Setting the right size ...

[0verd0ze]

Hey !

i have been trying to set the output size on a dvd should be 4,35 gb ... i have done it in the setting but something is wrong ... it turns out to be like 4,40 or something ...

can some help me to set it right ...

i wnat the output size to be 4,35 GB

[jptheripper]

search for targetsectors

[DocDragon]

Hey !

i have been trying to set the output size on a dvd should be 4,35 gb ... i have done it in the setting but something is wrong ... it turns out to be like 4,40 or something ...

can some help me to set it right ...

i wnat the output size to be 4,35 GB

1. open "rebuilder.ini" with eg. notepad.
2. under [Options], add

TargetSectors=nnnn -> valid for ALL encoders

OR for specific encoders add the following line(s)

CCETargetSectors=nnnn
ReJigTargetSectors=nnnn
QuEncTargetSectors=nnnn
HCTargetSectors=nnnn
ProcodertSectors=nnnn

"nnnn" represents the target sector size. default is 2236400. i have set my target sector to 2245000, and most of the time, i do hit 4.35 GB depending on the footage material. sometimes, a slight adjustment of the the target sector is necessary.

BTW, the above info can also be found in the Help menu of DVD-RB ;) .

hope this helps.

DD

[jdobbs]

You can only be accurate to a point. DVD Rebuilder uses an encoder to create the MPEG files -- while you can set the output bitrate, it will always be slightly off in one direction or the other. Over the course of an entire DVD you might drop or gain as much as 100MB (say 4.2GB as opposed to 4.3GB).

Filling the disc to the edge by adding a 50-100MB will not measurably improve the video quality.

[wmansir]

Filling the disc to the edge by adding a 50-100MB will not measurably improve the video quality.

Sure I might not be able to SEE the difference, but I still know it's there. :p

[writersblock29]

@Jdobbs and Wmansir

(Re; TargetSectors)

I'm still torn on this subject. On one hand, 50-100MB certainly doesn't add a noticable difference in and of itself. But on the OTHER hand, if you want to get right down and dirty about it, most of us find ourselves making a LOT of changes to our backups that -- if taken as single efforts -- result in little noticable quality improvement... but to add 'em up, you just might have something to work with. Filling the disk as full as you can get it, by itself, is a drop in the bucket. Removing FBI warnings is a drop in the bucket. Converting certain menus to stills (via DVD Remake or other means) is a drop in the bucket. Processing animated menus is a drop in the bucket. Enough of these little drops in the bucket, and sometimes it's like you've removed an audio stream or worthless extra. Most of the time it's like trying to squeeze blood from a stone... but there are times when it's worth it.

Then again, it doesn't add anything at all to oversize a bit (like in the example above, where you wind up a few MBs over your burning limit) and either have to re-encode, find something else to strip out with whatever program, or run a transcoder to put you back on track again.

*Shrug!* I still haven't figured out for myself whether it's worth adjusting target sectors or not. :p

[jdobbs]

I'm still torn on this subject. On one hand, 50-100MB certainly doesn't add a noticable difference in and of itself. But on the OTHER hand, if you want to get right down and dirty about it, most of us find ourselves making a LOT of changes to our backups that -- if taken as single efforts -- result in little noticable quality improvement... but to add 'em up, you just might have something to work with. Filling the disk as full as you can get it, by itself, is a drop in the bucket. Removing FBI warnings is a drop in the bucket. Converting certain menus to stills (via DVD Remake or other means) is a drop in the bucket. Processing animated menus is a drop in the bucket. Enough of these little drops in the bucket, and sometimes it's like you've removed an audio stream or worthless extra. Most of the time it's like trying to squeeze blood from a stone... but there are times when it's worth it.All of those changes you make happen before the encode -- so they don't influence the sizing at all.Then again, it doesn't add anything at all to oversize a bit (like in the example above, where you wind up a few MBs over your burning limit) and either have to re-encode, find something else to strip out with whatever program, or run a transcoder to put you back on track again. One of the reasons DVD-RB is set the way it is is to make you come in slightly under so a slight encoder inaccuracy won't put you over. I wouldn't suggest running a transcoder on the output... you're just mucking up what took you about two hours to accomplish.*Shrug!* I still haven't figured out for myself whether it's worth adjusting target sectors or not.It's not. When was the last time you saw a commercial disc (DVD-5 or DVD-9) that pushed the sizing all the way to the edge. It truly is a waste of time and effort to try and squeeze out a few megabytes. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who have "heard" that it should happen so they overweigh the significance of it.

If it would make everybody feel better, I'd be happy to pad the last VOB out to the edge of the disc. That might give everyone a warmer feeling -- and would accomplish just about the same (in terms of quality) as changing TargetSectors to get an extra 50MB for encoding. I could call the option "Pad to impress your friends". ;)

[Rippraff]

I wouldn't suggest running a transcoder on the output... you're just mucking up what took you about two hours to accomplish.
Of course not on main movie or extras, if they exist.
But in the rare cases I got an oversized result I use a transcoder to shrink the menu and leave everything else untouched say "no compression". ;)

Cu Rippraff

[jdobbs]

If it were me... I'd reencode -- or better yet, leave the TargetSectors at the default so you don't have to.

Just MHO. But, I don't like the fact that any small reduction from an transcoder will come from only the B-FRAMES. So you are creating a product that (for lack of a better term) is "unbalanced". I understand why -- because reductions to I and P FRAMES would leak across not only themselves and any referencing B-FRAMES... but it just isn't the right way to do it.

I guess on Seinfeld they'd call me an "anti-transcodite". ;)

[Rippraff]

I guess on Seinfeld they'd call me an "anti-transcodite". ;)
And rightly so! :p :)

Cu Rippraff

[writersblock29]

@Jdobbs

[Massive Qoute :) ]:

"Quote:
I'm still torn on this subject. On one hand, 50-100MB certainly doesn't add a noticable difference in and of itself. But on the OTHER hand, if you want to get right down and dirty about it, most of us find ourselves making a LOT of changes to our backups that -- if taken as single efforts -- result in little noticable quality improvement... but to add 'em up, you just might have something to work with. Filling the disk as full as you can get it, by itself, is a drop in the bucket. Removing FBI warnings is a drop in the bucket. Converting certain menus to stills (via DVD Remake or other means) is a drop in the bucket. Processing animated menus is a drop in the bucket. Enough of these little drops in the bucket, and sometimes it's like you've removed an audio stream or worthless extra. Most of the time it's like trying to squeeze blood from a stone... but there are times when it's worth it.

All of those changes you make happen before the encode -- so they don't influence the sizing at all."

Oh, yes -- definately agreed. The point I was making, though, is that removing material increases the amount of bitrate you can dedicate to the material you keep (by merely reducing the project's content). Each step I mentioned allows increasing the bitrate per kept item by quite a trivial amount (just as trivial as the extra 50-100MB target sectors adjustment), that perhaps in the end -- once totalled -- become worthwhile. You know; save 100MB by removing this, another 100MB by removing that = 200MB saved. Now make the bucket bigger (target sectors adjustment) by another 100MB... Follow the logic (or perhaps -- probably -- "lack of logic" :p )?

[Qouted]: "When was the last time you saw a commercial disc (DVD-5 or DVD-9) that pushed the sizing all the way to the edge."

Never. In fact, I just backed up Volume 3 of "Family Guy," and noticed that the first two disks are DVD5. Both were 4.32GBs in size. So... good point!