Finally! A DVD to MKV Solution that my eyes like! (FairUse)

[bgbop15]

Video wannabe here... I have been around these forums for quite some time now. I use a 1080p 47" Vizio LCD and a 1080p 42" Vizio LCD, and have not been able to find a way to make my DVDs look good... until now.

I have tried A LOT of approaches. Up-converting DVD players, Xbox360 (gross), PS3 (not TOO bad), HTPC with PowerDVD, TheaterTek, etc...

I have watch many x264 encoded movies, and thought I would try that. My technical understanding of the specifics of the codecs are extremely limited, and using MeGui and AutoMKV and SUPER and many, many other programs never lead to anything that I could comfortably watch.

So I got the full version of fair use wizard... WOW. Taking a dvd, setting the resolution to 1280 x 7xx, and the bitrate to ~3750kbps and 448kbps AC3 audio is just great. I love the image it creates and I am a stickler for keeping the sound intact. I dont care about filesize so much.

So, I would like to hear some criticism on my technique...

Is the bitrate too low?

Is there a way to get the audio bitrate higher? (aren't DVDs usually at 640kbps?)

I really like the look the upscaling gives, but if you guys think it is completely pointless, let me know.

Thanks for any insight!

[laserfan]

If you think "WOW" then don't argue with yourself! :)

Particularly as this is not the first look-see you've had at upscaling.

The rez and bitrate looks about perfect to me. Someday if you get a projector and go to 120" diagonal or something you might not be as happy, but honestly there is only so much you can wring-out of SD video anyway.

Oh, and most DVDs are 448kbps; I certainly wouldn't see a point to trying to convert them to anything higher--just keep the original soundtrack...

[bgbop15]

Well, my WOW factor is comparing the videos to any other DVDs I've watched don these sets. The real WOW is my HD-DVDs I have converted to .mkv, but thats a whole 'nother story

nice... i don't know why i thought it was 640kbps, I thought maybe FairUse had a max or something

[bgbop15]

Well it seems like encoder upconversion is pointless, according to most... can we get some explanations?

[Atak_Snajpera]

can we get some explanations?
Upscaling does not give extra details! There is no way to recover details which do not exist in source. Simple!

[asarian]

So I got the full version of fair use wizard... WOW. Taking a dvd, setting the resolution to 1280 x 7xx, and the bitrate to ~3750kbps and 448kbps AC3 audio is just great.
I wonder, does it upscale to 1920x1080, too?

[bgbop15]

Upscaling does not give extra details! There is no way to recover details which do not exist in source. Simple!

Its not that I'm try to recover details... In my head (where there is not much encoder knowledge) It seems like if I am apply ~3750kbps to a picture that is 1280x720, that will look better on a 47" monitor then an image that is 720x480 with only ~2500kbps...

I dunno. I've converted tons of SD stuff and It never looked this good.

[bgbop15]

I wonder, does it upscale to 1920x1080, too?

dont think so... that seems like overkill to me though.

[asarian]

Its not that I'm try to recover details... In my head (where there is not much encoder knowledge) It seems like if I am apply ~3750kbps to a picture that is 1280x720, that will look better on a 47" monitor then an image that is 720x480 with only ~2500kbps...

I dunno. I've converted tons of SD stuff and It never looked this good.

Well, I take it there's always anti-aliasing and stuff to make it look better, regardless of having the same level of detail. Not having to watch 'blocked' images would already be a gain.

[~bT~]

I'd rather get a toshiba upscaling dvd player than go thru hours of upscale encoding :s

[Atak_Snajpera]

PS3 has very good upscaling algorithm

[Ajax_Undone]

If you want HD buy a Bluray Disk..

If you want to upscale from existing dvds your overall Q factor is shot and you need a new trasncoder... One that makes up detail as it encodes...LOL

No mater how smart the algorithm. AI is still no match to actual detail...

[asarian]

If you want HD buy a Bluray Disk..

If you want to upscale from existing dvds your overall Q factor is shot and you need a new trasncoder... One that makes up detail as it encodes...LOL

No mater how smart the algorithm. AI is still no match to actual detail...

I think he knows that. :) But speaking strictly for myself, I have about 500 DVDs; and I'm not about to throw them all out, just because I bought a Bluray player and matching 1080p LCD tv. Nor am I prepared to put a second, smaller, tv next to it, just so I can watch DVDs properly. Ergo: I assuredly see a valid need for upscaling software/hardware. YMMV.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Nor am I prepared to put a second, smaller, tv next to it, just so I can watch DVDs properly
Haha Old school tv for DVD. LOL. You should buy PS3 and problem would be solved :)

[asarian]

Haha Old school tv for DVD. LOL. You should buy PS3 and problem would be solved :)

I did. :) Problem still not solved, though. PS3 upscales reasonably well, but if this prog of his works better, than I'm still interested.

[Atak_Snajpera]

There is no magic algorithm. Most common algos used these days are Bilinear or BiCubic.

[Irakli]

Its not that I'm try to recover details... In my head (where there is not much encoder knowledge) It seems like if I am apply ~3750kbps to a picture that is 1280x720, that will look better on a 47" monitor then an image that is 720x480 with only ~2500kbps...

Well, if you throw ~3750kbps at your 720x480 and then upscale to 1280x800 on playback (e.g. mplayer with lanczos scaling), you will get much better looking picture than when upscaling to 1280x720 during encoding.

[asarian]

^ Well, your RipBot264 prog looks really great, btw. And blistering fast to boot! (at least for audio). I'm really curious whether it will play the resultant mp4 file on my new PS3. It may not fit, though, as I'm currently recoding a 26G large m2ts file (read: it may become larger than 2G). I wonder, can the PS3 Media Player stream such an mp4 file, too?

[Atak_Snajpera]

mp4 cannot be bigger than 4GB. End of story.

[asarian]

mp4 cannot be bigger than 4GB. End of story.

Well, that story is a little too short for me. :)

So, what will happen then to this 26G file? Will your prog keep it within 4G? Or should I just abort the process?

[Atak_Snajpera]

There is magic section called 'Lock Size' . (It is shown only in 2-pass)

[bgbop15]

Well, if you throw ~3750kbps at your 720x480 and then upscale to 1280x800 on playback (e.g. mplayer with lanczos scaling), you will get much better looking picture than when upscaling to 1280x720 during encoding.

is that a FACT? Doesn't that depend on the your decoder? And your TV? And your video card? And your display? and your graphics driver?

[asarian]

mp4 cannot be bigger than 4GB. End of story.

I just read up a bit on it. Must say, a 4G limit, that's pretty frakked up! Kinda makes the entire format useless for HD content, doesn't it?

[nm]

is that a FACT? Doesn't that depend on the your decoder? And your TV? And your video card? And your display? and your graphics driver?
It depends on the upscaling algorithms and other filtering used during the two phases (encoding and playback). When using a PC for playback, you have full control over the scaling algorithm (with ffdshow and MPlayer, for example). Any modern CPU is fast enough to lanczos-resize DVD resolutions to 720p or 1080p during playback. Resizing and realtime filtering offered by graphics card (NVIDIA PureVideo, ATI Avivo) can also be pretty good. As to your other questions, display device doesn't matter in this comparison because it is the same in both cases and the same display resolution is used. I also don't see how the results would depend on the decoder (unless you mean additional postprocessing in the decoder, but that is not common in current H.264 codecs).

It may be possible to get visually better-looking results with your method by using advanced filtering that can't be run in real time on playback. However, you will need at least twice the bitrate for 720p and the difference may be small. Doing this properly requires AviSynth knowledge and some experience. Search for Didée's LimitedSharpen and SeeSaw for starters.

[bgbop15]

.... Doing this properly requires AviSynth knowledge and some experience. Search for Didée's LimitedSharpen and SeeSaw for starters.

Like I said, I am a humble point and clicker who likes high definiton content and old movies. I do not have the experience or knowledge to jump into the world of AviSynth.

[Aylwin]

I would just like to give my 2 cents on the poll. I know that the general concensus is that upscaling SD to HD is pointless. Normally I would agree but I voted no, it's not pointless. I have an if though and it's IF the upscaling is done for display on an flat panel TV.

I don't know anything about all this technical stuff. All I know is what I see. And I have yet to see a flat panel TV (LCS or Plasma) that can display SD video nicely to my eyes. I just don't like how it looks and I'm guessing it has to do with the internal scalers of the TV's. Because of this, I have no flat panel TV at home. We have CRT TV's and a video projector. I'm still trying to find a flat panel TV that's "SD-watchable" to my eyes.

Anyway my point is that if someone has an eye problem like mine then perhaps it might help if the SD video is upscaled first to HD before sending it to the flat panel TV. This could be done by an external scaler or by re-encoding. Good external scalers are expensive but re-encoding can be done for free so it seems like a very viable option to me.

By the way, am I the only one who has a problem with SD on flat panel TV's? If yes, then what I've said probably doesn't make sense and is only relevant to me specifically.

[nm]

Anyway my point is that if someone has an eye problem like mine then perhaps it might help if the SD video is upscaled first to HD before sending it to the flat panel TV. This could be done by an external scaler or by re-encoding. Good external scalers are expensive but re-encoding can be done for free so it seems like a very viable option to me.
If you have a device that can play HD video, chances are that it also scales all SD video to the output resolution you have set (720p or 1080i/p). So re-encoding is only useful if the scaling algorithm of the playback device is bad or if you know some filtering tricks. As already mentioned, PS3 has a very good scaler, or you can build a cheap HTPC.

By the way, am I the only one who has a problem with SD on flat panel TV's? If yes, then what I've said probably doesn't make sense and is only relevant to me specifically.
You can usually avoid the internal scaler of the display by using its native resolution (a pixel-perfect display mode). If the panel is not full HD or 720p, this may only be possible when using a PC as a playback device.

[Aylwin]

If you have a device that can play HD video, chances are that it also scales all SD video to the output resolution you have set (720p or 1080i/p). So re-encoding is only useful if the scaling algorithm of the playback device is bad or if you know some filtering tricks.
This is something I've always been wondering about. Common sense tells me that re-encoding a file should be better than on-the-fly scaling. Re-encoding allows you to use all sorts of algorithms, filters, settings, etc. And you can adjust all these according to the source material. Furthermore, you have a multi GHz processor with multi gigabytes of RAM to do the job. How can any playback device possibly compete? It uses default pre-defined routines with significantly less processing power and it needs to do it in real-time.

Having said that though, I have no problems with my player's scaler, my A/V receiver's scaler, or even my projector's scaler. So maybe there's actually little or no noticeable difference between scaling by re-encoding or by real-time processing.

I just have a problem with SD + flat panel displays. To my eyes, there's always a problem with the picture be it jerkiness, stuttering motion, pixelation, block noise or whatever.

Perhaps I need to do more testing with SD that's pre-upscaled before being fed to the flat panel TV. Maybe then it would look better to me.

[nm]

I just have a problem with SD + flat panel displays. To my eyes, there's always a problem with the picture be it jerkiness, stuttering motion, pixelation, block noise or whatever.
Well, these problems can be usually avoided with proper realtime filtering except for PAL vs. NTSC framerate problems (unless the panel supports both 50 Hz and 60 Hz input at the native resolution). The solutions are not always easily achieved, but during the last few years, NVIDIA and ATI have been improving video post-processing filters (deinterlacing, IVTC, denoising, ...) in their graphics cards and display drivers to fight some of these problems.

Perhaps I need to do more testing with SD that's pre-upscaled before being fed to the flat panel TV. Maybe then it would look better to me.
If some preprocessing workflow produces good results, it can usually be replicated as a realtime postprocessing filter chain on a modern PC.

[bgbop15]

This is something I've always been wondering about. Common sense tells me that re-encoding a file should be better than on-the-fly scaling. Re-encoding allows you to use all sorts of algorithms, filters, settings, etc. And you can adjust all these according to the source material. Furthermore, you have a multi GHz processor with multi gigabytes of RAM to do the job. How can any playback device possibly compete? It uses default pre-defined routines with significantly less processing power and it needs to do it in real-time.

Having said that though, I have no problems with my player's scaler, my A/V receiver's scaler, or even my projector's scaler. So maybe there's actually little or no noticeable difference between scaling by re-encoding or by real-time processing.

I just have a problem with SD + flat panel displays. To my eyes, there's always a problem with the picture be it jerkiness, stuttering motion, pixelation, block noise or whatever.

Perhaps I need to do more testing with SD that's pre-upscaled before being fed to the flat panel TV. Maybe then it would look better to me.

We are in the same mindset.

I like having my DVDs saved to the hard drive in a neat, .mkv container, and 720p x264 just looks cleaner on my flat-panel display.

[laserfan]

Common sense tells me that re-encoding a file should be better than on-the-fly scaling.I have always believed exactly the same thing, but I spent hours and hours (and hours) on a SD DVD video one time, doing software upscaling and comparing to my 1366x768 LCD RPTV's built-in upscaler. I could never get the "enhanced by software" video to look any better that what the TV was already doing. In the end, my new philosophy is "relax and enjoy the show"! Though honestly I will probably never watch my Superbit Lawrence of Arabia now that the Blu-Ray disc has been announced! ;)

Oh, and as for Analog/SD video on a Digital display, I agree it always looks worse than on any CRT-based device. But my answer to that is: I don't know of any analog-based video that's worth watching (this from a guy who still has a couple thousand analog laserdiscs on the shelf)! :eek:

[Sharc]

One should perhaps keep in mind that every re-encode applying compression is lossy, means loss of details and introducing encoding artefacts. So unless the original DVD is crap, a backup with bitrate reduction will normally deteriorate the quality (I am not referring to sophisticated filtering here). So for a reasonable quality on-the fly upscaler it is best to feed it with the original DVD.
The rest depends on the quality of the on-the-fly upscaler. If it is crap, it may be worth to re-encode and upscale the original. Only tests and personal preference can tell.

Edit:
Googling for test reports about the playback device may also reveal interesting details about its upscaling performance (linearity, chroma distortion etc.). There exist differences, e.g. for projectors. HDMI vs analog connection also has an influence. So it can well be that a re-encode with SW upscaling results in better visual quality. Only tests can tell at the end, IMHO.