Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > (HD) DVD, Blu-ray & (S)VCD > DVD Rebuilder

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 19th October 2005, 22:16   #1  |  Link
neo squidward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 93
Always have high reduction level

Curious as to why I always have a high "reduction level"?

Most recent:
- VTS_01: 2,787,717 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 219,869 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 87.8%
- Overall Bitrate : 4,462/3,569Kbs
- Space for Video : 3,995,618KB
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 4,765/1,890/3,569 Kbs

Even on shorter movies with lower bitrates, the reduction is still 70%+. I'm ripping "main movie" with decrypter, editing the start/stop with shrink (no compression), then preping with rb. What am i doin' wrong?

tia
neo squidward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2005, 22:26   #2  |  Link
Harrysmiith
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 109
why do you think something is wrong? My understanding is that Reduction level figures mean that the movie needs to be reduced to 87.8% of its true size to fit on a DVD-5 ?
the higher this figure the better I would have said.
Harrysmiith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2005, 22:53   #3  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,767
Higher is better. You're probably doing movie-only encodes if you are getting that high consistently.
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th October 2005, 23:07   #4  |  Link
neo squidward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 93
"Higher is better." I guess I completely misread another thread, and yes, I am doin' movie-only.

I guess I thought something was wrong since on my test encodes I've been getting rather blurry results. CCE Basic, VBR_bias:25, VBR_Passes:2, Quality Prec:16, default encoder matrix. Screens available if curious.

Any ideas or recommended settings?
neo squidward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 00:02   #5  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,767
Two things to look at:

1. Make sure you haven't added any filters to the filter editor and forgotten about them.

2. Check the original for comparison -- see if it is "blurred" as well. At the compression levels you are using you shouldn't normally be able to distinguish between the original and the backup. There's always exceptions, but that's usually only for originals that have extremely high numbers of frames to be encoded. Yours doesn't.
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 00:09   #6  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,767
One other thing... try doing the movie with no Shrink step. I've been told that running a job through Shrink, even though you choose no-compression, can result in blurring. I can't confirm that, though, as I don't use Shrink.
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 03:19   #7  |  Link
neo squidward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 93
Here's an example of the blur with stats from rb and cce:

original -

encode (directly from original with no filters) -

VTS_01: 2,466,980 sectors.
-- Scanning and writing .D2V & .AVS files
-- Processed 211,767 frames.
-- Building .AVS and .ECL files
- Reduction Level for DVD-5: 92.4%
- Overall Bitrate : 4,743/3,795Kbs
- Space for Video : 4,091,480KB
- HIGH/LOW/TYPICAL Bitrates: 5,043/2,726/3,795 Kbs

Other info from 5 mins encoded (other settings in previous post)
vbr: 4507 (500-9000) kbps
neo squidward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 12:27   #8  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,767
Was this sent through Shrink first? If so, try one without it.
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2005, 15:42   #9  |  Link
steptoe
Registered User
 
steptoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 360
As I understand and read the figures, its only reducing the original by 12.2%

How I see it, 100% is the original source, so you're getting 87.8% of the original size, not its being reduced by 87.8%

If you have a movie that will easily fit on a single DVD, and run it through DVD-RB ignoring the warning that it will fit on a single DVD already, you'll end up with a reduction size higher than 100%
steptoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 03:26   #10  |  Link
neo squidward
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdobbs
Was this sent through Shrink first? If so, try one without it.
Yeah, it was sent through shrink first, but I got the same blurry results from the original.
neo squidward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 13:30   #11  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,290
What is the default matrix? It could be a bit too aggressive for your bitrate.
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 14:40   #12  |  Link
jptheripper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 913
dont send it through shrink
jptheripper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 14:48   #13  |  Link
FredThompson
Registered User
 
FredThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC USA
Posts: 1,959
Try HC. It gives a sharper output than CCE for quite a lot of source.
__________________
Reclusive fart.
Collecting Military, Trains, Cooking, Woodworking, Fighting Illini, Auburn Tigers
FredThompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 14:57   #14  |  Link
Msc_Alex
Junior
 
Msc_Alex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: ellis beach
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jptheripper
dont send it through shrink
Wait a minute, you mean to tell that shrink messes with the picture even when you have selected no compression? I have used it a lot too remove the audio and sub flags I have striped?
__________________
------Utere Cerebro ------
Msc_Alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 18:04   #15  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,767
I don't know that for a fact... and my initial feeling was that it couldn't be so. But I have seen enough reports to that effect that I'm just not sure... and they all reported blurring. I guess someone could run it through some time and compare the demuxed sources. But as I've said before -- I can't chase problems that may be related to preprocessing with 3rd party sources... there'd be no end to it.
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net

Last edited by jdobbs; 21st October 2005 at 18:08.
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 18:38   #16  |  Link
FredThompson
Registered User
 
FredThompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC USA
Posts: 1,959
That doesn't make sense. DVDShrink does do some goofy stuff to the IFO structure which PGCEdit will detect. It doesn't modify I-frames at all, just B and P. Those are only modified if the stream is to be shrunk. AfterDawn posts are screwed.

If anything, loading PGCEdit and allowing its sanity check should be helpful. If there are broken or corrupt nav structures, PGCEdit will fix them. I've seen this a lot on TV episode discs.
__________________
Reclusive fart.
Collecting Military, Trains, Cooking, Woodworking, Fighting Illini, Auburn Tigers
FredThompson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 18:57   #17  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,767
Like I said, I don't know. The only way to tell is to compare the MPEG streams before and after.
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2005, 20:37   #18  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,767
Ok... since I don't want to be the kind of person who spreads unsubtantiated rumours I did a comparison myself... and the MPV files created by Shrink in "No Compression" mode match the originals exactly (at least on the ones I tested). One thing to watch, though, is ensuring you select the entire disc before making the "No Compression" setting (I accidentally didn't the first time I tested it and got a little concerned at first).

So the "blurring by Shrink" reports are urban legend and nothing more.

As for this thread...

@neo squidward

What settings to you have for the Matrices in DVD-RB? A matrix could have that kind of effect...
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd October 2005, 04:39   #19  |  Link
Jeffster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Land of the Long White Cloud
Posts: 183
He said he used CCE basic. On it's own, basic doesn't have the option of changing matrices... is DVD-RB Pro able to use custom Matrices with basic?

I think neo squidward should post the avs script (copy & paste) for the segment that he obtained the screenshots from.

If CCE was starved of bitrate (unlikely at a reduction level of 92.4%), it may show other artifacts but I highly doubt you would get blurring, at least not on it's own, I wouldn't think. As jdobbs said, at the compression levels he is using you shouldn't normally be able to distinguish between the original and the backup.

Last edited by Jeffster; 22nd October 2005 at 05:18.
Jeffster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd October 2005, 05:07   #20  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,767
Hmmm.... your right about CCE Basic. I'm stumped. The picture looks almost as if a light smoothing filter was used.
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net

Last edited by jdobbs; 22nd October 2005 at 05:11.
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 18:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.