AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How long would it take to Rip a Blu Ray movie onto your PC? I'm building a HTPC and I want to be able to rip Blu Ray's but I'm wondering about the processor and which one I get and how it will affect ripping. Right now I'm thinking about getting the Core 2 duo E7400 Wolfdale. What are the comparisons with CPU's a couple levels above and below?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts
Somewhere around half to one hour (actually haven't ripped a BD lately) just to rip the disc. Depends on the speed of the drive and where it's going (ie network or not). CPU has no real effect on a strait rip.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I was actually thinking about that on my way home. The processor isn't going to matter much. How about when transcoding to mkv or h.624? How long will that take on those processors?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts
Well on my T8300 (dual core 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB) w/ 4GB ram, it was a good 20-24hrs to transcode about an hour and a half of HD to H.264.


If you're going to be doing a lot of transcoding, IMO do yourself a favor and get a Core i7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,822 Posts
I have a quad core Q6600. It takes me 10-12 hours to encode a Blu Ray to a 8GB mkv using Ripbot264. With HDD becoming so cheap though I prefer not to encode and just use either Clown_BD or MakeMKV to trim out the fat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/16977773


Well on my T8300 (dual core 2.4GHz, 800MHz FSB) w/ 4GB ram, it was a good 20-24hrs to transcode about an hour and a half of HD to H.264.


If you're going to be doing a lot of transcoding, IMO do yourself a favor and get a Core i7.

On my quad 6600 it takes me from 4 to 8 hours to rip and resize to 1280x720 a BR movie with 2 audio track (flac).


I don't know what is wrong with your system but something isn't running as expected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,652 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebes1099 /forum/post/16977718


I was actually thinking about that on my way home. The processor isn't going to matter much. How about when transcoding to mkv or h.624? How long will that take on those processors?

FYI,


MKV is not 'transcoding'. All it is is a container format that holds video, audio, subtitles, etc. Placing a rip of a bluray into a MKV container is easily less than 10 minutes and depends solely on your HD performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,654 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosferax /forum/post/16977802


On my quad 6600 it takes me from 4 to 8 hours to rip and resize to 1280x720 a BR movie with 2 audio track (flac).


I don't know what is wrong with your system but something isn't running as expected.

Theres a hell of a lot of more settings that come into play then just saying im ripping to 720p with a q6600.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosferax /forum/post/16977802


On my quad 6600 it takes me from 4 to 8 hours to rip and resize to 1280x720 a BR movie with 2 audio track (flac).


I don't know what is wrong with your system but something isn't running as expected.

Nothing's wrong with my system:


1) It's a dual core, rather than quad, which accounts for darn near half (so that would be 10-12hrs for my movie on a quad).

2) I encoded to (IIRC) 1080p, which is almost double the pixels, and takes a good bit more CPU work.

3) It was a 1080i60 that I (again IIRC) deinterlaced to 1080p60 so that's a lot of the difference there.


My i7 920 is way faster. But like dbone, I find it an utter waste of time. I buy BD for the quality, so I'm not going to intentionally degrade the quality just for conveniece. I rip movie only, no-transcoding rips, and I take the hit on HDD space (if I were unwilling to take the hit I'd probably not rip at all).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I'm not planning on splurging for an i7...although I would love having one. Maybe an upgrade in the future. (Although now I see an i7 920 is on sale for 200 at the Micro Center near me).


I'd probably get a Q8400 if I went Quad, or an E8500 for dual. I think I saw the E8500 at the Micro Center for $100. If the Quad Core is around 175+ I think it might be better to just go for the i7 920? One problem is that I was planning on getting an ASUS P5Q-EM mobo and that won't support an i7 920. Thoughts??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/16978273


Nothing's wrong with my system:


1) It's a dual core, rather than quad, which accounts for darn near half (so that would be 10-12hrs for my movie on a quad).

2) I encoded to (IIRC) 1080p, which is almost double the pixels, and takes a good bit more CPU work.

3) It was a 1080i60 that I (again IIRC) deinterlaced to 1080p60 so that's a lot of the difference there.


My i7 920 is way faster. But like dbone, I find it an utter waste of time. I buy BD for the quality, so I'm not going to intentionally degrade the quality just for conveniece. I rip movie only, no-transcoding rips, and I take the hit on HDD space (if I were unwilling to take the hit I'd probably not rip at all).

Whatever float your boat man...


1) your dual core is 1 or 2 generation after my quad.


2) and 3) So you are basing your conclusion on the ripping of a single BR? How about ripping a normal non interlace BR and time it. Maybe you could do an average of the time it takes then.


Reencoding is a waste of time only if you have a setup that is able to benefit from the 1080p resolution. Mine is 720p native. Why should I waste space when I'll never see the difference anyway. I'm not planning to replace my PJ for the next 3 to 4 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
All transcoding using x264 will take time. The time it takes depende foremost on the setting you use with x264. I allways use Very HQ settings, and because of that encoding secomd pass goes approx 4 ~6 fps for a 1080p; Even on my QX9650 (!).


If you dont fiddle around with the settings too much, or use relative standard settings in Ripbot for instance, it'll go (much) faster. But quality will suffer.


Still, it is true that HD spece is getting cheaper. So you might want to to do what i do, wich is actually a mix of both options described above. For movies i like, but not so much i'd need to have the full quality in my NAS archive, i'll transcode; Sometimes even to 720p resolutions.


Things i like to have at hand all the time, for instance very good movies, i'll remux using MakeMKV or Clwn Bd. So i then keep the original video- and audiotrack, and strip the disc of secondary video/unneeded subs and audio. I try to keep the original HD-audio too if possible.


This is the way i like to store my movies. I have many original discs, but the easy of using a HTCP/remote machine is great that i actualy prefer to store the discs om my system. That way i can select all with a remote keyboard/mouse, very easy and very versatile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,131 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosferax /forum/post/16979788


Whatever float your boat man...


1) your dual core is 1 or 2 generation after my quad.

You did notice it's T8300, ie a laptop. It was faster than my X2 4200+ though.

Quote:
2) and 3) So you are basing your conclusion on the ripping of a single BR? How about ripping a normal non interlace BR and time it. Maybe you could do an average of the time it takes then.

I just posted my experience, others have done the same with other/newer/different machines.

Quote:
Reencoding is a waste of time only if you have a setup that is able to benefit from the 1080p resolution. Mine is 720p native.

Which I do


Quote:
Why should I waste space when I'll never see the difference anyway. I'm not planning to replace my PJ for the next 3 to 4 years.

Well for me, I wouldn't want to, 3-4 years down the road get a 1080p (or better) display and then kick myself for having to re-rip 3-4 years worth of BDs because my quality tastes had improved.


I learned a while ago with music that quality requirements almost always increase as time passes. The only way to not have to re-rip in the future is to rip full quality to start with (no re-encoding).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,603 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/16979939


You did notice it's T8300, ie a laptop. It was faster than my X2 4200+ though.




I just posted my experience, others have done the same with other/newer/different machines.




Which I do





Well for me, I wouldn't want to, 3-4 years down the road get a 1080p (or better) display and then kick myself for having to re-rip 3-4 years worth of BDs because my quality tastes had improved.


I learned a while ago with music that quality requirements almost always increase as time passes. The only way to not have to re-rip in the future is to rip full quality to start with (no re-encoding).

1) Yep I missed the T


2) Sure they did. I did too and I was replying to your comment about my post.


3) Well I don't :)


4) While I appreciate the upgrade in quality over SD, my ex-arc welder, heavy computer used, 44 years old eyes, can't really see the difference between 720p and 1080p from 16 feet away from a 106" screen. While I don't have a 1080p setup many of my friend have so I did the test.


I won't re-rip those titles in 3-4 years for the same reason that I'm not replacing my DVD with BR. They look great on my setup. I will and do buy new titles on BR or I will double dip on non-anamorphic or badly encode DVD. But for the vast majority I'll pass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 /forum/post/16979939


You did notice it's T8300, ie a laptop. It was faster than my X2 4200+ though.


I just posted my experience, others have done the same with other/newer/different machines.


Which I do



Well for me, I wouldn't want to, 3-4 years down the road get a 1080p (or better) display and then kick myself for having to re-rip 3-4 years worth of BDs because my quality tastes had improved.


I learned a while ago with music that quality requirements almost always increase as time passes. The only way to not have to re-rip in the future is to rip full quality to start with (no re-encoding).

For Video full-quality might be the only way to do it, based on your concerns. But i've allready ripped many disks that i've not watched again in a long time. It's just waisted space. I could just delete the file, but reencoding to 720p is a nice middleway.


In the case of audio; Things are different though. There we have FLAC. You can just simply losslessly rip music with that, even if it's multi-channel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,822 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by G_M_C /forum/post/16980318


For Video full-quality might be the only way to do it, based on your concerns. But i've allready ripped many disks that i've not watched again in a long time. It's just waisted space. I could just delete the file, but reencoding to 720p is a nice middleway.


In the case of audio; Things are different though. There we have FLAC. You can just simply losslessly rip music with that, even if it's multi-channel

How well is multi channel flac supported in videos (i.e. if you have multi channel flacs in your Blu Ray mkvs)? For example, do only a handful of players handle this correctly, can most players/media center softwares correctly handle multi channel flac in videos?
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top