BD Rebuilder Beta - Bug Reports Only

[HWK]

Originally Posted by wooper

Hi Used dvdfab not a newer version, but it worked fine, mmm so do you think it is the rip? should i rip it again? which program do you recommend?

Originally Posted by Ch3vr0n

Anydvd beats DVDCrap any time and day of the week/month/year and doesnt use stolen code

This is not the first time where dvdfab has failed. There were two or three separate instace where fab output was not good one and caused these kind of problem to happen as well and anydvd worked just fine. Which remind me Jdobbs also use AnyDVD to do his rips.

[sonate]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

I can tell you that the error message means that on that single M2TS it is impossible to hit the goal, because the selected audio and PGSs combined are already bigger than the target size.

Yes, I figured that, after 4 M2ts were oversized, there was no room left for the main title.

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by wooper

Hi Used dvdfab not a newer version, but it worked fine, mmm so do you think it is the rip? should i rip it again? which program do you recommend?

I'd rip it with AnyDVD HD. It's by far the best ripper available. JMHO.

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by sonate

Yes, I figured that, after 4 M2ts were oversized, there was no room left for the main title.

You need to listen to what I said, not what want me to have said.

That error messge has nothing to do with the other 4 M2TS files. It won't fit because the audio/PGSs of that MT2S are larger than the output target for that M2TS. You probably decided to keep HD audio -- and HD audio just uses too much space (especially for the nonexistent benefit it provides).

[nozuul]

Anyone know what would cause a subtitle not to be converted?

Most of the time I do not pay attention, so I can't check past log files, but will in the future. With foreign films, I like to keep the original language audio and read the subtitles, can't stand voice-overs most of the time.

This happened with The Man from Nowhere, Region A.

Here is the log, tried it twice.

Thanks for any help!

-----------------------
[12:37:44] BD Rebuilder v0.38.04 (beta)
- Source: THE_MAN_FROM_NOWHERE
- Input BD size: 20.48 GB
- Approximate total content: [01:59:19.569]
- Windows Version: 6.1 [7601]
- MOVIE-ONLY/ALTERNATE OUTPUT mode enabled
- Mode: DVD-9, 720x480/576, AC3 Audio
- Audio Settings: AC3=0 DTS=0 HD=0 Kbs=640
[12:37:44] PHASE ONE, Encoding
- [12:37:44] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00000]
- [12:45:26] Reencoding: VID_00000 (1 of 1)
- [12:45:26] Collecting video information
- Source Video: MPEG-4 (AVC), 1920x1080
- Rate/Length: 23.976fps, 171,658 frames
- Bitrate: 8,776 Kbs
- [12:45:26] Reencoding: VID_00000
- [14:32:26] Video Encode complete
- [14:32:26] Reencoding audio tracks (if req'd)
- [14:32:55] Multiplexing M2TS
[14:32:55]PHASE ONE complete
[14:32:55]PHASE TWO - Rebuild Started
- [14:32:55] Rebuilding stream 00000 [1 of 1]
- [14:32:55] Building ALTERNATE OUTPUT Structure
- [14:36:37] Converting 1 subtitles to DVD format.
- Unable to convert subtitle: 4608, ignored.
- [14:36:37] Starting MPLEX.
- [14:40:26] Building DVD File Structure.
[14:44:40] - Encode and Rebuild complete
- WORKFILES folder removed.
[14:44:40]JOB: THE_MAN_FROM_NOWHERE finished.

[jdobbs]

Sometimes it might happen when it is not actually a subtitle, but instead is a pop-up graphic image. But that is very rare and the image would have to be huge.

That error occurs when BD-RB's internal subroutine (that converts subtitles from BD to DVD) fails.

I'll see if I can pick up that film and give it a try.

[geeky]

Hi...I've used BD Rebuilder in the past and have downloaded the latest beta version.....I keep getting error msg saying Haali spliter isn't the recommended version....I have uninstalled Haali splitter many times and reinstalled it but same problem. When uninstalling it the programs folder is deleted as well. I'm running XP Pro 32bit. Everything else that's needed to run BD Rebuilder is fine. I'm frustrated because other older versions worked. I'd appreciate any assistance. Thanks in advance!

[sonate]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

You need to listen to what I said, not what want me to have said.

That error messge has nothing to do with the other 4 M2TS files. It won't fit because the audio/PGSs of that MT2S are larger than the output target for that M2TS. You probably decided to keep HD audio -- and HD audio just uses too much space (especially for the nonexistent benefit it provides).

I am aware about the error message.

Shouldn't keep HD audio when compressing to a 25 gb Blu-ray????

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by sonate

I am aware about the error message.

Shouldn't keep HD audio when compressing to a 25 gb Blu-ray????

HD audio is a gimmick, and is indistinguishable from AC3 @640Kbs in double-blind tests. It's a digital-age equivalent to snake oil in my not-so-humble opinion. So what's the point?

Sure you can keep HD on some sources (although there is no reason to do so) -- but on others it is just way too large, especially when you are keeping multiple audio tracks. Suppose you have 5 tracks of DTS HD that each uses 5GB of space for audio. How much space do you calculate is left over for the video on a 25GB BD disc?

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by geeky

Hi...I've used BD Rebuilder in the past and have downloaded the latest beta version.....I keep getting error msg saying Haali spliter isn't the recommended version....I have uninstalled Haali splitter many times and reinstalled it but same problem. When uninstalling it the programs folder is deleted as well. I'm running XP Pro 32bit. Everything else that's needed to run BD Rebuilder is fine. I'm frustrated because other older versions worked. I'd appreciate any assistance. Thanks in advance!

Don't worry about it. That is caused by a mistake in my HAALI checking code.

[sonate]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

HD audio is a gimmick, and is indistinguishable from AC3 @640Kbs in double-blind tests. It's a digital-age equivalent to snake oil in my not-so-humble opinion. So what's the point?

Sure you can keep HD on some sources (although there is no reason to do so) -- but on others it is just way too large, especially when you are keeping multiple audio tracks. Suppose you have 5 tracks of DTS HD that each uses 5GB of space for audio. How much space do you calculate is left over for the video on a 25GB BD disc?

Understood, and I am very aware of that. But in this case there was one DTS HD selected. Particularly in the case of a monaural soundtrack, there is a striking difference between a compressed and uncompressed copy if that copy was made from a high dynamic range original. Needless to say higher sampling rates usually tend to preserve ambient phase material as well as resolve details as separate resulting in imaging and accurate soundstaging which lower sampling rates can only represent as inter modulation composites. When you say snake oil, I would have to agree with you that 99% of the times modern movie production incorporates audio which is well beneath the headroom high sampling rates provide.

BTW, I have about 15 years of audio engineering experience under my belt manifested during the analog era. I am a classical pianist who performs regularly. I have ears too. If you want to have a discussion about the merits of various recording or mastering schemes, I would be happy to tell you my experiences. Just tell me where, as I don't want to further degrade your bug report thread, even if you brought the issue up.

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by sonate

Understood, and I am very aware of that. But in this case there was one DTS HD selected. Particularly in the case of a monaural soundtrack, there is a striking difference between a compressed and uncompressed copy if that copy was made from a high dynamic range original. Needless to say higher sampling rates usually tend to preserve ambient phase material as well as resolve details as separate resulting in imaging and accurate soundstaging which lower sampling rates can only represent as inter modulation composites. When you say snake oil, I would have to agree with you that 99% of the times modern movie production incorporates audio which is well beneath the headroom high sampling rates provide.

BTW, I have about 15 years of audio engineering experience under my belt manifested during the analog era. I am a classical pianist who performs regularly. I have ears too. If you want to have a discussion about the merits of various recording or mastering schemes, I would be happy to tell you my experiences. Just tell me where, as I don't want to further degrade your bug report thread, even if you brought the issue up.

I'm also an engineer, and an pianist too (I also play several other instruments, not that it matters). I've heard every argument. Everyone thinks he/she can tell the difference, but they all fail to identify the HD track in double-blind tests. In scientific terms that is a slam dunk. I can't explain the human psychological belief that something can be heard when it isn't there -- I don't think anyone can -- but I can understand open-and-shut fact based upon the scientific method.

As an engineer, you should also know that in 99% of all cases the sampling rate is the same whether it is compressed or not. But, of course, that's another argument, because tests also show that no one (human anyway) can tell the difference between 48Khz and 96Khz samples... it definitely is noticable when you get less than 48Khz, but not at that rate or higher. All BD tracks are at or above 48Khz. It is noted, however, that (as you said) the track being digitized typically isn't of a level of quality that it matters anyway.

Most importantly (at least for this thread) I can tell you that in the referenced M2TS the audio alone was bigger than the target. It makes no difference if it was one, two, or ninety tracks. You can't get that warning message unless it is true.

[nozuul]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

Sometimes it might happen when it is not actually a subtitle, but instead is a pop-up graphic image. But that is very rare and the image would have to be huge.

That error occurs when BD-RB's internal subroutine (that converts subtitles from BD to DVD) fails.

I'll see if I can pick up that film and give it a try.

I'd sure appreciate it! Thanks for all the hard work on this program.

[sonate]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

I'm also an engineer, and an pianist too (I also play several other instruments, not that it matters). I've heard every argument. Everyone thinks he/she can tell the difference, but they all fail to identify the HD track in double-blind tests. In scientific terms that is a slam dunk.

Well, I suggest you get any cd version of a mercury living presence or RCA red seal and the same selection on SACD, and give a listen on not just a mediocre system but a quality one. And while you are at it find one of those obsolete vinyl LP's if you have access to a high quality turntable, cartridge and head amp. You may be shocked.

This should answer any question as to how sensitive the human ear is to sampling rates and the ambient details they can reveal.

When recording a very dynamic instrument like a Steinway B, there are major differences when I record using a 192khz sample and create DVD audio files as opposed to CD format which sounds flat. And in terms of playback, on a ribbon /transmission line transducers powered by pure class a , the usual response from the double blind tests I myself conducted, the DVD audio has an element of tangibility, a physical spacial presence of a live piano absent in the CD. For instance the repetitive chord motiff in Davidsbundler of Schumann's Carnival you can discern every vertical note in a fortissimo rhythmic accentuated pattern on the DVD. It is clogged up on the CD. The voices in the Scherzo in Schubert's D960 sonata can be listened to as if a string quartet was playing in terms of clarity and tone, a CD lacks the openness. Not that the DVD sounds like the live instrument but it is a lot closer than the CD.

You can also see the difference side by side on a spectrum analyzer. DVD has less a problem with any complex composite waveform consisting of the full range of upper harmonics when a hammer strikes a piano string forcefully. .

Again, none of this makes much difference in movie soundtracks or overly processed sound, but since you say the ear couldn't possibly tell the difference, I'm wondering how you can explain that the ear can hear the difference between a CD of a live performance and an actual live performance?

Most importantly (at least for this thread) I can tell you that in the referenced M2TS the audio alone was bigger than the target. It makes no difference if it was one, two, or ninety tracks. You can't get that warning message unless it is true.

I do understand, but my theory is that if 4 of the streams were not oversized by BD reb, when it came to re-encode the video of the main selection and remux it with the DTS soundtrack, the target size would have easily accommodated it.

Can I make a suggestion, pick up a copy of "Army of Shadows" on the Criterion label. You will enjoy watching it, a wonderful directive on the French Resistance and a lesson in moral equivalences.

Nice talking to a fellow musician.... Greg

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by sonate

Well, I suggest you get any cd version of a mercury living presence or RCA red seal and the same selection on SACD, and give a listen on not just a mediocre system but a quality one.

This has nothing to do with the SACD itself. SACDs are typically mastered much better than normal CDs because they're marketed to audiophiles. This means no Loudness war-style dynamic range reduction, for example.

If you convert "HD" audio like an SACD down to regular 44.1khz/16-bit, it's going to be indistinguishable from the original audio. However, nevertheless, it will often still be better than a typical CD.

[jdobbs]

@sonate

If a human ear was anything even remotely similar to a spectrum analyzer, you might get me to agree. Bit it doesn't work that way. In fact it doesn't work anything even remotely that way. Compression algorithms are expressly designed and tuned to take advantage of the psycho-acoustical limitations of human hearing . A machine can also be made to see microwaves -- that doesn't mean my eyes will ever see them. Anyway, this is one of those arguments in which your opinion, I'm sure, will never be changed -- so let's get back to the purpose of this thread.

I do understand, but my theory is that if 4 of the streams were not oversized by BD reb, when it came to re-encode the video of the main selection and remux it with the DTS soundtrack, the target size would have easily accommodated it.

I appreciate your persistence, but I wrote the code and as a result I'm pretty sure I know a little more about how it works than you, and, as I said, it doesn't work that way.

[sonate]

This has nothing to do with the SACD itself. SACDs are typically mastered much better than normal CDs because they're marketed to audiophiles. This means no Loudness war-style dynamic range reduction, for example.

Not wanting this to develop further life of its own, I will make this my last comment on the topic.

The reason I said Mercury Living Presence is because they are have always used minimalist processing and have maintained that standard regardless of medium.

Taking audiophile pressings on LP and 16ips tape masters from previous recordings, using reference playback equipment, you would first have to agree that these have a level of clarity and imaging well beyond the capability of cd format.Dynamics are not too far off either.

Taking either of these sources and creating digital versions in both CD and DVD audio straight 2 channel stereo with no mixing or signal processing either analog or digital using the same inputs on the same sound card, the DVD audio preserves far more of the originals sound stage and imaging capabilities as well as the openness of the sound. Now if you are telling me that if I re sample the DVD to CD specs it will sound identical, that has not been the case.

[sonate]

I appreciate your persistence, but I wrote the code and as a result I'm pretty sure I know a little more about how it works than you, and, as I said, it doesn't work that way.

I agree, you know what you coded, I don't. If I did I wouldn't be asking the dumb questions. But I wasn't really too concerned about the error message. Is there any light you can shed on the oversizing of previous M2ts. And this is the last time I'll mention this, would you please compare the top original to the bottom compressed image in terms of before and after. The only HD audio in the whole movie was in 00274.m2ts should be about 15gb after compression. All the others were AC3. What could have happened in 00230m2ts which is almost double the size?


Attachment 12324

Attachment 12325

[buffalofloyd]

Originally Posted by picrade

I have similar problem as illuminatori a few posts ago with Inspect on a new Windows 7 machine.
It checks AVISYNTH version which is ok then it pops up the error:

Run-time error '13':
Type mismatch

The next item to check would have been Matroska splitter.
The size of my Matroska splitter folder is 5,298,204.
The size on disk is 5,341,184.
This is the version I downloaded using the link on the first page of this thread.

Is this error also related to the bug in 0.39.04 that you mentioned?

I have this exact same error as you when I try to run the inspect.exe

I am using all the recommended downloads from the first post. I am also running Windows 7 Ultimate - Core I7 920.

I have done 1 successful encode so far and I will be trying more.

Thanks a lot jdobbs for creating such a useful program

[geeky]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

Don't worry about it. That is caused by a mistake in my HAALI checking code.

Thanks for responding. Apparently the problem is with VC-1 codec....how do I get around this issue....I get a error msg saying no decompressor when I try to view the video in preview within BD Rebuilder....a friend of mine said it has to do with VC-1 codec. I'd appreciate any assistance. Thanks in advance!