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. |
22nd August 2009, 15:29 | #4721 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 273
|
No, it's definitely doing it wrong.
I checked the lastcmd.txt, it is in fact encoding the PRIMARY video using the bitrate that's supposed to be for the secondary (8mbit). and it's the first thing that's being encoded. so if you say the 2nd track should've been done BEFORE the the primary one, then it confirms that there is indeed a problem, because the primary one is the first one being encoded (with wrong bitrate). Edit: actually, hold on that report. I wanna test again to make sure I'm not misleading you. I'll report back. Last edited by PurpleMan; 22nd August 2009 at 15:38. |
22nd August 2009, 16:20 | #4722 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 696
|
Quote:
|
|
22nd August 2009, 16:25 | #4723 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 696
|
Quote:
|
|
22nd August 2009, 16:27 | #4724 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,995
|
@PurpleMan;
I'm not sure if this can help, but I also recently did a full movie backup to BD-25 of this movie with BD-RBV02803, and though I have deleted my files, my finished 00000.m2ts file was 14.5 GB. I kept the Dolby True HD and one 640kbps AC3 audio track as well as the DD Plus secondary audio. I seem to remember BD-RB had a bitrate set to approx. 9800kbps for the 1080P file. BD-RB settings were: High Quality(Default); Custom Target Size(23450 MB); Keep HD Audio. All two-pass (Quicker Encode for Extras was NOT selected). Total BD size finished 22.5 GB. I am curious, if you burn your backup to BD-R/RE media and play it back on a standalone, does the movie have the audio in sync? Mine was off by 250ms, very noticeable and not enjoyable to watch. It took some adjusting to finally get the audio in sync, but the backup looks great! |
22nd August 2009, 17:24 | #4726 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,976
|
Quote:
The only way to tell is to do what I asked -- look at the actual video that was encoded for the secondary track. I've just finished testing several -- and it is being done correctly. |
|
22nd August 2009, 17:28 | #4727 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,976
|
Quote:
You wouldn't have gotten the error on one of the old versions because this was fairly new code. Of course on the older versions the PiP wouldn't have worked... Good catch. Thanks. Last edited by jdobbs; 22nd August 2009 at 17:30. |
|
22nd August 2009, 20:22 | #4728 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,976
|
BD Rebuilder v0.28.04 (beta)
I've just updated the links in the first post of this thread to a new version of BD Rebuilder (0.28.04). Changes in this release:
Code:
- Changed the default behavior for handling PiP/secondary audio/video. PROCESS_SECONDARY now defaults to "1" (true) and full backups will include secondary audio/video. - Fixed an error related to PiP and extension data tables in which some timestamp entries may not have been updated. - Fixed possible "CorrectMPLS()00006 2408" that may occur during rebuild. - Added a specialized hidden setting that is meant for special circumstances. "HDDVD_COMPLIANT=1" in the "[Options]" area of the INI will force certain parameters to be used and will limit bitrate to that legal for HD-DVD playback. Note: This does NOT mean you can playback your output on an HD-DVD player. It only means the stream will be encoded in a way that is compliant for certain post BD-RB software packages to use it in creating HD-DVDs. If selecting this option with BD-25, it is likely you will undersize due to bitrate constraints. - Added code to better select the movie-only MPLS. Now when there are two large MPLSs within 10% of each other, the default is the 2nd largest (which is generally the non-extended or non-commentary version). You should still check the "Alternate Movie-Only Playlist" just to be sure. - Corrected an error in the CRF prediction routine. - Updated X264.EXE to the most recent version (r1222) - Other minor corrections and cosmetic fixes. Last edited by jdobbs; 22nd August 2009 at 23:22. |
23rd August 2009, 00:01 | #4735 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,976
|
Quote:
I don't think I'd hold my breath the next time you ask me for support of your "beta testing"... Last edited by jdobbs; 23rd August 2009 at 00:09. |
|
23rd August 2009, 00:02 | #4736 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,267
|
@jdobbs
Quote:
The important thing is that we all "new whut jew railee ment" - and thank you for your efforts... |
|
23rd August 2009, 00:20 | #4737 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 285
|
Quote:
So much thanks Bro.... and BTW, I've nolt had any bugs to report, thus why I haven't posted too much lately on this thread.... all my back-ups are movie only BD-9s... And lastly, focuspuller made a gramatical error... he meant to add those two 1's together..... '11' is what he should've rated it since I don't see anyone else stepping up to offer such a great software as you have to all for free, hope he donated atleast 'something' for your efforts...
__________________
MBK |
|
23rd August 2009, 01:48 | #4738 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 696
|
Quote:
In the pack there were 32\64 bit versions for each one with a batch file included you just double click to install as well as an uninstaller for each one too... do a search typing "tweaker" or somethin and have a rummage in the threads |
|
23rd August 2009, 02:33 | #4739 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12
|
Quote:
If you're going to bring it up then you should explain further. I rated 6 of 10 for Ease Of Use, 1 of 10 for Functionality (based on the fact that the program stopped working completely on all projects), 1 of 10 for Value For Money (for the same reason), and 4 of 10 for Overall Score. I wrote the following review: "While it's a wonderful program, it has one major flaw. It does not support Windows 7. This will be a huge problem going forward and may not change any time soon given the comments of it's creator." The fact stated is that you don't support Windows 7, you don't, as you have said yourself. You have also stated that "90% of the cases where you are running into an issue and you are using Windows 7, Windows 7 is the cause". The rest is opinion, but clearly one that matters to you since you choose to address it. Let me be clear. My comments were made (both here and videohelp.com) as a Windows 7 user, and is directed to such users. When I wrote those number ratings I based them on the fact that BD rebuilder stopped working. This fact has changed, and as things stand now, everything works with the exception of one disc. To be fair, I number scored the way I did mostly out of frustration and the assuption that BD Rebuilder wouldn't work again on Windows 7 based on your statements. If I wrote that review now, the number score would be higher, but the statement would be the same. You say that you don't support Windows 7, and that problems related to using BD Rebuilder ("90%") are Windows 7's fault, therefore the two should not be expected to work together. But when a user states essentially the same thing and criticizes your program, you get on the defensive. You can't have it both ways. Your adversarial comments aside, I like this program very much. I like what it does, how it does it, and I applaud your hard work. It was not my intention to make you feel defensive. But I will not shy from saying that something doesn't work, when it doesn't (which I thought was the point of this thread, and hopefully helpful to you). I will also not apologize for being part of a growing number of users to an operating system that comes out about a month or two from now, and, in all likelihood will be the largest group of Blu-ray users/copiers. You may have the only BD shrink program out there. But how long will that last? And how will your strategy change when the time comes? As for "holding my breath" for help, why? Because you've been so warn, fuzzy, and helpful so far? Don't worry, I'm sure that after dropping you a donation (which I have done) that I will receive the same excellent treatment. In closing, despite the statements I have made regarding this program's issues (which is the point of this thread) I am a fan of this program and the work that goes into it. I am one of the people you make this program for. So pick another battle because there is no battle here. p.s. If you need details regarding my donation let me know. Last edited by focuspuller; 23rd August 2009 at 03:13. |
|
23rd August 2009, 02:58 | #4740 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,976
|
It does work with Windows 7, as others have already said. Unfortunately I can't come and hand-hold everyone who wishes to use it. You just have to bypass Microsofts screw-ups.
If you want to use the software -- feel free, that's why I wrote it. But I don't owe you or anyone else anything and the fact that you are willing to eat free pie and then bitch about it simply pisses me off -- and quite frankly, it has me thinking that I should put this project on permanent hold. If you were in my shoes, you'd be defensive too. I AM TIRED OF PEOPLE WHO GO THROUGH LIFE THINKING SOMEHOW THE WORLD OWES THEM. I don't like rude behavior in a person and I won't tolerate it. When I do something for someone, I don't expect or care whether I get thanks -- but accepting bitching is beyond what I can stand. I suggest you send your verbose comments and your donation to one of those non-existent other packages you're talking about when they come out in 2-3 years. Send me an e-mail so I know it's you and I'll happily refund it. I have a real job in addition to this, and I spend lots of hours (my free time) just to make software for others to use -- but I can prove very easily that doing so is completely my choice. Quote:
I'm sure you think you're right in what you're saying... that's the sad pathetic part. Last edited by jdobbs; 23rd August 2009 at 03:17. |
|
|
|