Problems decrypting, losing information

[Codex0nz]

Ok so ive been trying to rip my dvd collection for convenience

at the moment im trying to rip The Cat Returns, an anime movie from studio ghibli, great movie

anyway this is whats happening

i rip the files in smart ripper, goes fine, but seems to be cutting out some chapters, falling 10 minutes or so short of the length it is suppose to be, i dont know what i am doing wrong, dvd decryptor never rips movies fully for me either, i am using windows vista ultimate x64

Please help X_X

Oh and also i do have the aspi file as well, but that didnt help me much.

[unskinnyboy]

Try the Ripit4Me package (that uses DVD Decrypter too). If DVD Decrypter doesn't rip the full movie for you even then, then something is seriously wrong (is that case for you every single time though?).

[setarip_old]

@Codex0nz

Hi!seems to be cutting out some chapters, falling 10 minutes or so short of the length it is suppose to beAre you presuming that something's missing based only on time comparisons, or have you played the rip and actually seen that some chapters are missing?

BTW - Previous threads you've started appear to be about the same topic. Duplicate posting is a violation of the Doom9 Forum rules...

[Guest]

@Codex0nz

Fix your title to adhere to forum rule 9. Thank you. And as setarip_old says, don't crosspost the same issue in multiple places. You agreed to follow our forum rules when you signed up, and we expect you to honor that.

[Codex0nz]

Try the Ripit4Me package (that uses DVD Decrypter too). If DVD Decrypter doesn't rip the full movie for you even then, then something is seriously wrong (is that case for you every single time though?).
yeah that is the case for the studio ghibli movies,most other things rip fine. DVD Dexrypter has hardly ever worked for me anyway quite often leaves out parts of movies i even tried formatting and using different dvd drives and still had the same issue so gave up on it.

i will try that out anyway though when i get home tonight :)
:thanks:

@Codex0nz

Hi!Are you presuming that something's missing based only on time comparisons, or have you played the rip and actually seen that some chapters are missing?

BTW - Previous threads you've started appear to be about the same topic. Duplicate posting is a violation of the Doom9 Forum rules...
the other threads were sortve solved when i started using smart ripper, also passing multiple vob files is something i learnt.

I figured whats missing by adding together the time of each individual vob file. So im not certain what it is cutting out

@Codex0nz

Fix your title to adhere to forum rule 9. Thank you. And as setarip_old says, don't crosspost the same issue in multiple places. You agreed to follow our forum rules when you signed up, and we expect you to honor that.
I changed the title hopefully thats better.

[setarip_old]

So im not certain what it is cutting outActually, using that method, you don't really know if ANYTHING is missing...

[Codex0nz]

Actually, using that method, you don't really know if ANYTHING is missing...
i know something is missing, i converted it using autogk (cause its easy to use and i dont have time to learn anything else until next month or so) and it was missing the 10 minutes. the avi added up to the same time i had previously worked out it would be when adding the times of the vob files together :S

[setarip_old]

Watch the original DVD and watch your rip to see if you're actually missing anything...

[Codex0nz]

Watch the original DVD and watch your rip to see if you're actually missing anything...

will have to try that, is it possible that there isnt a extra ten mins even though it says 75 mins on the dvd cover, the dvd actually plays 75 mins but the ripped avi is 65 mins?, man you guys really have your work cut out to whoever develops the software for dvd back up...er..ing o_O

EDIT:

Thank you all for your great suggestions, Ripit4me has worked beautifully :D if i have any more problems you'll hear from me soon lol

[Codex0nz]

Ok now another problem has developed when converting the movies i have decrypted.

I set it all up in autogk like normal, seems to run fine, but now after the files have been converted to avi format im getting quite mixed results

With the cat returns the avi is about double the length of the vob files, and constantly skips back and fourth every few frames as if theres two video tracks (i can cut out a minute sample if you wish to see?)

and the other movies are just missing segments out even though the vob files add up correctly

[dat720]

try another encoding method, there are a stack of different video convertors out there, it sounds like you have done something wrong in the setup of autogk, try virtualdub and see what it spits out

[Codex0nz]

try another encoding method, there are a stack of different video convertors out there, it sounds like you have done something wrong in the setup of autogk, try virtualdub and see what it spits out

ok...how...lol

[dat720]

ahhh download a copy of virtual dub, load a movie and try and encode it, it's not hard

if you cant work it out search google for a guide to virtualdub, or read the help file, or maybe read the forums/documentation/knowledge base on the virtual dub page, there is a endless supply of information out there, it would be faster to just search for an answer than ask a question and wait for an answer

http://www.virtualdub.org/

LoRd_MuldeR's Avidemux tool is also good, very easy to use point and click
http://avidemux.berlios.de/index.html

[Codex0nz]

ahhh download a copy of virtual dub, load a movie and try and encode it, it's not hard

if you cant work it out search google for a guide to virtualdub, or read the help file, or maybe read the forums/documentation/knowledge base on the virtual dub page, there is a endless supply of information out there, it would be faster to just search for an answer than ask a question and wait for an answer

http://www.virtualdub.org/

LoRd_MuldeR's Avidemux tool is also good, very easy to use point and click
http://avidemux.berlios.de/index.html

ok sweet thanks will try it and tell you the results :)

[Codex0nz]

ok ive started learning about gordian knot and x264, might as well learn that now since i have to rerip all of my dvd's again anyway, while it produces the same quality as xvid but smaller, if i made a x264 encoded movie, at 700 mb, it would be high quality then the same with xvid right?

also i cant get x264 to work in gordian knot, where on earth do i put the x264.exe file? :S i cant even configure it (probably because i havent done something right)

can someone enlighten me?

yet again saving having to make another topic :D

EDIT: Oh and also i can use x264 to produce an avi can't i? not jsut mkv? which is better?

ANOTHER EDIT! (lol) Ive gotten megui, and avidemux, how the hell do i process multiple vob fiels into one mkv file lol

[stesmi]

Generally I avoid AVC/h264/x264/MPEG-4 part 10 in AVI. There are countless problems that can arise from that combo. I suggest either AVC in MKV with "any" sound or AVC with AAC audio in MP4. The latter is the official container for AVC.

[Codex0nz]

Generally I avoid AVC/h264/x264/MPEG-4 part 10 in AVI. There are countless problems that can arise from that combo. I suggest either AVC in MKV with "any" sound or AVC with AAC audio in MP4. The latter is the official container for AVC.

ok sweet no avi then

x264 video, mp3 audio, and an mkv handler sound good?

[stesmi]

Yup. That works just fine. AVC is the same as H.264, x264, etc. Just a different name. From what I gather the naming is pretty simple.
It's standardized according to both ISO and ITU-T.

ISO call it MPEG4 Part 10 or MPEG4 AVC (Advanced Video Codec)
ITU-T call it H.264 (the working name for the standard was H.26L but that name is deprecated)
x264 is not a codec, it is an encoder, ie a program that creates MPEG4 part10/MPEG4 AVC/H.264 video, just like HTML is a standard and Firefox is a program that can display HTML pages. There are more programs than x264 that create AVC video even though x264 is popular.

Another example with the HTML thing. You can create HTML pages using notepad, VI, Emacs, Dreamweaver and a million other programs. When you talk about it you're not going to say that you're creating a Dreamweaver page are you? Same thing here, you're choosing one encoder (x264 for example) over another (quicktime pro for example) based on whatever reasons you base it on. I personally use x264 as well.

To quite Videolan's page : "x264 is a free library for encoding H264/AVC video streams."

[Codex0nz]

Yup. That works just fine. AVC is the same as H.264, x264, etc. Just a different name. From what I gather the naming is pretty simple.
It's standardized according to both ISO and ITU-T.

ISO call it MPEG4 Part 10 or MPEG4 AVC (Advanced Video Codec)
ITU-T call it H.264 (the working name for the standard was H.26L but that name is deprecated)
x264 is not a codec, it is an encoder, ie a program that creates MPEG4 part10/MPEG4 AVC/H.264 video, just like HTML is a standard and Firefox is a program that can display HTML pages. There are more programs than x264 that create AVC video even though x264 is popular.

Another example with the HTML thing. You can create HTML pages using notepad, VI, Emacs, Dreamweaver and a million other programs. When you talk about it you're not going to say that you're creating a Dreamweaver page are you? Same thing here, you're choosing one encoder (x264 for example) over another (quicktime pro for example) based on whatever reasons you base it on. I personally use x264 as well.

To quite Videolan's page : "x264 is a free library for encoding H264/AVC video streams."

sweet thanks for that makes alot more sense now :)

i was thiking about it and would it be better to encode my movies with a low bitrate aac audio format or mp3?

also how on earth do i process vob files...i cant much on the internet to help me....:helpful: <isnt me :D

[stesmi]

Well it all depends on who you ask. MPEG-4 part 3 (aka MPEG-4 AAC where AAC stands for Advanced Audio Codec) is more efficient than MPEG-1 Layer 3 (or MPEG-2 Layer 3 but it's the same really) so using that is more efficient but what I use when I want to keep it down (my definition of keeping it down may differ from yours) is that I first change the 5.1 stream into a 2.0 with Dolby Surround and then encode with AC3 192kbps OR if the movie already has an AC3 2.0 track I just use that as they're most often/always Dolby Surround already.

So if 192kbps is low bitrate under your definition then I'd go for that.

WHY: I like to play my stuff on other things besides computers.
My PS3 handles MP3, AC3 and AAC just fine (and others) BUT for AAC, you need a receiver that does AAC if you want multichannel sound. It will not decode the stream unless it's 2.0.
Any old receiver does AC3, so I prefer using that.

My suggestion is as follows:

If the movie has a 2.0 track in AC3, if 192kbps is good enough for you, use it directly.
If the movie has a 2.0 track in AC3 and 192kbps is too high for you, reencode it to MP3 if you want more compatibility with different devices.
If the movie has a 2.0 track in AC3 and 192kbps is too high for you, reencode it to AAC if you care about computers mostly.

If the movie has a 5.1 track in any format, convert it to multichannel wav and convert to wav 2.0 with Dolby Surround and then apply logic as above. MP3 and AC3 are the most compatible choices.

Of course there are tools that will do the whole 5.1 -> AC3 2.0 with Dolby Surround (or MP3 2.0 with Dolby Surround or AAC 2.0 with Dolby Surround) conversion for you in one go. I only write it down to explain the steps.

A rule of thumb :
The audio track using 128kbps will be 55MiB/hour.
The audio track using 192kbps will be 86MiB/hour.

Decide quality based on what you want to do with it.

[dat720]

ok sweet no avi then

x264 video, mp3 audio, and an mkv handler sound good?


One thing to keep in mind is the devices you intend to playback the video on, in some cases the device will not playback mkv's or other formats, Xbox 360 case and point, your choices are AVI with Xvid/Divx video with AC3/MP3 audio.... or WMV, not a huge selection

[stesmi]

Yeah, both the Xbox360 and PS3 have their quirks.

I do all my work nowadays in MKV / AVC / AC3 format but that means that I can't just stick the DVD in the PS3 and play, I have to put it in my computer and run mkv2vob on the file and then transfer via tversity - definately a hassle. If I would chose MP4 (container) / AVC / AAC I could play it straight but not having a receiver that does AAC is a no-go for me.

[dat720]

My personal preference is AVI - XVID - AC3, it's just compatible and works in just about everything, sure MKV is technicly a better container, but storage is cheap now, i have like 800gb of storage in my PC, does 5-10mb for a 1+gb rip really make a difference?

[Codex0nz]

Well it all depends on who you ask. MPEG-4 part 3 (aka MPEG-4 AAC where AAC stands for Advanced Audio Codec) is more efficient than MPEG-1 Layer 3 (or MPEG-2 Layer 3 but it's the same really) so using that is more efficient but what I use when I want to keep it down (my definition of keeping it down may differ from yours) is that I first change the 5.1 stream into a 2.0 with Dolby Surround and then encode with AC3 192kbps OR if the movie already has an AC3 2.0 track I just use that as they're most often/always Dolby Surround already.

So if 192kbps is low bitrate under your definition then I'd go for that.

WHY: I like to play my stuff on other things besides computers.
My PS3 handles MP3, AC3 and AAC just fine (and others) BUT for AAC, you need a receiver that does AAC if you want multichannel sound. It will not decode the stream unless it's 2.0.
Any old receiver does AC3, so I prefer using that.

My suggestion is as follows:

If the movie has a 2.0 track in AC3, if 192kbps is good enough for you, use it directly.
If the movie has a 2.0 track in AC3 and 192kbps is too high for you, reencode it to MP3 if you want more compatibility with different devices.
If the movie has a 2.0 track in AC3 and 192kbps is too high for you, reencode it to AAC if you care about computers mostly.

If the movie has a 5.1 track in any format, convert it to multichannel wav and convert to wav 2.0 with Dolby Surround and then apply logic as above. MP3 and AC3 are the most compatible choices.

Of course there are tools that will do the whole 5.1 -> AC3 2.0 with Dolby Surround (or MP3 2.0 with Dolby Surround or AAC 2.0 with Dolby Surround) conversion for you in one go. I only write it down to explain the steps.

A rule of thumb :
The audio track using 128kbps will be 55MiB/hour.
The audio track using 192kbps will be 86MiB/hour.

Decide quality based on what you want to do with it.

the suggestion "If the movie has a 5.1 track in any format, convert it to multichannel wav and convert to wav 2.0 with Dolby Surround and then apply logic as above. MP3 and AC3 are the most compatible choices." sounds great...but...errr... how lol

5.1 would be nice, but it isnt highly important, but if i can learn how to do it now i wont have to later eh.

i actually meant to say ac3 not aac by the way, had a slow moment.

i used to stick to 160 kbps when using autogk gave me quite a nice result, 160 vbr mp3.

One thing to keep in mind is the devices you intend to playback the video on, in some cases the device will not playback mkv's or other formats, Xbox 360 case and point, your choices are AVI with Xvid/Divx video with AC3/MP3 audio.... or WMV, not a huge selection
The only devices playing it will be my computer and in future a dedicated media center pc :D i dont really see myself getting a ps3 or 360 to watch movies on.

Yeah, both the Xbox360 and PS3 have their quirks.

I do all my work nowadays in MKV / AVC / AC3 format but that means that I can't just stick the DVD in the PS3 and play, I have to put it in my computer and run mkv2vob on the file and then transfer via tversity - definately a hassle. If I would chose MP4 (container) / AVC / AAC I could play it straight but not having a receiver that does AAC is a no-go for me.
doesnt that take years to process? lol i remember ages ago using transcode360 on my mates comp for his 360, was laggy as hell.

My personal preference is AVI - XVID - AC3, it's just compatible and works in just about everything, sure MKV is technicly a better container, but storage is cheap now, i have like 800gb of storage in my PC, does 5-10mb for a 1+gb rip really make a difference?
eventually x264 will be spread like xvid i imagine so i thought i might as well learn it now, i have a 160 320 500 and a 720gb for storage needs that keeps me going good. ive been using xvid up to now but because i have to re rip all of my dvds i might aswell take it up a notch aye :)

[stesmi]

the suggestion "If the movie has a 5.1 track in any format, convert it to multichannel wav and convert to wav 2.0 with Dolby Surround and then apply logic as above. MP3 and AC3 are the most compatible choices." sounds great...but...errr... how lol

To convert 5.1 to 2.0 w/ Dolby Surround you use a program like BeSweet. It can encode out of the box as MP3 and/or AC3.

5.1 would be nice, but it isnt highly important, but if i can learn how to do it now i wont have to later eh.

All about bitrate. Easiest is to just rip and use the original soundtrack, be it 2.0 w/ Dolby Surround or be it 5.1.

Easier to not change it than change it.

You said low bitrate which is why I suggested 2.0 w/ Dolby Surround. An AC3 on a DVD usually in either 192kbps (2.0) or 396-448kbps (5.1) and if that bitrate is good enough then go with that - way easier and quicker to do and definately less hassle.

i actually meant to say ac3 not aac by the way, had a slow moment.

Great, easier then.
i used to stick to 160 kbps when using autogk gave me quite a nice result, 160 vbr mp3.

Yeah, definately good. I haven't used AutoGK but it wouldn't surprise me if it actually did reencode 5.1 to 2.0 w/ Dolby Surround automatically for you.

The only devices playing it will be my computer and in future a dedicated media center pc :D i dont really see myself getting a ps3 or 360 to watch movies on.

Right, then MKV / AVC / AC3 sounds like a good combo for you - compatible both for computers AND others AND you don't have to fiddle with the sound, reconverting etc (if you chose to keep 5.1).

doesnt that take years to process? lol i remember ages ago using transcode360 on my mates comp for his 360, was laggy as hell.

What? The PS3 plays h264 and AC3 natively, no processing required (apart from mkv -> vob which takes a minute per file).


eventually x264 will be spread like xvid i imagine so i thought i might as well learn it now, i have a 160 320 500 and a 720gb for storage needs that keeps me going good. ive been using xvid up to now but because i have to re rip all of my dvds i might aswell take it up a notch aye :)

I definately agree there. AVC is the future - there's a reason they chose it over MPEG-4 Part 2 (XviD/DivX/3ivX) for BluRay/HD-DVD - it's because it's more effective.

I mean - I still remember when I had a machine that couldn't play a 128kbps MP3 reliably and now playing or encoding MP3 is a joke. The same WILL happen with AVC (h264).

If you're doing changes - now is the time to do them.

[dat720]

Like i said *My Personal Preference* that's what it comes down to, what you prefer to use, there is no right and wrong pick something that suits your needs and use it. The only wrong as far as i'm concerened is WMV :)

If microsoft opend up the 360 with support for more codecs i would probably swap to MKV/x264 and what ever audio format came off the disc, but for now i primarlily use AC3 audio, for compatibility reason's.

I plain and simply can't wait until the 360 is cracked open enough to allow a port of XBMC to run.

[stesmi]

Like i said *My Personal Preference* that's what it comes down to, what you prefer to use, there is no right and wrong pick something that suits your needs and use it. The only wrong as far as i'm concerened is WMV :)

I agree :) And I was also pointing out my personal preferences :)

[Codex0nz]

ok so now ive gotten to the encoding stage sof megui after alot of research

big problems though, audio, never encodes, just results n error in megui, video just doesnt encode at all. all the paths have been manually set and everything, god knows whats going wrong, anyone have any ideas?

i decided to use hq- slow setting, and ac3 5.1 with 288kbps, no idea what the results will be like but i hope theyre good

[stesmi]

I don't use MeGUI so I can't help you there. Plenty of guides around for it though. Are you sure you have all codecs needed, etc?

And regarding sound, if it's already in AC3 5.1 to get the best quality, don't touch it, just use it as is, negative part is that it'll be in 384 or 448kbps which is higher than what you might want (288kbps in your example) but reencoding sound is always a step in the wrong direction when it comes to quality, even if you would reencoding AC3 5.1 448kbps to AC3 5.1 448kbps it wouldn't be as good as the original.

[Codex0nz]

I don't use MeGUI so I can't help you there. Plenty of guides around for it though. Are you sure you have all codecs needed, etc?

And regarding sound, if it's already in AC3 5.1 to get the best quality, don't touch it, just use it as is, negative part is that it'll be in 384 or 448kbps which is higher than what you might want (288kbps in your example) but reencoding sound is always a step in the wrong direction when it comes to quality, even if you would reencoding AC3 5.1 448kbps to AC3 5.1 448kbps it wouldn't be as good as the original.

yeah but sounds not really that noticeable when downing it a litt,e the dsound file is 351mb thats half of the damn movie file size i want lol

[stesmi]

Ah, you're doing 700MiB rips then - ok, then I strongly suggest doing 2.0 with Dolby Surround @ 192kbps. Smaller and should actually sound better due to the front channels actually getting MORE bitrate than otherwise. Remember that at 192kbps / 2.0 = 96kbps per channel and 288kbps / 6 (5.1) = 48kbps per channel. It's not a straight comparison of course because the sixth channel isn't really getting as much and when doing 2.0 with Dolby Surround you're encoding the back channels on top of the fronts making the fronts sound slightly worse but it still sounds better than 288kbps 5.1.

EDIT: Just did a quick test on my home system and it does sound a little better with 2.0 Dolby Surround, sounds a little richer. 288kbps got the slight metallic sound to it here and there. Of course, with Dolby Surround you lose part of the surround (as there's only one back channel and not two) but to my ears it does sound better than 288kbps 5.1.

[setarip_old]

@Codex0nzthe dsound file is 351mb thats half of the damn movie file size i wantWhy would you limit yourself to 700Megs per file - certainly not to burn CDs in this age where DVD media is typically less costly tha CD media?

[Codex0nz]

@Codex0nzWhy would you limit yourself to 700Megs per file - certainly not to burn CDs in this age where DVD media is typically less costly tha CD media?

because its a practical size eh. i dont want 1gig rips or 5 gig rips then id have to buy some more hard drives, the whole idea is to get high quality movie rips using x264 with the same 700mb file size eh. I wouldnt ever put it onto media but its just practical these days now isnt it?

[setarip_old]

because its a practical size eh.If you say so, although it sounds extremely arbitrary - after all, it is your thread ;>}

[Codex0nz]

If you say so, although it sounds extremely arbitrary - after all, it is your thread ;>}

what would you consider to be a good size for a x264 rip?

[setarip_old]

I'm sorry but, if you didn't understand from my previous posts, I don't view the filesize to be a significant factor, regardless of format.

Bye

[Codex0nz]

I'm sorry but, if you didn't understand from my previous posts, I don't view the filesize to be a significant factor, regardless of format.

Bye

oh ok then

thanks anyway

[Codex0nz]

Ah, you're doing 700MiB rips then - ok, then I strongly suggest doing 2.0 with Dolby Surround @ 192kbps. Smaller and should actually sound better due to the front channels actually getting MORE bitrate than otherwise. Remember that at 192kbps / 2.0 = 96kbps per channel and 288kbps / 6 (5.1) = 48kbps per channel. It's not a straight comparison of course because the sixth channel isn't really getting as much and when doing 2.0 with Dolby Surround you're encoding the back channels on top of the fronts making the fronts sound slightly worse but it still sounds better than 288kbps 5.1.

EDIT: Just did a quick test on my home system and it does sound a little better with 2.0 Dolby Surround, sounds a little richer. 288kbps got the slight metallic sound to it here and there. Of course, with Dolby Surround you lose part of the surround (as there's only one back channel and not two) but to my ears it does sound better than 288kbps 5.1.

how about the dolby mp3 at 256? :D

thanks for the post i didnt see it before, very usefull, i will have totry tonight...after...the tacos :D

EDIT

Like this?

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/158/cddddcv3.gif

[stesmi]

MP3 @ 256kbps is better than AC3 @ 192kbps but I thought you wanted to keep it down? :) Those settings look fine but seriously, put it at 192kbps if you want to keep it down, and if not, make bigger rips with original sound :) But your files, your choices :) But INCREASING the bitrate after saying "I want to make low bitrate rips" is .. well.. contradictory :) Either: Keep original AC3 OR AC3 2.0 Dolby Surround (II) or MP3 2.0 Dolby Surround (II).

[Codex0nz]

MP3 @ 256kbps is better than AC3 @ 192kbps but I thought you wanted to keep it down? :) Those settings look fine but seriously, put it at 192kbps if you want to keep it down, and if not, make bigger rips with original sound :) But your files, your choices :) But INCREASING the bitrate after saying "I want to make low bitrate rips" is .. well.. contradictory :) Either: Keep original AC3 OR AC3 2.0 Dolby Surround (II) or MP3 2.0 Dolby Surround (II).

good point, yeah i used to use 160 vbr with autogk and the audio was great still

[dat720]

because its a practical size eh. i dont want 1gig rips or 5 gig rips then id have to buy some more hard drives, the whole idea is to get high quality movie rips using x264 with the same 700mb file size eh. I wouldnt ever put it onto media but its just practical these days now isnt it?

I agree with this comment, the only real advantage to keeping files to 700mb is to fit them on CDR's which is not a requirement these day's i'd rather quality than small size, i'm happy with rips that end up at 1.2-2gb, as my smallest TV is a 42" plasma.....

[Codex0nz]

I agree with this comment, the only real advantage to keeping files to 700mb is to fit them on CDR's which is not a requirement these day's i'd rather quality than small size, i'm happy with rips that end up at 1.2-2gb, as my smallest TV is a 42" plasma.....
youre...a very lucky man

hmm yeah i mgiht do a few rips and see about quality,

a 700 meg one, and a 1gig rip, i think thatd be the highest id like to go but i will try a 1.2gig as well. in which case i can use higher audio settings

[Guest]

Moving to Newbies forum, as the thread has become off-topic for Decrypting, and it contains a lot of newbie level questions.

[dat720]

youre...a very lucky man

hmm yeah i mgiht do a few rips and see about quality,

a 700 meg one, and a 1gig rip, i think thatd be the highest id like to go but i will try a 1.2gig as well. in which case i can use higher audio settings

You don't need to worry too much about audio, unless you drop below say 160kbps you're probably not going to notice the difference.

On the other hand you will notice a massive difference between a video encoded at 700kbps and 1000kbps, 1000 is the minimum, for BlueRay/HD i use 9000!!!

Also 4/3 aspect movies will need significantly more bitrate to maintain quality than a 16/9 movie..... just thought i'd throw that one in.

[Codex0nz]

You don't need to worry too much about audio, unless you drop below say 160kbps you're probably not going to notice the difference.

On the other hand you will notice a massive difference between a video encoded at 700kbps and 1000kbps, 1000 is the minimum, for BlueRay/HD i use 9000!!!

Also 4/3 aspect movies will need significantly more bitrate to maintain quality than a 16/9 movie..... just thought i'd throw that one in.

ok thanks for the input

i just encoded my first successful dvd into x264 (no audio yet, will mux it in later), the movie Dodgeball (if you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a dodgeball...). i cant afford any blu ray content :D not until the prices drop in my country.

With my problems with mp3, which im working on fixing at the moment, i was looking through ac3 again, ac3 at 384 (the ac3 aften setting) is that a good setting to use? (And downsample to dolby 2?)

also with ripping anime do i add the decomb and other avisynth script just into the script like normal or do i have to do it a specific way.)

Last but not least, do 3d movies, have to use the anime setting with analyzing the video? eg over the hedge? and cartoons like say ed edd and eddy?

[dat720]

3 at 384k will be fine, i would not bother with downsampling to 2.0, leave it at it's original format.

I know nothing about ripping anime as it's a genre im not interested in.

I do enjoy the odd kiddies movie tho :) and have not had to change my usual encoding methods for these animated movies, Bee Movie and Meet the Robinsons were both fine with my usual encoding method.

[Codex0nz]

3 at 384k will be fine, i would not bother with downsampling to 2.0, leave it at it's original format.

I know nothing about ripping anime as it's a genre im not interested in.

I do enjoy the odd kiddies movie tho :) and have not had to change my usual encoding methods for these animated movies, Bee Movie and Meet the Robinsons were both fine with my usual encoding method.

ok sweet i think i get what you meant about audio quality etc, 5.1 at 384kbps turned out to be quite weird

but its only a 20 meg difference between the re encoded audio and the original so for this rip im going to use the original

but in future for a 3 channel thing thatd be dolby 2 wouldnt it? 2 front 1 rear?

the file is almost a gig im wondering now weather or not i shouldve reduced the video size to say 640 or 672...hmmmm

[dat720]

No Dolby 2.0 is stereo with dobly surround. There is not really any such thing as 3ch.

It's your decision to scale the video down, if it suits your needs do it, but again it may only be a 20mb difference at the same bitrate.

Video size should be driven by the quality you wish to obtain, not the final file size, a 700mb movie may look very average compared to a 1.4gb movie, look at the people uploading torrents and you will notice that not all of them stick to 700mb, generally if a movie goes over about 100mins you are going to have trouble maintaining a good picture at 700mb, also it depends on the video itself, if it has allot of fast action then low bitrates will cause bad image quality, slow movies can be encoded at higher bitrates and come out smaller than fast movies at lower bitrate.

Try encoding Terminator 3 to a 700mb file and see how it comes out!