DVD Compression

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by dvd_maniac

Cropping without worrying about AR is pretty easy in Stax as the assistant will notify you of any issues with AR after you set the crop points. It is also ALOT more accurate then Recode when it determines the crop points. I barely ever have to adjust any of them but I check them all to make sure(10 seconds/ movie).

I have done a few downloaded HD clips with some success and some failures...

A couple of questions about Stax. Will it allow you to use the original AC3 or DTS audio if you so choose? For cropping will it automatically adjust for MOD16 to make the files more compatible?

[dvd_maniac]

Will it allow you to use the original AC3 or DTS audio if you so choose?

Yes it allows you to use existing AC3 & DTS audio files. Although I am not sure what containers support what format.

will it automatically adjust for MOD16 to make the files more compatible?

When in the crop veiw, the bottom right corner shows the current MOD results. So you can easily see what it is as you change the crop settings.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by dvd_maniac

I agree with everyone that has small collection of DVD's or just want to keep a couple hundred movies. But for those that want to keep a large collection then just copying the DVD is not a viable solution.

That's a matter of perspective. From what I've seen of the effort it takes to get really good results from an encode, manually encoding a "large collection" is not viable.

For my 1600+ collection I would need a 7TB array just for Movies! I would say that with the Intel Q6600 at $215.00 that it would be cheaper to create an encoding machine for a similair situation.

7TB is not really that impractical, and how much space does it take compressed?

I figure best case scenario with "transparent" encoding you'd still need about 4TB even transcoded. "Transparent" means unable to tell the difference between the DVD and the recode on close inspection, not just "looks OK from a ways away".

I just retried my favorite test, the opening scene from Star Wars III, with the latest MeGui/x264, using the "HQ DXVA" profile and no preset size, there was still noticeable macroblocking.

On my Q6600 it usually takes me less than 2-1/2 hours to rip and encode a 90 minute movie using 2-pass. And for the slow-motion girlie movies I use 1-pass with a CQ of 26 and it takes around 1-1/2 hours.

Last time I actually encoded a whole movie on my Athlon 64 X2 4200+, it took about 6 hours to encode about a 2 hour movie (yes, both cores were pegged).

Frankly I'm somewhat baffled, try as I might, I just can't get anywhere near the "order of magnitude" size reductions that so many talk about and still have anything that's even close to transparent.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

It's my understanding that 2-pass doesn't necessarily mean higher quality. That h.264 only really shines when you use constant quality mode (i.e. variable bitrate). Supposedly particularly when you give it a target size.

What you describe there IS two-pass. Two-pass is VBR where the first pass analyzes and the second redistributes bits to reach the quality/size goals.

Single pass either hits quality or size targets, but not both.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by stanger89

What you describe there IS two-pass. Two-pass is VBR where the first pass analyzes and the second redistributes bits to reach the quality/size goals.

Single pass either hits quality or size targets, but not both.

True, but I have on occasion had it hit it's set target on the first pass. But yes, it usually does need two passes to get it right.

[gilded07]

By comparison to what you'all are doing, my method seems archaic!

I recently started using DVD decryptor to decrypt DVDs I own, and Handbrake (v .9) to encode them. For the handful that I've transferred to hdd, I've used an .avi wrapper. I've heard that the HD extender has problems w/ mkv and although I don't have one yet, I'm hoping to future-proof my movies against this problem.

For encoding, I'm using MPEG-4 part 2 (H.264 stops before completion w/ errors) and AC3 (AAC caused me problems too). The problem I'm having is that on a few of the movies, I've attempt to encode/convert so far, I get errors w/ handbrake (e.g. Cars, Lion King, & Finding Nemo). I like handbrake and DVD decryptor because they're free but after reading this post, it looks like there may be better options.

The machine I use is a P4, 2.4ghz (yes I know, it belongs in a museum) and I don't have many movies to transfer to hdd - mainly the kids' DVDs that get scratched from repeatedly (& carelessly) loading and removing from the set top DVD player.

How much should one pay for utilities like those mentioned on this thread?

Note: any movies I transfer to hdd are ones that I have purchased and that I own.

[dvd_maniac]

@ Stanger

I totally agree that my collection is not transparent and that any encode will obviously reduce quality. I minumize it as much as possible on high-motion and my favorite movies. But take a great movie like "The Breakfast club". It is one of my favorite movies of all time but can be compressed alot due to low-motion and a high amouont of static backgrounds. Should I leave it as DVD size (4GB) or compress it down to 400MB?
"I" feel that on this specific example I receive a 90% size reduction with only about a 15% loss in quality.
But I am a Trekkie at heart. I could see myself leaving some of those movies as DVD quality.
Kids animated movies at full size is another example for me...I can't see taking up all that space for older Disney movies that never looked great to begin with.

So maybe there is room for both?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by dvd_maniac

@ Stanger

I totally agree that my collection is not transparent and that any encode will obviously reduce quality. I minumize it as much as possible on high-motion and my favorite movies. But take a great movie like "The Breakfast club". It is one of my favorite movies of all time but can be compressed alot due to low-motion and a high amouont of static backgrounds. Should I leave it as DVD size (4GB) or compress it down to 400MB?

I would, because every time I watch it, the compression artifacts would drive me nuts

"I" feel that on this specific example I receive a 90% size reduction with only about a 15% loss in quality.
But I am a Trekkie at heart. I could see myself leaving some of those movies as DVD quality.
Kids animated movies at full size is another example for me...I can't see taking up all that space for older Disney movies that never looked great to begin with.

So maybe there is room for both?

Of course there's room for both, I just see (in general, not from you) grand claims that recompressing can save tons of space with no downside, yet whenever I try even modest (IMO) compression results in visible degradation. Seems there aren't many who are willing to say that recompression sacrifices quality

[deadend5001]

I just tried to encode a movie in h.264 with no audio compression. Worked great, but now I can't find anything to test the movie to see the quality. Windows Media Player and Windows Media Center don't recognize the file...or it just plays audio...no video. I'm using DVDFab to make my MKV files. Any thoughts?

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by deadend5001

I just tried to encode a movie in h.264 with no audio compression. Worked great, but now I can't find anything to test the movie to see the quality. Windows Media Player and Windows Media Center don't recognize the file...or it just plays audio...no video. I'm using DVDFab to make my MKV files. Any thoughts?

VLC

[dvd_maniac]

@ deadend5001

In my tests of DVDFab compressions I found the quality to be horrible and not even comparable to Recode or X264 using Staxrip.

My .02

You could also put the file into a Sage Import folder and let Sage play it.

[deadend5001]

Originally Posted by dvd_maniac

@ deadend5001

In my tests of DVDFab compressions I found the quality to be horrible and not even comparable to Recode or X264 using Staxrip.

My .02

You could also put the file into a Sage Import folder and let Sage play it.

I don't have Sage yet. I'm building my collection and waiting for the darn HD100's to come in so I can get my setup started. It's my birthday today too...and all I wanted was to order a few HD100's for our home

[Taddeusz]

Well, I've messed around with Staxrip a little bit and while it is quite easy to use it doesn't seem to get cropped anamorphic AR's correct either. It really gets all screwy when I go and adjust the crop to return the width to 720. I don't mind having the top and bottom cropped but I'd rather keep the proper NTSC width.

[deadend5001]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Well, I've messed around with Staxrip a little bit and while it is quite easy to use it doesn't seem to get cropped anamorphic AR's correct either. It really gets all screwy when I go and adjust the crop to return the width to 720. I don't mind having the top and bottom cropped but I'd rather keep the proper NTSC width.

So what do you use Taddeusz?

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by deadend5001

So what do you use Taddeusz?

I currently use AutoMKV. But it doesn't get AR's correct at all. The main reason I am on the lookout for something else free and fairly easy to use. I know how to do the calculations by hand but it's really kind of a pain in the butt and I discovered that even when I do that AutoMKV doesn't mux in the correct AR and I end up having to run the raw h264 file through mp4box to get the correct AR. And even then the rounding errors that were introduced in my calculations produced an ever so slightly squeezed picture compared to the same video with a 16:9 AR.

[deadend5001]

Yeah I tried both StaxRip and AutoMKV and neither were intuitive enough to be honest. I like DVDFab because I just pop in the DVD, click "Main Movie", Click what format I want to save it in, and press Start. It takes care of the rest. DVDFab 5.x just came out May 12th, so I'd be curious how the new version stacks up against the two softwares you guys are using in terms of video and audio quality.

I just overall like the fact that I don't have to know which VOB to rip...and that DVDFab can do a direct audio copy and still keep files at around 1GB per movie.

[Taddeusz]

I guess I'm a bit picky about my converts even though I'm still reducing the quality. I like to keep my movies anamorphic, which means the display aspect ratio is different than the 1:1 pixel ratio of the video. If you do the math 720x480 has an aspect ratio of 1.5:1 but is always displayed as either 4:3 or 16:9.

If you convert your video to square pixels you lose some amount of resolution in the process. You could argue that you lose some of that when it's displayed anyway, at least when displaying a 16:9 movie on an SDTV. But if you have an HDTV it will be able to display the whole anamorphic picture without losing anything.

But, I'm just picky like that. I don't know that cropping is actually worth worrying about. In my informal test on a single movie the resulting file was a whole 9MB smaller when cropped (700MB vs 691MB). Nothing to even bother with. I kind of figured as much though. Because any compression algorithm worth it's salt would be able to compress a large expanse of black to practically nothing.

[lobosrul]

I don't crop anamorphic encodes. The reason being is I don't like to do math to watch a movie. Say for instance you have a 2.39 movie, on a 720x480 DVD. If you just leave it alone then SageTV is smart enough to un-compress it to 852x480, or at worse you have to force 16x9 mode. If however you crop the black bars your left with 720x360 (or around 360). Now you have an encoded 2:1 AR with a display AR of 2.39:1. You'll have to play around with the height/width setting in SageTV for a corrected picture. Or your 3rd option is to make a 720x300 encode, but you lose quality by doing htat.

When you figure some movies are 1.66:1, some 1.85:1 some 2.21 and a few other oddball AR's its just best to leave the black bars alone.

[chiledog]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

But, I'm just picky like that. I don't know that cropping is actually worth worrying about. In my informal test on a single movie the resulting file was a whole 9MB smaller when cropped (700MB vs 691MB). Nothing to even bother with. I kind of figured as much though. Because any compression algorithm worth it's salt would be able to compress a large expanse of black to practically nothing.

Taddeusz,

What is wrong with the way AutoMKV autocrops the movies. I have used it on many movies and have not noticed anything wrong. (I have not tested the video against the original, I just can not notice a problem when I watch it).

I have found different results with file size of cropped and uncropped. I noticed the uncropped is about 15% larger. (but I have only done this for one movie. I could have messed up somewhere.)

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by chiledog

Taddeusz,

What is wrong with the way AutoMKV autocrops the movies. I have used it on many movies and have not noticed anything wrong. (I have not tested the video against the original, I just can not notice a problem when I watch it).

I have found different results with file size of cropped and uncropped. I noticed the uncropped is about 15% larger. (but I have only done this for one movie. I could have messed up somewhere.)

I've actually never tried autocrop. Mostly because if I did it I'd like to keep the width and only crop the height. By doing the autocrop it will do both. Using anamorphic encoding I don't trust that the AR will come out right since it definitely doesn't without cropping. I have to manually tell it what AR to mux because the guy who wrote it is either too lazy or doesn't care to understand the calculations necessary to get it right.

The only reason I keep AutoMKV it is because 1) it will mux in the original DTS audio (Handbrake won't) 2) it has a much better reverse telecining than Handbrake. If the folks that wrote Handbrake would include the option to mux the original DTS audio and fix their reverse telecining I would switch back in a heartbeat.

Again, by doing crop using CQ mode, where it could actually make a difference, the difference in size between cropped and original was negligible. Not even worth the effort. If you're using a fixed bitrate you won't see any difference in file size but it might allow you to use a lower bitrate and keep the quality the same. But really, CQ mode is where H.264 really shows itself.

[deadend5001]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

I guess I'm a bit picky about my converts even though I'm still reducing the quality. I like to keep my movies anamorphic, which means the display aspect ratio is different than the 1:1 pixel ratio of the video. If you do the math 720x480 has an aspect ratio of 1.5:1 but is always displayed as either 4:3 or 16:9.

If you convert your video to square pixels you lose some amount of resolution in the process. You could argue that you lose some of that when it's displayed anyway, at least when displaying a 16:9 movie on an SDTV. But if you have an HDTV it will be able to display the whole anamorphic picture without losing anything.

But, I'm just picky like that. I don't know that cropping is actually worth worrying about. In my informal test on a single movie the resulting file was a whole 9MB smaller when cropped (700MB vs 691MB). Nothing to even bother with. I kind of figured as much though. Because any compression algorithm worth it's salt would be able to compress a large expanse of black to practically nothing.

DVDFab can convert to many sizes. I have mine set to 704x304 which is 100% zoom with no crop or aspect ratio change.