Bluray transcoding support?

[asarian]

Hello,

I was wondering, will DVD-Rebuilder ever (soonish, I hope) support Bluray? I read that the HC encoder can already deal with 1080P content. So, why not take it to the next level and transcode Blurays too? :) Then I can use regular BD25 discs.

Thanks

[linx05]

Check out the thread already opened: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=135335

[asarian]

Check out the thread already opened: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=135335

I don't want to backup DVDs to Bluray, but I want to recode Bluray to Bluray, only smaller in size. Much like DVD Rebuilder now 'shrinks' discs, using CCE, HC, or whatever preferred encoder, I'd like to see support for Bluray in that fashion too, so that we can start rebuilding BD50 -> BD25 (akin to DVD9 -> DVD5).

[jdobbs]

Yes, I'm working on that. Assuming everything works, I hope for "BD Rebuilder" to allow you to take an original BD image and bring it down in size to either BD-5 (BD on DVD-5), BD-9 (BD on DVD-9), or BD-25. It's still in initial development.

[asarian]

Yes, I'm working on that. Assuming everything works, I hope for "BD Rebuilder" to allow you to take an original BD image and bring it down in size to either BD-5 (BD on DVD-5), BD-9 (BD on DVD-9), or BD-25. It's still in initial development.

Brilliant! You totally rock! DVD Rebuilder itself is already a great piece of software! I can hardly wait. :)

[Doliha]

Brilliant! You totally rock! DVD Rebuilder itself is already a great piece of software! I can hardly wait. :)

Me too also!

[shon3i]

I read that the HC encoder can already deal with 1080P contentWhy MPEG2. when BD can more than "simple" MPEG2 encoding. Transcoding from VC-1 and H264 to MPEG2 have no sense, only quality can drop.

[levi]

Agree that output format options would be great

[jdobbs]

Why MPEG2. when BD can more than "simple" MPEG2 encoding. Transcoding from VC-1 and H264 to MPEG2 have no sense, only quality can drop.

It may be ok if you are encoding to a BD-25 or higher disc. But to get HD on a DVD-5 or DVD-9 with good quality, you really need H.264.

[Wombler]

It may be ok if you are encoding to a BD-25 or higher disc. But to get HD on a DVD-5 or DVD-9 with good quality, you really need H.264.

And if H.264 is that good on DVD then the quality will be stunning on BD-25.

If H.264 is supported by all Blu-ray players and it's as good as your tests indicate then I can't see any valid reason to ever use the normal encoding format as H.264 will always be superior.

H.264 is definitely the way to go.


Wombler

[asarian]

Why MPEG2. when BD can more than "simple" MPEG2 encoding. Transcoding from VC-1 and H264 to MPEG2 have no sense, only quality can drop.


Well, I didn't mean HC should do the encoding per se; but my point was, that if current DVD encoders are beginning to support HD content, that it's high time for a "BD Rebuilder", too. :) I'll leave the details in the qualified hands of jdobbs. And I'd certainly be willing to pay more than the $30 bucks he's asking for DVD Rebuilder now. Tools like his are essential for anyone who doesn't wanna pony up the 37 (!) euros per BD50 disc!

All I want is to be able to make high-quality, reencoded, shrinked Blurays. For instance, extracting "The Fifth Element", with only English AC3 sound, still leaves 26.6G of data: slightly, but definitely, just too large to fit on a BD25 disc. "BD Rebuilder" recoding it to 94% available capacity would really work wonders.

I have several Bluray discs (I usually buy from amazon.com) that are all Region 1 (A). So, until such time that Europe actually starts offering a decent amount of Blurays too, I'll be forced to recode the material to be able to even watch the movie!

[jdobbs]

And if H.264 is that good on DVD then the quality will be stunning on BD-25.

If H.264 is supported by all Blu-ray players and it's as good as your tests indicate then I can't see any valid reason to ever use the normal encoding format as H.264 will always be superior.

H.264 is definitely the way to go.


Wombler
Actually I wouldn't expect the large size to improve it that much. According to the reports I've read, X264 creates a virtually perfect reproduction with a quantization value of about 18. Most of the backups I've done to DVD-9 result in quants of 18-20, with most in the 18's. That means that the quality reaches close to perfect -- even before you get to those gigantic bitrates associated with BD-25 and BD-50 discs.

[Wombler]

Actually I wouldn't expect the large size to improve it that much. According to the reports I've read, X264 creates a virtually perfect reproduction with a quantization value of about 18. Most of the backups I've done to DVD-9 result in quants of 18-20, with most in the 18's. That means that the quality reaches close to perfect -- even before you get to those gigantic bitrates associated with BD-25 and BD-50 discs.

Interesting.

It makes you wonder why we needed a next generation media in the first place. :rolleyes::)


Wombler

[Sharc]

.... H.264 is definitely the way to go.
Wombler
yyyyes, if only my PC would be 10 x faster .....

[jdobbs]

Yes, H.264 encoding speed is a definite concern. If doing 1280x720 movie-only backups you can get it done in a few hours with a fast machine. But 1920x1080 can sometimes take 16 hours.

[jdobbs]

Interesting.

It makes you wonder why we needed a next generation media in the first place. :rolleyes::)


WomblerThey need to be selling something new, I guess, whether it's needed or not.

[asarian]

Yes, H.264 encoding speed is a definite concern. If doing 1280x720 movie-only backups you can get it done in a few hours with a fast machine. But 1920x1080 can sometimes take 16 hours.

That seems a mite long. :) With my quad-core (at 3.2Ghz) I recode a standard DVD9 to DVD5, using HC 0.22 'best quality', in about 45 minutes. So, would recoding a 1080P BD take a whole 16 hours?? Yikes!

Not that I'm questioning you, btw; I just didn't realize it would take that long. Last time recoding took me 16 hours was probably on an old 486 system. :)

[rack04]

That seems a mite long. :) With my quad-core (at 3.2Ghz) I recode a standard DVD9 to DVD5, using HC 0.22 'best quality', in about 45 minutes. So, would recoding a 1080P BD take a whole 16 hours?? Yikes!

Not that I'm questioning you, btw; I just didn't realize it would take that long. Last time recoding took me 16 hours was probably on an old 486 system. :)

Most definately will take a looooong time, even with a quad core. It take my Q6600 about 4 hrs to encode just one ~48 min Heroes episode from the HD DVD using DXVA HQ profile. I guess no hope for shrinking HD DVD? :)

[jdobbs]

That seems a mite long. :) With my quad-core (at 3.2Ghz) I recode a standard DVD9 to DVD5, using HC 0.22 'best quality', in about 45 minutes. So, would recoding a 1080P BD take a whole 16 hours?? Yikes!

Not that I'm questioning you, btw; I just didn't realize it would take that long. Last time recoding took me 16 hours was probably on an old 486 system. :)That's doing a two pass encode on a Phenom 9500 Quad core using X264. The first pass takes around 4 hours and the second takes 12 (because the quality settings are escalated on pass 2). Of course, I'm encoding with settings that result in very high quality. I would assume you could cut the time in half if you lowered them -- and since the quants are so low anyhow, that may not make a significant quality drop.

I'm still experimenting.

Your system is probably slightly faster than mine, too.

[asarian]

That's doing an two pass encode on a Phenom 9500 Quad core using X264. The first pass takes around 4 hours and the second takes 12 (because the quality settings are escalated on pass 2). Of course, I'm encoding with settings that result in very high quality. I would assume you could cut the time in half if you lowered them -- and since the quants are so low anyhow, that may not make a significant quality drop.

I'm still experimenting.

Your system is probably slightly faster than mine, too.
Thanks for replying. It's nice to be on a board where those who make all this great stuff are actually present. :)

I'm a high-quality person myself: I always recode everything to the highest possible settings, so 16 hours it is then! (I see no point in recoding to anything where you lose extra quality for no greater reason than impatience, basically). But what I understand from your comments in this thread, H.264 recoding should provide near perfect quality on BD25 discs (perhaps an advantage of the bitrate surplus?). So the future looks bright!

[Discoboy]

That seems a mite long. :) With my quad-core (at 3.2Ghz) I recode a standard DVD9 to DVD5, using HC 0.22 'best quality', in about 45 minutes. So, would recoding a 1080P BD take a whole 16 hours?? Yikes!

My Quad Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2 with 2 pass at 1080p with bit rates of around 10000 for DVD-9 backup takes around 6-7 hours. So you can get the time down with the latest top end Intel Quads.

[Boulder]

That's doing a two pass encode on a Phenom 9500 Quad core using X264. The first pass takes around 4 hours and the second takes 12 (because the quality settings are escalated on pass 2). Of course, I'm encoding with settings that result in very high quality. I would assume you could cut the time in half if you lowered them -- and since the quants are so low anyhow, that may not make a significant quality drop.

I'm still experimenting.

Your system is probably slightly faster than mine, too.Using the lossless intermediate file option (the "add pre-rendering job" checkbox) in MeGUI, the process is faster with slow encodes. Maybe you should consider a similar procedure. Of course the HD space requirement will be quite big, but storage is cheap these days :)

[steptoe]

So without sounding too dumb, is the DVD-RB BD going to allow us to 'backup' our blue-ray discs to either a DVD-9 or DVD-5 and play them on non-BD players ?


Makes it sound even better for me to go get that Q6600 and motherboard upgrade I'm keeping a close look on prices at when looking at the encode times as I also run HC at maximum quality. Compared to my current AMD 6000+ running at 3.1ghz it leaves it behind on everything

Then I can start recoding those ancient B&W and animation DVDs that I use seriously slow filter functions on to do their very impressive work at cleaning them up, 2-3 days per DVD just isn't feasable at present


Girlfriend says the conversions from DVD-9 to DVD-5 look better than the original using DVD-RB Pro which is a very good sign of good software, so more functionality should mean more support and more donors to keep the best quality conversion software going

Just a pity the mass market doesn't see speed is not always a good selling point, compared to a lot more time but vastly superior quality compared to transcoders


Does it also mean that accepting AVI/MKV is getting one step closer

[jdobbs]

So without sounding too dumb, is the DVD-RB BD going to allow us to 'backup' our blue-ray discs to either a DVD-9 or DVD-5 and play them on non-BD players ?No. It means backing up to DVD-9 or DVD-5 and playing them back on a blu-ray player. Standard DVD players can't handle high resolution.
...so more functionality should mean more support and more donors to keep the best quality conversion software goingDonors are few and far between. If money were the factor here, I'd be mowing lawns instead. :)

[ron spencer]

mowing lawns?????


maybe you do need a donation LOL!!!!


this news is nice...BR to DVD-5 or 9 deserves more donation I think....hmmmmm

[~bT~]

BlueRay to dvd5/9 and more is already covered in RipBot264 by Atak.
I really don't know if JD should spend his precious time inventing the wheel again unless its offers something new..

[Video Dude]

Its good to have alternatives and more than one tool. Each author brings something unique and implements a feature the other one may not think of.

jdobbs writes quality software and I'm excited of the possibility of BD-Rebuilder.

[asarian]

BlueRay to dvd5/9 and more is already covered in RipBot264 by Atak.
I really don't know if JD should spend his precious time inventing the wheel again unless its offers something new..

Bluray to DVD5/9 is cute (especially for episodic content); but what I'm really looking for in "BD Rebuilder" is recoding BD50 -> BD25: 'shrinking' regular BDs to something that will fit on a BD25 BD-R(E). That, I reckon, is the primary function of DVD Rebuilder now too, and JD does it second to none. :)

[~bT~]

^ then for that feature alone, its worth getting JD to make BD-Rebuilder but i have huge doubts it will be poss anytime soon..

[asarian]

^ then for that feature alone, its worth getting JD to make BD-Rebuilder but i have huge doubts it will be poss anytime soon..

Pardon my ignorance, but why would that be so hard? Ever since AnyDVD HD broke through the AACS stuff, BD+ is essentially pwned.

So, that just leaves a series of .m2ts files for re-encoding. I can't do it (yet). Rewriting menu structures and all the Bluray 1.1 features (when implemented) might actually be the hardest, but recoding an .m2ts stream itself, sounds fair doable to me. :) Of course, I'm very new to HD stuff, so feel free to correct me.

[~bT~]

I was talking about getting the same structure in shrinked form. Shrinking the m2ts isn't the issue here.

[asarian]

I was talking about getting the same structure in shrinked form. Shrinking the m2ts isn't the issue here.

That's what I figured will be the hardest part too (see comment above). But maybe he could start with a "main movie only" option first?

[~bT~]

^ no point as it wont really be any diff from the many other software's out there.

[jdobbs]

BlueRay to dvd5/9 and more is already covered in RipBot264 by Atak.
I really don't know if JD should spend his precious time inventing the wheel again unless its offers something new.. Really? I don't think so. How many menus have you brought over to your backup? Episodic BDs? Extras?

You're talking as if something else is already doing true backups.... if so -- name it. Or better yet -- write it. But telling others that it is "too hard" or "not worth it" is nonsense. I'm certain that there are others working this as well... but that doesn't mean I should leave it alone, does it? Maybe all the "others" are leaving it alone also???

I remember when people in this forum used to be on the cutting edge... sigh :(

[asarian]

I remember when people in this forum used to be on the cutting edge... sigh :(
Well, I'm not on the cutting edge. Sorry 'bout that. But I know YOU are on the cutting edge. :) Which is why I started this thread to begin with: to let you know that there's folks out there that really look forward, eagerly, to "BD Rebuilder". That's really my only true contribution to this thread: to let you know there's a public out here that wants it. :)

And I suppose it's good this way: people who are not on the cutting edge need people like you, so that we can cut, if not edges, then certainly a few corners in making our backups. :)

[Sharc]

^ ..... but i have huge doubts it will be poss anytime soon..

Looking at DVD-RB's functional richness (backups including menus, feature, extras, editing/blanking, bitrate tweaking, space reallocation, stills conversion, adding selective avisynth filters, bitrate dependent matrix selection and and and ....), and at the same time offering the simplicity of a 1-click solution: yes, it may be a long way to go to have the same or similar luxury for BD. I hope we can keep jdobbs motivated ....:)

[~bT~]

Really? I don't think so. How many menus have you brought over to your backup? Episodic BDs? Extras?

You're talking as if something else is already doing true backups.i did say.. unless you will offer something new.

so if u can offer this function then great! otherwise its just the same as all other apps :cool:

[jdobbs]

Well, I'm not on the cutting edge. Sorry 'bout that. But I know YOU are on the cutting edge. :) Which is why I started this thread to begin with: to let you know that there's folks out there that really look forward, eagerly, to "BD Rebuilder". That's really my only true contribution to this thread: to let you know there's a public out here that wants it. :)

And I suppose it's good this way: people who are not on the cutting edge need people like you, so that we can cut, if not edges, then certainly a few corners in making our backups. :)
No slight was aimed at you. I hope you didn't take it that way. :)

[Wombler]

i did say.. unless you will offer something new.

so if u can offer this function then great! otherwise its just the same as all other apps :cool:

DVD Rebuilder has always been and continues to be a very superior piece of software.

There's no reason to suggest that BD Rebuilder (or whatever it's title may become) shouldn't exhibit equally superior programming regardless of the functions of other programmer's applications.

Amongst other factors ease of use is one of the key areas that I and presumably other users appreciate.

Just because the same tasks can be done using other software doesn't necessarily mean that it can be accomplished as simply and as effortlessly.


Wombler

[onesloth]

what I'm really looking for in "BD Rebuilder" is recoding BD50 -> BD25: 'shrinking' regular BDs to something that will fit on a BD25 BD-R(E).)

I've never ripped a BluDisc but most HD-DVDs were like 10-12 gigs, some ~17. Are there actually a lot of BD titles bigger than 25 gigs?

[jdobbs]

Most of them. Although you do run across older movies that are smaller. The majority of discs appear to be in the 35-40GB range. Interestingly you also see more MPEG-2 encoding than you might think.

[onesloth]

The majority of discs appear to be in the 35-40GB range. Interestingly you also see more MPEG-2 encoding than you might think.

That's interesting. Almost all HD-DVDs were VC-1. I always thought Bluray's capacity advantage was just marketing hype because you'd have to make a whole lot more disc extras to exceed HD-DVD capacity if your main title was h.264 or VC-1. If your main movie is MPEG2 you might actually need that space for a 3 hour movie. HD-DVD's argument was that its adoption would require less infrastructure investment than Bluray and thus lower disc replication costs but the studios probably figured, if they were gonna use Bluray, they could still use their older encoding tech.

[Pulp Catalyst]

well i always did find it strange why so much hype came out with blu-ray size, because just as blu-ray was entering final phase, so was Mpeg4 AVC, and yet most people didn't seem to talk about that,

i even put in a post once at "Betanews" about that debate, and quite a few were stumped to come up with an answer,

and jdobbs has also confirmed it that a 25GB size film is just as good as a 35-40 gb film,

although in blu-rays defence, films was not the only reason why it was created, but it does seem strange why extra space is being used when it's not necessary,

but if jdobbs can find a way of shrinking these films down to size, and perhaps even find a way of reducing resolution size that will also help reduce total size even further would be great,

and who knows, perhaps he will use the foundation of DVD rebuilder as a start, and reprogram the code to make it Blu-ray Compatible, after all, why start from scratch, if the foundation already exists,

good luck jdobbs, and i hope you prosper down that road, as without a doubt you do deserve it, not many of us can say we use a great program and have the privilege of speaking to the person who created that program, it's a real honor,

[asarian]

although in blu-rays defence, films was not the only reason why it was created, but it does seem strange why extra space is being used when it's not necessary,

For spite, perhaps? :) No, seriously, I wouldn't put it past them that they make em purposely (too) large, so it won't fit on a BD25 any more. A kind of lashing back after their BD+ got hacked.

but if jdobbs can find a way of shrinking these films down to size, and perhaps even find a way of reducing resolution size that will also help reduce total size even further would be great,

Can't say as I would have a very great need for bringing down the resolution. But, as an experiment, I just brought down a 26G movie (using RipBot264, highest profile) to a ~9G mp4 file. The quality is stunning (indistuinguishable for the real thing with the naked eye), so I reckon there's quite a bit of bitrate surplus to go around. And I'm sure jdobbs' BD Rebuilder will be as loved as DVD Rebuilder -- if not more. :)

and who knows, perhaps he will use the foundation of DVD rebuilder as a start, and reprogram the code to make it Blu-ray Compatible, after all, why start from scratch, if the foundation already exists,

Well, he will have his work cut out for him, that's for certain. Soon we'll arrive at Profile 1.1, and then he can sink his teeth into Profile 2.0. Between Live content, PiP, and Java interactive menus, he will have done a man's job when it's done! :)

good luck jdobbs, and i hope you prosper down that road, as without a doubt you do deserve it, not many of us can say we use a great program and have the privilege of speaking to the person who created that program, it's a real honor,

It's an honor, indeed.

[Mtz]

The title of the thread contain "transcoding" not "encoding". Maybe the user was thinking about a program like DVDShrink because of speed. Encoding with quality AVC need a powerful PC, time and space.
I'm sure that jdobbs knows many things about the procedure of transcoding, but I don't think it can be applied for AVC or VC-1.
If there are BR with MPEG2 maybe can be applied the same procedure for transcoding like the shrinking tools are using. For AVC and VC-1 maybe will be never possible.
Or maybe this is the reason why Mr.Shrink visited this forum again... :D

enjoy,
Mtz

[asarian]

The title of the thread contain "transcoding" not "encoding". Maybe the user was thinking about a program like DVDShrink because of speed.
Or maybe the user wasn't thinking at all. :) Instead of 'transcoding' I actually meant 'recoding'. Oh, and DVDShrink is evil.

[asarian]

Well, while I'm at it, what would a person actually use to recode an m2ts file? (to a smaller m2ts file).

[jdobbs]

Right now the recommended choice is X264. It has lots of flexibility, many options, and is open source. FFMPEG also does H.264, but in my experience is slower (which is interesting because it uses the same engine). Mencoder is another LIBAVCODEC based choice -- but I haven't done any testing for speed.

There are also commercial choices (hardware and software based).

[Sharc]

.... The majority of discs appear to be in the 35-40GB range. Interestingly you also see more MPEG-2 encoding than you might think.
It's probably a matter of existing infrastructure. Mpeg-2 is a mature technology, there is nothing basically wrong with it as long as the needed storage space on BD is available.
Secondly, with all enthusiasm for h.264 / mpeg-4: I have seen a tendency for blocks/color banding in flat (dark) areas unless one goes to crf <20 (x264) or tweaks the AQ parameter. There are plenty of parameters to tweak for optimum results with mpeg4 coders though - but for the time being I would be a little hesitant with a crf>19 (x264) for a high quality 1-pass backup.

[Boulder]

MPEG2 at very high bitrates is quite good at keeping details.