BD-RB and Format=5

[setarip_old]

I previously read something in one of the BD-RB-related threads here about setting "Format=" to 5 for some type of streamlined processing - but I'm unable to locate the related posting(s).

Would someone please be good enough to either point me to the posting(s) or explain this "hidden feature"?

Thank you.

[turbojet]

Can you be more specific with 'streamlined processing'?

[Sharc]

@setarip_old:
You probably refer to this post:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1241783#post1241783

[setarip_old]

@Sharc

Yes, that's the group of postings I was seeking. ("ENCODE_QUALITY=5", not "Format=5)

Thank you ;>}

[GaPony]

I think... but I'm not 100% sure, that you can set it as high as 6.

[setarip_old]

According to the post by "jdobbs", for one-pass processing:Edit the INI file and set ENCODE_QUALITY=5 -- it will really look terrible -- but it should be fast (well... as fast as it can with HD at least).

As I've noted many times before, I guess i don't have a very discerning eye - I find such output to be quite acceptable...

BTW - Using this setting reduces the total processing time by about 65%.

[GaPony]

As I've noted many times before, I guess i don't have a very discerning eye - I find such output to be quite acceptable...



What does your seeing-eye dog say about it? :D

You said its acceptable with encode_quality=5? Why not just watch a DVD and not go through all this converting. :confused: :)

[Dark Shikari]

It will look fine for a BD25. It will probably look awful for a BD5/9.

Encode_quality=5 is something like --subme 1 --partitions none --no-cabac --me dia.

[setarip_old]

@GaPonyWhat does your seeing-eye dog say about it?Whether serious or intended to be a feeble attempt at humor, you comment adds nothing of value to this thread (that I started), is totally uncalled for and not appreciated.

[GaPony]

It will look fine for a BD25. It will probably look awful for a BD5/9.

Encode_quality=5 is something like --subme 1 --partitions none --no-cabac --me dia.

Ahh yes... That would be true. A BD25 copy, especially if a relatively small movie would still look good.

[GaPony]

@GaPonyWhether serious or intended to be a feeble attempt at humor, you comment adds nothing of value to this thread (that I started), is totally uncalled for and not appreciated.

I apologize for a simple touch of humor. I see now that it was as unnecessary as your retort. Its unusual to see someone reaching for the lowest common denominator and it threw me off my game. Most folks seem to be attempting parity with the original.

I will attempt to keep all further postings in "your" threads as pointed and bland as possible.

Again... Sorry.

[neuron2]

@setarip_old

Please do not delete threads after other people have replied. You may delete your own posts. Thank you.

[setarip_old]

@GaPonyIts unusual to see someone reaching for the lowest common denominator and it threw me off my game. Most folks seem to be attempting parity with the original.And some of us have an innate curiosity regarding all of a program's capabilities.

My comment that,"I find such output to be quite acceptable..." was intended to counter the statement made by "jdobbs" that the end result of using this setting, "will really look terrible" - and (obviously) not that it was comparable to a high/higher/highest output.

I believe the overall essence of my post is valid - The quality of the resultant output of "ENCODE_QUALITY=5" is (pleasantly) surprising in light of the very significant reduction in processing time vis-a-vis the "standard" settings...

[Furiousflea]

@GaPonyAnd some of us have an innate curiosity regarding all of a program's capabilities.

My comment that,"I find such output to be quite acceptable..." was intended to counter the statement made by "jdobbs" that the end result of using this setting, "will really look terrible" - and (obviously) not that it was comparable to a high/higher/highest output.

I believe the overall essence of my post is valid - The quality of the resultant output of "ENCODE_QUALITY=5" is (pleasantly) surprising in light of the very significant reduction in processing time vis-a-vis the "standard" settings...

Jdobbs only said that it would be acceptable for BD25 backups, which GaPony has also said. He made no mention of it regarding BD5\BD9.

[setarip_old]

@Furiousflea

Hi!Jdobbs only said that it would be acceptable for BD25 backups, which GaPony has also said. He made no mention of it regarding BD5\BD9.1) No, that speculative statement was made by "Dark Shikari", not "jdobbs"

2) My sole purpose in starting this thread was to re-discover the post that referred to this setting, so that I could explore processing time versus output quality - which I've done to my satisfaction

3) Having done so, I can now agree with an earlier poster who stated that using this "quick and dirty" setting would likely make for quicker discovery of at least some bugs during this beta testing phase

4) Whether this poster or that poster made reference to BD5, BD9, or BD25 is irrelevant to my purpose

[GaPony]

@GaPonyAnd some of us have an innate curiosity regarding all of a program's capabilities.

My comment that,"I find such output to be quite acceptable..." was intended to counter the statement made by "jdobbs" that the end result of using this setting, "will really look terrible" - and (obviously) not that it was comparable to a high/higher/highest output.

I believe the overall essence of my post is valid - The quality of the resultant output of "ENCODE_QUALITY=5" is (pleasantly) surprising in light of the very significant reduction in processing time vis-a-vis the "standard" settings...

Like anything else, the satisfaction level will be subjective. There are several possibilites and you, like the rest of us, are finding your comfort zone in balancing quality vs. time required. We each use this program for differing reasons. I suppose that's why jdobbs allows for several options.

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that faster settings make for quicker discovery of any bugs that may be present. They could just as easily be masked by poor video quality, but it is a valid argument for discussion.

In any case, have a nice day.

[setarip_old]

@GaPonyI'm not sure I agree with the notion that faster settings make for quicker discovery of any bugs that may be present.

Which is why I (carefully) said:I can now agree with an earlier poster who stated that using this "quick and dirty" setting would likely make for quicker discovery of at least some bugs during this beta testing phase

Au revoir

[Furiousflea]

@Furiousflea

Hi!1) No, that speculative statement was made by "Dark Shikari", not "jdobbs"

2) My sole purpose in starting this thread was to re-discover the post that referred to this setting, so that I could explore processing time versus output quality - which I've done to my satisfaction

3) Having done so, I can now agree with an earlier poster who stated that using this "quick and dirty" setting would likely make for quicker discovery of at least some bugs during this beta testing phase

4) Whether this poster or that poster made reference to BD5, BD9, or BD25 is irrelevant to my purpose


Might as well chuck another log on the fire ;)

I was referring to jdobbs. He said it in the bug reports thread, 95% sure he said it. And positive that he said it referring to BD25. Something along the lines of. "Fastest quality setting is fine for BD25". No detail was given.

I don't agree with what he said though :D But it stuck in my head lol, until I actually tried it out and found the fastest quality setting worthless in terms of producing final output for actual pleasurable viewing.

Doesn't matter but if we're going to be all correct then this is my contribution. :D

[tyau]

Speaking of processing time. I have backed up around 30 BD-5 and around 26 or so BD-9. All movie-only; I only speak and read English, and in the extremely rare cases that I want to watch the special features, I watch my original copies. Also because I have an adequate CPU and that I usually use BD-RB when I am at work, I only choose the highest quality encoding.

From what I have gathered, based on my limited number of titles I've experimented, I realize that encoding to BD-5 is approximately 10 to 15% faster than encoding BD-9. This MAY have to do with the content of the movies. But is BD-5 encoding relatively quicker than encoding BD-9? I have only done 2 BD-25.

Speaking of passes, worthiness aside, is it possible to add one more pass to the "highest quality" setting to BD-RB? If so, what parameter would that be in the .ini file?

[Dark Shikari]

From what I have gathered, based on my limited number of titles I've experimented, I realize that encoding to BD-5 is approximately 10 to 15% faster than encoding BD-9. This MAY have to do with the content of the movies. But is BD-5 encoding relatively quicker than encoding BD-9? I have only done 2 BD-25. Yes. Lower bitrate means less time spent in:

Bitstream writing (CABAC is expensive)
Bit cost estimation
Dequant/inverse transform (lower bitrate means more decimated blocks)
Motion estimation (lower bitrate means motion vectors farther away from the predicted are more expensive and thus less likely to be searched)

And so forth.

[setarip_old]

@Furiousflea

Feel free to read the following two posts from the "Bug Report" thread:

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1241783&postcount=886

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1241784&postcount=887

These are the posts that "Sharc" directed me to at the beginning of this thread, that I've referred to throughout this thread...