or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › *OPTIMAL* settings for Handbrake? (Blu-ray and DVD rips)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*OPTIMAL* settings for Handbrake? (Blu-ray and DVD rips) - Page 3

post #61 of 85

I think i'm at a point where i have to decide about the Audio

 

Is it correct to assume in comparison of a mp3 that

 

PCM and DTS HD = Flac

DTS = mp3 320kbps

AC3 = mp3 192 kbps

 

Following that, since i can't extract a PCM with Hanbrake and the fact that i'd like something better than an AC3, i'll have to get the Audio with another software

I've read that MakeMKV can transfer the entire PCM, but it is known that many player have issue reading a PCM Audio

You can convert the PCM with EAC3 into a FLAC (Just did it, gave me a 2,37 gigs file for Gangs of New York

I beleive you can probably do the same for a DTS HD

 

First question would be

 

Is a DTS better than a DTS HD converted to FLAC?

What would be the down side from having a FLAC instead of a PCM?

post #62 of 85

When it comes to audio I always do the same.

1track at passthrough 

1track aac 320 Stereo 

 

Else I use CQ RF 18 and most of the other tips in this thread.

 

Only problem I have had so far is The Simpsons the Move BD that gives a lot of artifacts.

post #63 of 85
There is no point in using LPCM; it's just a waste of space to store the audio uncompressed. If you have LPCM, pack it with FLAC to save some space. If you have Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD MA, they are also lossless, so you can convert them to FLAC without altering the quality. Dolby Digital, DTS, and MP3 are all lossy, and they aren't really comparable, since MP3 does not support surround sound. AAC is more efficient than AC3 and DTS, but if you already have AC3, you should just leave it that way, unless you want to save space by downmixing it to stereo and transcoding to AAC.
post #64 of 85

I know that, but I still like to keep one audio track like it is on the disc, and I really don't care that it takes up a bit more space.

The acc track is for devices that can't take HD-audio.

 

But  I wonder what I have to do to get rid of the artifacts on The Simpsons.

post #65 of 85

So basicly, your saying that it is better to Convert a DTS HD to Flac than use a DTS?

 

Most BR with a PCM has PCM and AC3 while most BR with DTS HD will also have DTS and AC3

post #66 of 85
DTS HD MA is lossless. DTS is lossy. If you want lossless audio, you can't use DTS. I would argue that it's better to convert all lossless formats (LPCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD MA) to a lossy format, because lossless audio is a waste of space if you can't hear a difference, and the main point of transcoding is to save space. Since most BDs have AC3 already, it makes sense to use that for compatibility's sake. I would never consider using DTS, as 1536 kbps is ridiculous for lossy audio when 448 - 640 kbps AC3 will probably sound the same. If you really want to save the most space possible, though, you can encode LPCM to VBR AAC to make your 5.1 or 7.1 take half as much space as the AC3 often does.
post #67 of 85

I thought i've read that it was better to convert a PCM or HD DTS to Flac because Flac had a better compression scheme...while the first two wasted space....

So far, i've made few test, i hardly gain 10-15% in space for converting to Flac...

I though i was supose to gain about 40%...

post #68 of 85
The compression ratio depends upon the content, and you're probably thinking of the compression ratio FLAC gets as compared to LPCM, which is often ~30%, at least for 44 100 Hz stereo audio. It's supposedly more efficient than either of the proprietary lossless codecs used on BD, but I don't know by how much. I wouldn't expect a significant difference between them, as all lossless codecs offer limited compression compared to lossy ones.
post #69 of 85

Thank you for all your answer Aleron Ives by the way.

 

I did understood your point about AC3...but a DTS (1,5 gigs) seem fine to me in terms of audio

a DTS HD or PCM at 3-4 gigs is a bit too much

 

My issue resides mainly in the fact that when the BR contains a PCM, i don't have a middle size ... a lossy version....

 

What i did is i tried first with those already converted to replace a DTS with a DTS-HD to Flac, but that conversion wasn't great... i was replacing a 1.5 gigs DTS by a 4 gigs Flac instead of the DTS HD at 4.5 gigs....so i was gaining in size....to pass from lossy to loseless...

 

I though that a DTS HD to Flac would make the Flac file equivalent in size to a DTS but thats definitively not the case

So i'll stick with DTS (Lossy sound and lossy image is what i'd like to get as a file and i beleive that RF19 is something that i could call a lossy picture)

 

Now i just need to figure out if i want to try to find something to convert a PCM to a DTS (in terms of audio quality) or should i stick with AC3 like i did in the past....

 

Any suggestion?

post #70 of 85
Do you have something against AAC? tongue.gif You can easily convert LPCM to 5.1 AAC @ < 400 kbps, which offers even better compression than 640 kbps AC3.
post #71 of 85

Well, well aac, I've never had to work with it, but i assume that if you specifying 5.1, it means that aac don't support 7.1?

 

Anyhow, i'd like 1500 kbps....it will give about 1.5 gigs for audio, fine by me

 

But i'll keep your suggestion in mind

post #72 of 85

I'll try AudioMuxer

 

http://www.surroundbyus.com/sbu/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=135#refdownload

 

When i'll have time to

 

Otherwise i've read that tsMuxer and eac3 could do it

post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone65478 View Post

i assume that if you specifying 5.1, it means that aac don't support 7.1?

The easiest way to encode AAC is to use Nero's encoder, which only supports 5.1. AAC itself supports 7.1, but you need to use Apple's encoder with a frontend like qaac to take advantage of it, which is slightly more time consuming to set up. Using qaac also gives you the advantage of Apple's slightly superior encoding engine, as qaac usually scores slightly higher than Nero in listening tests. If you're using the high quality settings that you'd probably select for converting BD audio, there would be no difference, though. The encoders match each other at bitrates > 192 kbps.
post #74 of 85
Ok well i've found a way to re-encode PCM to DTS

Perhaps another question, is it ok to say that older the movie, harder it is to compress and therefor bigger the output.......

After encoding 10 movies, i had an average of 8,5 gigs per movie which is nice at 19 RF

But some older movies such Gangs of New York and now the first James Bond ...i'm averaging 12,5 gigs per movie...which is less nice
post #75 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone65478 View Post

Ok well i've found a way to re-encode PCM to DTS

Perhaps another question, is it ok to say that older the movie, harder it is to compress and therefor bigger the output.......

After encoding 10 movies, i had an average of 8,5 gigs per movie which is nice at 19 RF

But some older movies such Gangs of New York and now the first James Bond ...i'm averaging 12,5 gigs per movie...which is less nice
How? A DTS License ain't cheap: http://www.dts.com/professionals/licensing.aspx
post #76 of 85
Older films probably have more grain, which causes the bitrate to rise. If you want the bitrate to stay lower, you can either use a bigger RF or deblock more heavily, e.g. with 1:1 or 2:2, instead of the default 0:0. Stronger deblocking will cause grain to be detected as blocking and get removed, which will make the video softer (blurrier) and mitigate the rise in bitrate.
post #77 of 85
Oh i mean't PCM to Flac..... wink.gif

I'll try the deblocking, will see the result, thanks
post #78 of 85
Humm deblock 2x2 got me from 13,7 gigs to 13,3 ....i guess i should be using the maximum deblocking? ....i'll have to read whats the downside of using that
post #79 of 85
The maximum value is |6|. If you go too high, everything will get detected as blocks, turning your video into a blurry mess that looks like a runny water colour painting. If you go too low, nothing will get detected as blocks, which yields the same effect as the --no-deblock switch (giving you blocky XviD-like video). It's generally not a good idea to go beyond |2|.
post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone65478 View Post

Oh i mean't PCM to Flac..... wink.gif

I'll try the deblocking, will see the result, thanks

I never bothered using FLAC. Is there a specific reason why people do this ?
post #81 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

I never bothered using FLAC. Is there a specific reason why people do this ?

To save space. The LPCM tracks typically compress down about 1/2 their original size. The original LPCM tracks are usually between 7 and 8GB. So you can save a decent chunk if you have a lot of LPCM movies.
post #82 of 85
FLAC is also an FOSS standard, so you don't need annoying proprietary decoders to play it the way you do with DTS-HD MA.
post #83 of 85

I too am interested in the specifics of what is actually happening/works, and will be ultimately acceptable  Our idea of quality may vary, but I have done much research, and over thousands of hours of trial have come to what I feel acceptable operating criteria versus results. 

 

 

If one is willing to accommodate the time required, opt for 'very slow'  X254 preset. 

Placebo, which I've used often, nets no noticeable improvement. Very slow seems the perfect marriage.

 

Fine tuning other detail, and with a two-pass, 2800 kbs (minimum), with normal viewing distances,

see nothing to criticize, even when comparing to the original Blu-ray source.

 

I am in the 'quality business' where faithfulness and integrity are vital.

 

I will share more if you like,

 

best regards--

post #84 of 85
Hey All,

Thanks, it was fun to read this thread, and see that there are others out there as crazy as I am, trying to rip and compress my movie library...

Anyhow - I have a comment re: compressing blu-ray rips in Handbrake, and file sizes.
You are correct, films with more grain / noise do not compress as well. Older films tend to be grainier, and thus more of a challenge to balance file size vs. quality.

Increasing the Deblocking filter settings is not the best way to deal with grain.
What works best for me, is
1. Judicious use of the Denoise filter (I rarely go higher than the "weak" preset), and
2. Adding a bit of noise reduction in the x264 encoder options, in the Advanced tab. Add in something like :nr=200 in the options string.

I used to be happy with 8-10 GB encodes for noisy content, but now using the options above, I can usually get them into the 5-7 GB range, with negligible loss of quality.

This does not produce a pixel-perfect copy of the source material. The grain will be softened very slightly, but even that slight softening allows the encoder to save gigabytes!

Check out this guy's blog posts on Handbrake settings - he taught me everything I needed to know about it:

http://mattgadient.com/category/encoding/

Hope that helps someone, happy handbraking!
post #85 of 85
Just one other thing worth mentioning. For certain movies or scenes, removing too much grain or not having enough to begin with can lead to some really bad banding issues with the encodes. One solution to this problem is to use the 10-bit color depth encoding of x264 (also known as hi10p), but this format is unfortunately supported by very, very few hardware players. You're pretty much limited to playing it on a PC with something like VLC or MPC-HC. The other option is to actually add grain to your source so that x264 can better handle the encode without the nasty banding side effect. I've used AviSynth to add dither and fed the output into the command line x264 encoder. The results are quite nice, though much slower with the AviSynth filtering and not nearly as convenient as Handbrake. Of course, for movies that already have a substantial amount of grain, it's unnecessary to add some. In fact, you could potentially remove some to reduce the encoded file size. So I've started to create an AviSynth script that analyzes several chunks of a movie, determines the average grain, and depending on whether it's above or below a happy medium it will either add dither or remove grain to create a more optimal compromise between grain level, encoding size, and de-banding.

One scene that I used a lot for my testing of the AviSynth filters was in 007 Skyfall where Bond has that fight scene at the top of a building with that jellyfish light in the background. Before that fight sequence he walks down a hallway and pushes open a door. It's at that moment, the door shows some really bad banding. It's a terrible combination of a dark scene and a strobing blue light on a reflective surface, which leads to a lot of banding. Even something like CRF 18 looks awful compared to the original.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Home Theater Computers
AVS › AVS Forum › Video Components › Home Theater Computers › *OPTIMAL* settings for Handbrake? (Blu-ray and DVD rips)