series done in mkv is soooo much easier to deal with than iso's. honestly the only time doing TV series is a pain is when I decide to also include every single "extras" episode.

I don't use handbrake because I cannot get it to run the switches I normally run. I am infinitely more comfortable with megui when I want to batch encode or just run cli if I'm doing just a single movie.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I was only trying to be constructive as I'm new to these forums. Oh I've been a lurker for years but I have never really posted so I figured I'd try and help out where I could. Maybe writing a guide just isn't my strong suit hehe
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I only got defensive because I thought people were taking offense to my post when all I was trying to be was constructive.
TV series done in mkv is soooo much easier to deal with than iso's. honestly the only time doing TV series is a pain is when I decide to also include every single "extras" episode.
I don't use handbrake because I cannot get it to run the switches I normally run. I am infinitely more comfortable with megui when I want to batch encode or just run cli if I'm doing just a single movie.
Anyway, as I said earlier, I was only trying to be constructive as I'm new to these forums. Oh I've been a lurker for years but I have never really posted so I figured I'd try and help out where I could. Maybe writing a guide just isn't my strong suit hehe

I think you had the right idea, but there has been many guides before yours on how to rip Movie, TV Shows etc. In my personal opinion your guide requires too much work.
Edited by GusGus748s - 1/4/13 at 1:11pm
post #35 of 66
Thread Starter 
It does seem to require a lot of work. I guess I have been doing it this way for so long now that it is second nature to me. Think I can trim the fat somewhere or do you think I'm taking extra in-needed steps that other guides don't do?
post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

It does seem to require a lot of work. I guess I have been doing it this way for so long now that it is second nature to me. Think I can trim the fat somewhere or do you think I'm taking extra in-needed steps that other guides don't do?

I think if it works for you and you do not have any issues with any of your rips, I would say to keep at it. Why try to fix something that isn't "BROKE."biggrin.gif
post #37 of 66
Some of you might want to check out my Blu-Ray ripping II thread.

Much of what somebody can see or hear is highly dependent on their A/V setup. Somebody using a $250 HTiB may not be able to hear the audio differences that somebody with a $3,000 speaker setup might (and it would not surprise me if some members here had 10K+ setups). The ability of speakers to produce certain ranges will really affect one's sound experience. As for viewing experiences, there are similar problems with viewing experiences. Somebody watching something on an IPAD or Laptop will not be able to see the differences that a person sitting 6' from a 65" PDP might be able to see. Another problem is that some people just don't know what to look for. I don't say that as an insult because honestly, it's probably a blessing in disguise. When you start obsessing over the picture like some of us, it sometimes becomes difficult to enjoy the show.

However, having said all that, there is a difference and it is detectable by the human eye under certain viewing conditions. If you are happy with the result of a compressed BD, fine. But some of us can see a very distiguishable and discernable difference.

Last thing: For most of us, sacrificing something often becomes necessary due to the limitations of our systems. Compressing TV Series box sets is pretty common even for those who have gigantic storage capacity. It's good that there are posts like this to explain good ways to do such compression.
Edited by agogley - 1/4/13 at 5:22pm
post #38 of 66
@DotJun: Well, I'm not seeing much advantage in most of your steps, but that's subjective of course.

Tell you what, you can't get any more stripped down than this:

1) Run a driver-level decrypter in the background, like AnyDVDHD or DVDFabPasskey.
2) Insert Blu-Ray into your reader drive. Wait for the notification that encryption has been removed.
3) Open Ripbot and navigate to the STREAM folder. Click on *any* m2ts file. Ripbot will automatically select the largest title (usually main movie unless it's an episode disc) and put it at the top of the list it generates, although you can select a different one lower down.
4) Optional: You can use BDinfo to identify the playlist file (mpls) for each of the titlesets on the disc. Not necessary for non-episode discs.
5) Let Ripbot analyze and demux the titleset. It will automatically join any spanned m2ts files in a chosen playlist/titleset.
6) When demuxing is complete, click Properties -> Subtitles -> Build in picture. Ripbot will have identified any forced subs and you can hardcode them, so you should check this each time to see. (BDSup2Sub is included in the Ripbot package, as well as all other programs necessary, e.g. tsMuxer, x264 encoder, etc.). Or hardcode any other subtitle stream if you like. Or you can cancel.
7) Then the usual options: Keep the audio as-is, extract core, or re-encode to AC3. You can mux selectable subtitles (this one will usually require extra work, as the most compatible format for hardware devices is *.srt). And of course you can choose output container (mp4, mkv), and crf factor, encoding presets, tune settings, the whole gamut. Edit your encoding settings, create presets, whatever.
8) Give the project a name and put it in the queue. Encode the projects in the Ripbot queue when convenient.

Mind you, I'm not criticizing. I think it's a very creditable effort, and it may suit some people with the fine control possible. I gotta say though, MeGUI is not something the average user will want to wrestle with. But your method I'm sure has helped you understand better exactly what you're doing. Besides which, there's more than one way to skin a cat, as the old saying goes .wink.gif

Forgive me for offering the above method. It's not my intention to steal your thunder, just to give one example of an alternate method. Many many more variations are possible. Your guide is fine, and you shouldn't apologize for it.
post #39 of 66
What I usually do with my disks is use any dvd and rip the file to one of my hard drives. Then I use bd rebuilder (which when downloaded correctly gives you all of the other programs you need and can help to avoid having to send the movie through all kinds of programs manually) to make a movie only iso file on a second drive. I usually set a file target size of 50gb (thus gauranteeing that it will not compress anything for time savings purposes) I use movie only mode and keep the movie file, the dts hd or dolby hd soundtrack, and all english subtitles and get rid of everything else. I play them back by using the slysoft clone drive which automatically loads it when I double click on the iso file. I use power dvd 12 and bistream the hd audio to my denon receiver then to my 65"gt50 plasma tablet (as others implied my tv was rolleyes.gif). Like I said in my earlier posts, I generally don't bother to compress nowadays because storage is so cheap and I would rather not take the time, but bd rebuilder does an excellent job of compressing bd down should the need arise. I would love to be a fly on the wall with some of these posters claiming huge differences on a double blind test of a moderately compressed (say a 35gb movie file down to 20ish gb's) movie shown on a 65"+ display vs the original blu ray file on the same display. I can already invision them with their noses right up against the set during a paused frame saying "yup, theres a little smear there, must be the copmpressed one" lol....
Edited by chadsdsmith - 1/4/13 at 6:38pm
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

Some of you might want to check out my Blu-Ray ripping II thread.
Much of what somebody can see or hear is highly dependent on their A/V setup. Somebody using a $250 HTiB may not be able to hear the audio differences that somebody with a $3,000 speaker setup might (and it would not surprise me if some members here had 10K+ setups). The ability of speakers to produce certain ranges will really affect one's sound experience. As for viewing experiences, there are similar problems with viewing experiences. Somebody watching something on an IPAD or Laptop will not be able to see the differences that a person sitting 6' from a 65" PDP might be able to see. Another problem is that some people just don't know what to look for. I don't say that as an insult because honestly, it's probably a blessing in disguise. When you start obsessing over the picture like some of us, it sometimes becomes difficult to enjoy the show.
However, having said all that, there is a difference and it is detectable by the human eye under certain viewing conditions. If you are happy with the result of a compressed BD, fine. But some of us can see a very distiguishable and discernable difference.
Last thing: For most of us, sacrificing something often becomes necessary due to the limitations of our systems. Compressing TV Series box sets is pretty common even for those who have gigantic storage capacity. It's good that there are posts like this to explain good ways to do such compression.

Sadly I dont have $10,000 ears.
post #41 of 66
I guess the issue I have with shrinking the files is that in the future you MAY want the higher resolution. If you have a 4K set in 10 years are you going to want the compressed files? I'd rather future proof my work as much as possible, as I and others have said hard drives are cheap, if you have to go through and redo hours and hours to work to save $80, I'd have second and third thoughts.
post #42 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

I guess the issue I have with shrinking the files is that in the future you MAY want the higher resolution. If you have a 4K set in 10 years are you going to want the compressed files? I'd rather future proof my work as much as possible, as I and others have said hard drives are cheap, if you have to go through and redo hours and hours to work to save $80, I'd have second and third thoughts.

Not sure how youre future proofing for 4k - a raw Blu-ray is still 1920x1080 and a compressed mkv can be 1920x1080 - same resolution.

I think youre confusing resolution with bitrate - Its all compressed, a blu-ray is compressed at various bitrates, lowering that bitrate with further compression doesnt always result in a difference in image quality.
post #43 of 66
Regardless if it is reduced resolution or bit starved, it's taking a reduced quality copy of the original product - film or video - and reducing it more. In some cases in may not matter, others it will. As I said before if it works for you fine, but it's much easier just to let it be via MKV.
post #44 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritzi93 View Post

@DotJun: Well, I'm not seeing much advantage in most of your steps, but that's subjective of course.

Tell you what, you can't get any more stripped down than this:

1) Run a driver-level decrypter in the background, like AnyDVDHD or DVDFabPasskey.
2) Insert Blu-Ray into your reader drive. Wait for the notification that encryption has been removed.
3) Open Ripbot and navigate to the STREAM folder. Click on *any* m2ts file. Ripbot will automatically select the largest title (usually main movie unless it's an episode disc) and put it at the top of the list it generates, although you can select a different one lower down.
4) Optional: You can use BDinfo to identify the playlist file (mpls) for each of the titlesets on the disc. Not necessary for non-episode discs.
5) Let Ripbot analyze and demux the titleset. It will automatically join any spanned m2ts files in a chosen playlist/titleset.
6) When demuxing is complete, click Properties -> Subtitles -> Build in picture. Ripbot will have identified any forced subs and you can hardcode them, so you should check this each time to see. (BDSup2Sub is included in the Ripbot package, as well as all other programs necessary, e.g. tsMuxer, x264 encoder, etc.). Or hardcode any other subtitle stream if you like. Or you can cancel.
7) Then the usual options: Keep the audio as-is, extract core, or re-encode to AC3. You can mux selectable subtitles (this one will usually require extra work, as the most compatible format for hardware devices is *.srt). And of course you can choose output container (mp4, mkv), and crf factor, encoding presets, tune settings, the whole gamut. Edit your encoding settings, create presets, whatever.
8) Give the project a name and put it in the queue. Encode the projects in the Ripbot queue when convenient.

Mind you, I'm not criticizing. I think it's a very creditable effort, and it may suit some people with the fine control possible. I gotta say though, MeGUI is not something the average user will want to wrestle with. But your method I'm sure has helped you understand better exactly what you're doing. Besides which, there's more than one way to skin a cat, as the old saying goes .wink.gif

Forgive me for offering the above method. It's not my intention to steal your thunder, just to give one example of an alternate method. Many many more variations are possible. Your guide is fine, and you shouldn't apologize for it.

This definitely looks to be much easier than my process. Unfortunately, when I first started doing this some years ago, ripbot wasn't very configurable so I went with megui instead. This is the same reason I didn't end up using handbrake or staxrip or any other x264 GUI. They might have evolved since then to allow you fine control over the various x264 switches but they just weren't there when I first started.
post #45 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

Some of you might want to check out my Blu-Ray ripping II thread.

Much of what somebody can see or hear is highly dependent on their A/V setup. Somebody using a $250 HTiB may not be able to hear the audio differences that somebody with a $3,000 speaker setup might (and it would not surprise me if some members here had 10K+ setups). The ability of speakers to produce certain ranges will really affect one's sound experience. As for viewing experiences, there are similar problems with viewing experiences. Somebody watching something on an IPAD or Laptop will not be able to see the differences that a person sitting 6' from a 65" PDP might be able to see. Another problem is that some people just don't know what to look for. I don't say that as an insult because honestly, it's probably a blessing in disguise. When you start obsessing over the picture like some of us, it sometimes becomes difficult to enjoy the show.

However, having said all that, there is a difference and it is detectable by the human eye under certain viewing conditions. If you are happy with the result of a compressed BD, fine. But some of us can see a very distiguishable and discernable difference.

Last thing: For most of us, sacrificing something often becomes necessary due to the limitations of our systems. Compressing TV Series box sets is pretty common even for those who have gigantic storage capacity. It's good that there are posts like this to explain good ways to do such compression.

This is why I custom tailor my x264 settings on movies I want to really archive and I always check my results on a 27' IPS 10 bit monitor before I even look at it on my LCD TV. I know it isn't very popular around here but I also use datacolor's calibrator monthly.
post #46 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

I guess the issue I have with shrinking the files is that in the future you MAY want the higher resolution. If you have a 4K set in 10 years are you going to want the compressed files? I'd rather future proof my work as much as possible, as I and others have said hard drives are cheap, if you have to go through and redo hours and hours to work to save $80, I'd have second and third thoughts.

Compressing a file does not equal lowering resolution. It doesn't even mean lowering quality. It means shrinking a file down in size.
post #47 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

Regardless if it is reduced resolution or bit starved, it's taking a reduced quality copy of the original product - film or video - and reducing it more. In some cases in may not matter, others it will. As I said before if it works for you fine, but it's much easier just to let it be via MKV.

Do you know how most studios decide how much compression a given movie will get? By the size of the media they plan on putting said file/s on.

They don't necessarily compress from master to Blu-ray Disc with the best compression possible in mind while retaining as much detail as possible.

That said, one could say that since the studio had 50gb of space then they made use of the whole thing since it cost them less compression time. What if they could have compressed it to look visually the same but 50% smaller? With what you are saying, this scenario never plays out.

Take a look at file sizes sometime, especially from TV episodes, you will find they vary widely in size even though there isn't much difference between them.
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Compressing a file does not equal lowering resolution. It doesn't even mean lowering quality. It means shrinking a file down in size.

I disagree from a technical standpoint. If you are compressing, you are losing information and thus you are losing quality, technically that is. However, I do agree (as I have stated in my earlier posts) that under most circumstances (nearly all that I have experienced), the loss in quality is not perceivable to all but the Clark Kents of this world who sit 3 ft from there 120" screens, and even then I have my doubts (the old plecebo effect that I too have fallen victim to in many a situation). Somehow I managed to agree and disagree with you at the same time...biggrin.gif
post #49 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadsdsmith View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Compressing a file does not equal lowering resolution. It doesn't even mean lowering quality. It means shrinking a file down in size.

I disagree from a technical standpoint. If you are compressing, you are losing information and thus you are losing quality, technically that is. However, I do agree (as I have stated in my earlier posts) that under most circumstances (nearly all that I have experienced), the loss in quality is not perceivable to all but the Clark Kents of this world who sit 3 ft from there 120" screens, and even then I have my doubts (the old plecebo effect that I too have fallen victim to in many a situation). Somehow I managed to agree and disagree with you at the same time...biggrin.gif

I suppose with what we are talking about here yes but if I were to say lossless then my statement holds true.
post #50 of 66
If I compress an mpeg2 dvd to an h.264 mkv do i lose quality? no because the codec used is far more efficient.
post #51 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

Compressing a file does not equal lowering resolution. It doesn't even mean lowering quality. It means shrinking a file down in size.
You can't make it smaller without taking some useful information out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DotJun View Post

I suppose with what we are talking about here yes but if I were to say lossless then my statement holds true.
If you were to say lossless, I'd say you aren't going to see much (if any, you could end up bigger!) compression. Most video codecs are already highly compressed. Example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric View Post

If I compress an mpeg2 dvd to an h.264 mkv do i lose quality? no because the codec used is far more efficient.
Yes because you are taking information away from the MPEG2 source. If you had access to the source the MPEG2 was encoded from and encoded it (the original source) as h.264 then you would have a smaller file of similar quality.
post #52 of 66
I'm still trying to figure out how can you not lose quality when you are compressing any file.

Like I've said before, if it works for you and you are happy with compression then do it. I used to do it before, and it was fine, but now I do not like compressing or recoding anything anymore.
Edited by GusGus748s - 1/6/13 at 1:45pm
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

You can't make it smaller without taking some useful information out of it.
If you were to say lossless, I'd say you aren't going to see much (if any, you could end up bigger!) compression. Most video codecs are already highly compressed. Example:

Yes because you are taking information away from the MPEG2 source. If you had access to the source the MPEG2 was encoded from and encoded it (the original source) as h.264 then you would have a smaller file of similar quality.

Id argue differently but ok - its already compressed in mpeg2; h.264 is just a different codec.
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

You can't make it smaller without taking some useful information out of it.
If you were to say lossless, I'd say you aren't going to see much (if any, you could end up bigger!) compression. Most video codecs are already highly compressed. Example:

Yes because you are taking information away from the MPEG2 source. If you had access to the source the MPEG2 was encoded from and encoded it (the original source) as h.264 then you would have a smaller file of similar quality.

You can remove redundant info.
post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric View Post

Id argue differently but ok - its already compressed in mpeg2; h.264 is just a different codec.
Right you are. They are both generally lossy codecs. Encoding in either codec, by definition, means throwing something away. The people who developed them are banking on you not noticing what gets tossed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metric View Post

You can remove redundant info.
I guess you didn't notice the graphic. 7Z is a very efficient lossless compression. Efficient lossless compression algorithms specialize in removing redundant info. Notice that the 7Z version is actually bigger than the source.
post #56 of 66
If space isn't a concern then am I correct that MakeMKV can produce an exact duplicate of the original Blu-ray including HD audio formats and wrap it up all in one pretty MKV container?

I have found that method to be stupendous for ease. I am startled and impressed at the lengths that some go to in order to save space! I've learned a lot from this post, thanks!
post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdanforth View Post

If space isn't a concern then am I correct that MakeMKV can produce an exact duplicate of the original Blu-ray including HD audio formats and wrap it up all in one pretty MKV container?
I have found that method to be stupendous for ease. I am startled and impressed at the lengths that some go to in order to save space! I've learned a lot from this post, thanks!
Absolutely correct. At least a direct copy of the content (no menus, you must pick which 'features' you want to keep). And if you feed it a DVD you get the original VOB content (MPEG2 video, chapter marks and your choice of audio and subtitle tracks) repackaged as an MKV. The resulting MKV can be taken into HandBrake, if desired, to convert to AVC and compress the file. Personally I don't bother.
Edited by olyteddy - 1/6/13 at 8:56pm
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

Absolutely correct. At least a direct copy of the content (no menus, you must pick which 'features' you want to keep). And if you feed it a DVD you get the original VOB content (MPEG2 video, chapter marks and your choice of audio and subtitle tracks) repackaged as an MKV. The resulting MKV can be taken into HandBrake, if desired, to convert to AVC and compress the file. Personally I don't bother.

+1. And if space is a concern you can shrink the file down with virtually no noticeable loss in quality. Read the following from Handbrake explaining it's constant quality feature. It explains how it successfully compresses without you noticing.
https://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki/ConstantQuality
"Videos usually have a mix of complex and less complex frames. (The latter requiring less bitrate to achieve a set quality level)
If less complex frames do not have bits wasted on them, your overall output filesize is reduced without any loss of quality."
post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

there is a difference and it is detectable by the human eye under certain viewing conditions.

good compression settings and you wont be able to tell... then again the file size will be closer and closer to original BD file...whats the point, so i gave up wasting my time pixel peeping ... Tsmuxer that baby to original audio+video m2ts
post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulls View Post

good compression settings and you wont be able to tell... then again the file size will be closer and closer to original BD file...whats the point, so i gave up wasting my time pixel peeping ... Tsmuxer that baby to original audio+video m2ts

If a "good compression setting" winds up with pretty much the same size as the original BD file, then the BD file already had pretty good compression. The debate going on here is whether a normal human being can discern that information was lost when compressing a BD to more than half its size. I mean that is a lot of reduction, even if you use a completely different algorithm.

This reminds me of the debates between HDDVD and BD. There were a lot of discussions abou compression at the time because BluRay advertised it supported higher bit rates than BluRay. So HDDVD advocates claimed that HDDVD didn't need higher bit rates because HDDVD supposedly used a better, more efficient compression algorithm.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home