FairUSE vs. G-Knot

[yosemite]

hi,

i've a question about FairUSE and G-Knot:

Which programm do u prefer?

I saw that u can make over 10 passes with FairUSE but u cannot do make so much settings as in G-Knot.
So, what programm do u prefer or simply the question:

Which programm gives u the greatest quality?

cu
yose

[Livewire]

I used many rippers. Fair use is capable of generating a workable output. Only problems I had with it are creating a over complex output where my CPU was not fast enough to play the output. (500Mhz AMD K6-2)

I use Azid to convert the ac3 to wav, and then the wav to mp3 using Audio-Catalyst. (Also known as Audio-Grabber)

Azid is command line based and confusing, so I found a GUI to use Azid with, which performs almost as complicated as the command line called Besweet.

Lastly Nandub to merge both MP3 and AVI file.

one confusing thing tho, I still don't understand why Fair use outputs so many AVI files. I try my files one at a time until I am satisfied, and multiple files should be named with type and bitrate of rip. Another downfall is that there is no choice of codec. Alas, I still find DivX3 a good output, and easier to play on slower PC's.

[pacohaas]

Originally posted by Livewire
...and then the wav to mp3 using Audio-Catalyst. (Also known as Audio-Grabber)why oh why oh why? We now have a "stable" build of the greatest mp3 encoder ever, plus it's free, and yet you're using an old, low quality(yet fast) encoder which you have to pay for? makes no sense to me. try LAME!

[Sven Bent]

to use Audio-Catalyst is a BIG mistak quality is very low compared to use lame v3.90

isnt Audio-Catalyst based on X'ing whcih removes trebles (sond above 16000hz)

good it would be a pain to listen to :-)

[Spec20glugger]

Well yosemite, you have presented a good question, one that has been debated a fair bit. This is what I do now:

1. If the movie is below 110 mins and not a major action movie, I use FU and I try to respect the Aspect ratio's. For instance, If a widescreen movie has a amorphoric ratio of 2:35:1 then this is simply 2.351. What does mean? Take for instance you choose a common resolution usually found in FU, (688 x 288) divide them and it gives you 2.389 (close to 2.351). I have tried to use compression ratio's between 120 and 150, but sometimes I find the backed up movie has too many artifacts so I go to step 2.

2. I use sbc (nandub) and compare the two movies, usually sbc wins out, but not always. Some movies are just digitally mastered poorly and some movies need more space for the final output.

3. For dark and scary movies, I like to use g-knot divX4. I have ripped serval dark movies now and find divX4 really captures the dark blocks really well.

Overall, I like the quality FU provides for some movies. Hint, index your movie in FU (look for the raw.x.fud files) and use smartripper for the Vobs, return the movie and do some comparing.

Good Luck

[kender]

Originally posted by Spec20glugger

3. For dark and scary movies, I like to use g-knot divX4. I have ripped serval dark movies now and find divX4 really captures the dark blocks really well.

Good Luck

This is a known issue with FU. Apparently the way FU determines quality does not take into account your iris dialation in dark scenes. Before Fu2k died a while back (j/k) he said the next version might fix this. Untill then watch movies in a well lit area or use Divix4.

[xzquala]

Originally posted by kender
Before Fu2k died a while back (j/k) he said the next version might fix this.
don't scare me like that:eek:

[Bugs Bunny]

>i've a question about FairUSE and G-Knot:
>Which programm do u prefer?

Neither. FU has had its days in the sun, but as with most solo freebie efforts, the author enthusiasm doesn't keep pace with the rate of progress (cf. DVD2AVI, Nandub), and the program is more or less orphaned--or stuck in limbo, if you prefer. FU is still the easiest DiVX encoder if you can live with its limitations and extremely slow speed.

Gordion, when it first appeared, was intended as a front-end for Nandub, sort of a "Nandub for Dummies" tool. I tried it a couple of times, and it was harder to figure out than doing Nandub by itself, so I ditched it. I understand it has spiffed up over the months to incorporate all sorts of fancy things, like auto-crop and auto-aspect ratio and whatnot. Cool for the dummies.

[john blox]

yer it is a shame, we all thought fairuse would be the one, but alas it never quite got finished. I kinda gave up and just use kazaa now to get the films, so i neither have to rent them or encode them, they're never that great quality but life is short and divx'ing can become a very time consuming business. I had hoped for a simple fairuse version that simply scanned the dvd and made all decisions for you, outputting a file of the chosen size, with an advnaced mode if you really wanna change anything, i never used to bother. I found I got better resukts using divx4 + flask, it's a bit more akward to do but still a no brainer.

FU-RIP

[Bubba]

I tried both, and do like both. GKnot is not user-friendly comparing to FU, especially about the setup. It seems GKnot is very sensitive about what programs it must use. Look at the GKnot forum, people still having a lot of problem/confusion about this. Myself, I have a same confusion about it in the beginning. But once you have it setup correctly, GKnot will perform just fine.

I do like FU because of the following features:

1. Subtitle
2. IVTC
3. Be able to calculate the final size correctly

If I rip a Foreign movie, I will automatically use FU because it give me such an easy solution about doing subtitle. If I don't do Foreign flick, then I will look at how long the movie is (ie. total duration), and decide between FU and GKnot. Ususally if the movie required 2 CDs, I will use GKnot, and if it will have to fit in 1 CD, I will use FU because of feature #3 as mentioned above.

Speaking of subtitle, if it requires more than 2 subtitle tracks, then I will do SVCD. Of course, we are talking about something else here, which totally different than DivX.

[Bugs Bunny]

Subtitling is one of the annoying things about FU (at least, for anybody who's been doing this for a while). Many subtitle bitmaps are HUGE, and FU doesn't allow any alteration of them other than the positioning. Your option is then to include a black bar beneath the main movie (effective increasing the res, thereby decreasing the bits to the rest of the movie) to accomodate the subs, or impose the subs on the movie and having it take up as much as a third of the screen space. FU also uses a bright cyan color for the subs that is extremely grating on the eyes.

With Nandub (or anything using the VDub derivatives), you can either use one of the OCR sub tools, which frankly is a PITA unless you want to correct the mangled English, or use VobSub, which will use the bitmaps. VobSub's forte is that you can change the color, the transparency (so the subs won't be as harsh as a solid color block), and the size, in addition to positioning of course. It makes for much better aesthetics.

FU is an easy-to-use tool. Unfortunately, that is also one of its drawbacks, as easy-to-use usually means lack of options.

I shouldn't knock Gordion, as it's another (freebie) option out there, and any option at all is a good thing. But it's very strange to have a front-end that is more complicated than the app it's enveloping. Nandub, once you understand its params, is much simpler and easier to deal with than GK. I suppose the trouble is that the NDub guy was never very enthusiastic about explaining his apps to the plebs (it was intended to be a "group," read warez tool), so NDub appears more intimidating than it actually is.

A word about the aspect ratio: Forget all the mumbo-jumbo about anamorphic and whatnot. All DVD flicks come in 2 ARs: 4:3 and 16:9. There are only 4 equations to determine the correct AR, 2 for NTSC and 2 for PAL. Once you know them, you can figure out the correct AR with a calculator in 5 seconds and can dispense with all this auto-AR crap. As a public service, then:

Final AR = [(DVD AR) / (Film AR)] * (Screen AR)
for NTSC 4:3 = [(704/480) / (4/3)] * screen AR = 1.1 * screen AR
for NTSC 16:9 = [(704/480) / (16/9)] * screen AR = 0.825 * screen AR
for PAL 4:3 = [(704/576) / (4/3)] * screen AR = 0.9167 * screen AR
for PAL 16:9 = [(704/576) / (16/9)] * screen AR = 0.6875 * screen AR

These AR calcs take into account the "extra 16-pix margins" that Jackei was talking about a looong while back.

Example: Movie is served into SBC via DVD2AVI. After the resize filter, you have an screen size of, say, X pixels width by Y pixels height, and you want to resize it to 640 width by however many high. And say that it is NTSC 4:3. Then,

Final height = X / Y * 640 * 1.1

If it were NTSC 16:9, then,

Final height = X / Y * 640 * 0.825

You can massage the various sizes so the final height is a multiple of 8, but be aware that it will display fine on most players even if not.

As you can see from above, figuring out the ARs is very simple once you know about it. The trouble is knowing about it. And now you do.

[TheWEF]

Originally posted by Bugs Bunny
I shouldn't knock Gordion, as it's another (freebie) option out there, and any option at all is a good thing. But it's very strange to have a front-end that is more complicated than the app it's enveloping. Nandub, once you understand its params, is much simpler and easier to deal with than GK.

hmmm...

i guess i shouldn't advertise here, because i already have more than enough people in my forum ;).

advantages of gknot/nandub over plain nandub:

it's a rip-pack. you get all the programs you need, perfectly working together to "copy" a dvd to cd.

speed: all resizing and filtering is done with avisynth, nandub can work in "fast recompress mode". ever encoded at 30fps? there is no faster way of 2-pass encoding.

auto-ar: no matter how "easy" calculations are, with gknot you don't have to think about that. - just crop.

audio: transcode ac3 -> mp3 and auto-mux it.

credits: much better, faster and accurate implementation than in nandub. you don't even have to do 2-passes for the credits-part. (and it works with vdub/divx4 also. there is no other app so far that can do that).

batch encoding: with nandub's jobfile you can't deal with audio-transcoding, other functions (like credits) are limited also.

quality: gknot does it's own curve manipulations. i know, it's a matter of taste, but scene-separated motion detection definitely is a step forward.
and if you really wanna tweak your settings and do everything manually to get the perfect rip:
statistical analysis, compressibility check, manual keyframe insertion, manual curve correction, luma noise equalizer,...

i'm sure there is lots of other stuff i can't think of atm :b

gknot is nothing without nandub, that's true.
but if you are into nandub, you should definitely go get and learn gknot right away, no matter if your goal is to simplify (do all in one go) or complicate (achieve better quality) things.

:)

wef.

[Bugs Bunny]

Hey ya Weffie.. it's been a woil since I last bitched about GK not accounting fer interleaving overhead. Guess it's in there now hah! :)

>it's a rip-pack. you get all the programs you need, perfectly working together to "copy" a dvd to cd.

OK that sounds fair. But for blokes who already have all the tools, then it's not a selling point. Personally, I hate all the all-in-one solutions (or else I would've stuck with something like XMpeg), but I'll admit it's a good thing for noobs.

>speed: all resizing and filtering is done with avisynth, nandub can work in "fast recompress mode". ever encoded at 30fps? there is no faster way of 2-pass encoding.

Ever got a gross codec error? I have. It was with my first go with GK--and w/ anti-shit disabled. No matter how fast the encode, if I have to eyeball a 2-hour encode for GCE, then there's no way it's faster. I suppose once DivX 4.x gets better than 3.11 enough, then I'll switch to AVS and fast compress without having to worry about GCE, but until then...

>auto-ar: no matter how "easy" calculations are, with gknot you don't have to think about that. - just crop.

Hmm well may be I'm ancient, but I like to know the stuff under the hood. After all, it's why most of us are here, because we are enthusiasts who like to tinker with things. Lord knows the time we spend on getting these encodes is no way justified, other than that it's a hobby we enjoy doing.

But sure again, it's good for the noobs who just want a push-button solution. However, any "auto" feature will have less flexibility than doing it manually.

>audio: transcode ac3 -> mp3 and auto-mux it.

Not sure what's the big deal here, as DVD2AVI already does AC3->WAV decoding, and everybody and his sister already have tools for WAV->MP3, with lots of options. Auto-mux? Are you saying SBC doesn't have muxing feature?

>credits: much better, faster and accurate implementation than in nandub. you don't even have to do 2-passes for the credits-part. (and it works with vdub/divx4 also. there is no other app so far that can do that).

Explain this. What's wrong with using the Nandub feature of limiting credits to a certain bitrate (after a specified frame range)? Personally, I don't do credits beyond the immediate actor/actress listing. If there's a good theme song, I disable the "cut off audio after video end" option in SBC and just let the audio go on after the video is ended.

>batch encoding: with nandub's jobfile you can't deal with audio-transcoding, other functions (like credits) are limited also.

Since DVD2AVI (which GK has to use also) already does WAV, audio is no big deal, and as above, credit is no big deal either.

>quality: gknot does it's own curve manipulations. i know, it's a matter of taste, but scene-separated motion detection definitely is a step forward.

I find the scene detection in SBC to be more than good enough, and I've done a LOT of Nandub encodes. Since GK is geared toward the noobs anyway, I doubt its audience will care one way or another.

>and if you really wanna tweak your settings and do everything manually to get the perfect rip:
statistical analysis, compressibility check, manual keyframe insertion, manual curve correction, luma noise equalizer,...

I've done at least a couple of hundred full-length encodes by now, probably over half of that with NDub. I count myself as hardcore, but not obsessed... :)

>but if you are into nandub, you should definitely go get and learn gknot right away, no matter if your goal is to simplify (do all in one go) or complicate (achieve better quality) things.

I got into NDub the same time you got into it, and truth be told, I don't need any of the GK features enough to use it. Yes, I have quickie macros to figure bitrate (never tried the SBC calc), audio size, audio interleave, AR, etc etc. They're all easy and I don't have to install yet more apps. May be when I make the switch to DivX 4.x (probably when it hits 5.0 and be optimized for Athlon), then I'll give GK another look-see.

A couple of questions for you, though: How does the IVTC plugin work, compared to TMPGEnc's function? TMPG's IVTC is no great shake, but I like being able to IVTC in a separate pass so I can review it before the actual encode.

Does VobSub work in fast compress mode? IVTC and subtitling are the two gotchas (other than the GCE problem) that I have in switching to AVS. Thanks to Dividee's work, the other filters are taken care of.

[Spec20glugger]

I'm not one to shut the door on gaining new ripping info, so thank you TheWEF and Bugs Bunny for all your insite on G-Knot, it sounds like you both have quite abit of experience, especially TheWEF (great forum). Good points have been raised on both ripping software. Now I would just like to take a second to bring up a few points.

I have read the grumbles on FU, but personally I still like FU, and if you (the old users of FU) have nothing good to say please don't post any of your negative remarks. This constant badgering just shows your insenitivity to a person's hard work on a program that YOU use to revere and praise, so out of respect for Fu2k and his program keep your asinine statements to yourself.

Although some other rip packs have increasingly morphed themselves to meet users demands, I really respect what Fu2k has done with FU. I personally would love to see a new version, but I am in no hurry. Instead, I have explored other programs, yet openingly and eagerly await any new changes to FU, if they come. We have to remember, this is a FREE program and many hours will have to be sacrificed to bring you a newer version, and creators do have a life as well.

So be kind, and respect others. :)

Glugger

[TheWEF]

well, i will definitely not answer all these questions. i just wonder how you can judge gknot although you haven't even tried the latest version? ;)

i guess you are just used to your way of doing stuff and don't want to change that. that's ok!

but i always have to laugh when people like you tell everybody that gknot is newbie stuff.
e.g. i don't think you can explain to anyone in what way it gives you more control to calculate the ar by hand than doing it with gknot. actually it gives you a lot more options, information and control to do it with gknot...

but i don't even want to convince you. all i'm asking is that you at least try and use the program before you tell other people what you think about it.

and not everybody is getting codec errors like you. actually not many people do. so gknot might be an option for them, don't you think?

many people will tell you that doing audio decoding with dvd2avi is not a good idea. gknot uses azid.

and so on...

How does the IVTC plugin work, compared to TMPGEnc's function?

i live in a pal-country. i'm not an ivtc-expert. but it seems like the greedygma plugin does a fairly good job, better than the old ivtc plugin. it's in the pack, but not directly supported in the gui, yet.
to use it you have to edit your avs manually, which is not a big deal.
possibly i will change that.

Does VobSub work in fast compress mode?

oh yes, supported in gknot, very easy to use.

again, try it!

wef.

[Bugs Bunny]

>I have read the grumbles on FU, but personally I still like FU, and if you (the old users of FU) have nothing good to say please don't post any of your negative remarks. This constant badgering just shows your insenitivity to a person's hard work on a program that YOU use to revere and praise, so out of respect for Fu2k and his program keep your asinine statements to yourself.

Well, you're right on one point, and wrong on the other. I think this thread has gone beyond what's relevant to FU, so it should stop (or at least be steered back to FU). So WEF buddy, if you are gonna reply, just segue it into the GK place.

As far as negative = assinine, then I'm afraid I can't swallow that. I appreciate EVERY BLOKE who have contribute to this "hobby," the question-answerer and the tools maker and of course Doom9 bubba for making this whole place available. But just because I appreciate their work doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade. I credit FU2K with enough maturity to take the criticisms as is, as I do with WEF bubba and anybody else. If idolatory is your thing, then feel free, but please don't impose your opinion on others.

[Spec20glugger]

Bugs bunny, did I ever mention that you or TheWEF were asinine?? My statement was not intended to put your head in the scope of my rifle, it was a general statement geared to you all negative posting members.

But just because I appreciate their work doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade
Could hide your cards a little more?

Look, all I mean is "we should ALL be more respectful to the software developers" not just fu2k.

Glugger

[Bugs Bunny]

>Bugs bunny, did I ever mention that you or TheWEF were asinine?? My statement was not intended to put your head in the scope of my rifle, it was a general statement geared to you all negative posting members.

I think you should take your own advice and read your post carefully. Last sentence below?

>>I have read the grumbles on FU, but personally I still like FU, and if you (the old users of FU) have nothing good to say please don't post any of your negative remarks. This constant badgering just shows your insenitivity to a person's hard work on a program that YOU use to revere and praise, so out of respect for Fu2k and his program keep your asinine statements to yourself.

BTW, I will praise as readily as I criticize, but I NEVER EVER revere ANYBODY, not even my own grandmother (although I have to take her for walks everyday, or she gets PO'ed and cussed a lot). That's hero worshipping, and I don't worship people for putting out programs.

>Could hide your cards a little more?

Nah, it takes naggers like me to balance out hero worshippers like you heh.

Not to worry, I've moved on from FU a long while ago. I just posted my opinions on FU, since this a X vs Y thread after all.

>Look, all I mean is "we should ALL be more respectful to the software developers" not just fu2k.

I think you have your "social nicety" meter set a peg too high, and you're coming across as smarmy and--excuse the word--as an ass kisser. Like I said, feel free. But I don't see criticizing a tool as being disrespectful (or badgering), and I will thank you for not mischaracterizing my posts.

[Spec20glugger]

Where's Elmer Fudd, when you really need him. :)

shhhh, be very very quiet, we're hunting wabbits.