BD Rebuilder Beta - Bug Reports Only

[Thaddäus]

Thanks for your reply!
As you can see it took around 5 hours to do the backup of that disc which had 4:20 h of material on it - so I can't complain about slow encoding even with the "Highest (Very Slow)"-settings. ;)
I just did a scan of the main movie's video bitrate with Bitrate Viewer - and it says the average bitrate is 4.058 kbps which exactly matches BD Rebuilder's calculated bitrate from the logfile. Maybe I'm trying it again with a custom target size of 24500 MB and see what happens.

By the way: Although the bitrate of that backup was quite low BD Rebuilder did a fantastic job when it comes to the picture quality which is still quite good! Wasn't expecting that when I saw the calculated bitrate but that tool keeps still surprising me in a very positive way. :)

[MrVideo]

By the way: Although the bitrate of that backup was quite low BD Rebuilder did a fantastic job when it comes to the picture quality which is still quite good!
The x264 encoder is a fantastic H.264 encoder, especially when used in two-pass mode.

[Lathe]

I've been using BD Rebuilder for many discs during the last months and recognized that there's always more than 1 GB space left on a BD25 when I'm using the BD25 target size-preset. Sometimes there's even more left - last week I tried a backup of "Deepwater Horizon" and the output-size was only 20,9 GB so 10% of the disc space (should be around 23,1 GB) is still free.

Has someone tested BD Rebuilder with a custom-target size to use the whole capacity of a BD25? I'm using the highest quality-settings and two pass-encoding, so BD Rebuilder should be able to calculate the optimal bitrate and make the most of the availiable space. I'm only keeping the German and English audio-tracks in HD (if availiable) and do a backup of the full disc with all bonus features. I read about the problem in other boards and they were discussing that deleting some audio tracks can result in miscalculation of the target size. But in the case of "Deepwater Horizon" those two were the only audio-tracks availiable, so that can't be the reason for that big miscalculation BD Rebuilder did. Did someone recognize similar problems and is there a workaround for this (maybe a certain custom target size) to get the best results possible?


Yeah, that is pretty much what most of mine come out to also. Generally if I choose the BD-25 output size, no matter whether I'm using 'Fast' 2 Pass or 'High' 2 Pass, invariably the resulting encodes will be 22.1-22.5, sometimes 22.9. If I am really trying to squeeze an encode where it BARELY will fit, I usually select a custom size of about 23,700. But, even with that, most times the size is still 1 or 1 1.5 Gigs less than a full disc. If it's REALLY pushing it, I will try to go a bit more, but one time I tried 23,800 and it came out just a tad too big.

Of course, I've never been accused of playing with a full disc anyway... :cool:

[gonca]

playing with a full disc anyway.

yeah, yeah

[jdobbs]

Yeah, that is pretty much what most of mine come out to also. Generally if I choose the BD-25 output size, no matter whether I'm using 'Fast' 2 Pass or 'High' 2 Pass, invariably the resulting encodes will be 22.1-22.5, sometimes 22.9. If I am really trying to squeeze an encode where it BARELY will fit, I usually select a custom size of about 23,700. But, even with that, most times the size is still 1 or 1 1.5 Gigs less than a full disc. If it's REALLY pushing it, I will try to go a bit more, but one time I tried 23,800 and it came out just a tad too big.

Of course, I've never been accused of playing with a full disc anyway... :cool:22.1 to 22.5 would be within the range of correct sizing. As I've said before, that's purposeful because the outer edges of the disc are much more prone to failure/error. By keeping the disc in a smaller size range you are less likely to experience problems. It also keeps me from having to respond to people who think the failed burn is BD-RB's fault. But the 20.9 (as reported) would be outside what should be expected.

Just my opinion/advice, but a disc written to capacity will hold about 23.3GB and that last 1GB (about 4%) or so isn't going to get you a noticeable improvement in quality, especially considering the risk. Of course, as always, I've added the ability to change the target size for anyone who disagrees.

[nozuul]

Is there an easy way to brighten the output of a video? I was looking back at change logs, and one from January 2016 mentioned a filter, but I was unsure how that works? Is that a hidden option?

Thanks for the help.

[jdobbs]

Is there an easy way to brighten the output of a video? I was looking back at change logs, and one from January 2016 mentioned a filter, but I was unsure how that works? Is that a hidden option?

Thanks for the help.You can use the filter editor (see SETUP) to add the tweak filter (http://www.avisynth.org.ru/docs/english/corefilters/tweak.htm). Example: Tweak(bright=20). That filter also lets you adjust other parameters such as contrast, hue, and saturation.

[Lathe]

22.1 to 22.5 would be within the range of correct sizing. As I've said before, that's purposeful because the outer edges of the disc are much more prone to failure/error. By keeping the disc in a smaller size range you are less likely to experience problems. It also keeps me from having to respond to people who think the failed burn is BD-RB's fault. But the 20.9 (as reported) would be outside what should be expected.

Just my opinion/advice, but a disc written to capacity will hold about 23.3GB and that last 1GB (about 4%) or so isn't going to get you a noticeable improvement in quality, especially considering the risk. Of course, as always, I've added the ability to change the target size for anyone who disagrees.

Yes, I fully agree. It's best not to push it to the outer edges of the disc.

[Lathe]

Is there an easy way to brighten the output of a video? I was looking back at change logs, and one from January 2016 mentioned a filter, but I was unsure how that works? Is that a hidden option?

Thanks for the help.

As JD mentions above, 'tweak' is a simple but excellent Avisynth filter to use. I use it a LOT for films where I feel that the contrast could be boosted a little, or the colours need a tad more saturation, etc. Many times if you want to boost the contrast, it naturally also gets brighter, so many times I will boost the contrast and lower the brightness at the same time. You probably already do this, but if you take a small snippet of the film and use an .avs script to preview it, you can tweak it a number of times and change the settings to see how it will look in the final encode. Here are some of the scripts I've used for certain films:

LADY IN THE WATER: (cont=1.2, Sat=1.2) This was one of my very first tries, so I probably overdid it a little :) But, for me, I just can't stand really washed out looking films and prefer a 'sharper' or more contrasted image. I KNOW videophiles will pale in horror, but that is just my personal taste with some films. I only usually go to the trouble to do it if the print REALLY bugs me.

http://lathe-of-heaven.com/litw01.jpg


http://lathe-of-heaven.com/litw02.jpg

Another film that was REALLY washed out was 'GODZILLA VS. BIOLLANTE' But, that was likely just due to the film stock used at the time. I used these settings on that print:

Sharpen(.8)
tweak(cont=1.20, bright=-12)

In this case, the film is already pretty bright, but I wanted more sharpness and delineation, so in boosting the contrast I had to lower the brightness. The Avisynth 'sharpness' setting is pretty primitive, so I only use it sparingly. Normally, just using contrast, brightness, and sometimes saturation is enough. Again, this is one of my very first tries at Avisynth; I've since found better 'sharpness' filters.

Other films where I've used Avisynth are 'FORTRESS' & 'THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR'. Both 'DRACULA' (1979) and 'SEA OF LOVE' were SO bloody dark and washed out, that I REALLY had to tweak those two a lot. These were the settings I used for them:

DRACULA: tweak(cont=1.40, bright=1, Sat=1.3, startHue=325, endHue=15, maxSat=75)

SEA OF LOVE: tweak(cont=1.5, bright=-4)

I've probably only done around 12-15 films total.

[MrVideo]

I KNOW videophiles will pale in horror
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: You certainly got that right.

[Thaddäus]

22.1 to 22.5 would be within the range of correct sizing. As I've said before, that's purposeful because the outer edges of the disc are much more prone to failure/error. By keeping the disc in a smaller size range you are less likely to experience problems. It also keeps me from having to respond to people who think the failed burn is BD-RB's fault. But the 20.9 (as reported) would be outside what should be expected.

I tried "Girl on the Train" yesterday with a custom target size of 24500 MB (I was really trying to push it there) and it resulted in 23,2 GB and only 67 MB free space left on the disc. I never had any issues with burning discs even when almost the full capacity was used but I admit - only 67 MB left was quite close to the edge. ;)

Then I gave "Deepwater Horizon" another try with those settings which resulted in 21,9 GB and something came to my mind: Could the Dolby Atmos-tracks on that disc be the reason for BD Rebuilder's miscalculation? Both audio-tracks in the main movie are in Dolby Atmos 7.1.4 with a Dolby True HD 7.1-core. Maybe BD Rebuilder only gets something wrong here. The other discs I checked and which all were around 21,9 GB with the BD25-preset didn't have Atmos-tracks, so maybe that's the cause.

Just my opinion/advice, but a disc written to capacity will hold about 23.3GB and that last 1GB (about 4%) or so isn't going to get you a noticeable improvement in quality, especially considering the risk. Of course, as always, I've added the ability to change the target size for anyone who disagrees.

You're right - under usual circumstancers 1 GB more or less for the whole disc shouldn't make a big difference in picture quality but I think when the bitrate gets as low as in my "Deepwater Horizon"-backup (only 4 MBit/s are very low, especially for such a film) it could make a difference. While I'm typing this I'm trying another backup of the film, now with a custom size of 25500 MB. If it follows the previous results this should now end up with around 22,9 GB which would be absolutely fine. And the main movie now got 5.687 kbps - compared to the 4.058 from the first backup with the BD25-preset this should be an improvement. Let's see what happens - fingers crossed. ;)

EDIT: Not exactly 22,9 GB but hey - 22,8 GB are also OK. ;)

[nozuul]

You can use the filter editor (see SETUP) to add the tweak filter (http://www.avisynth.org.ru/docs/english/corefilters/tweak.htm). Example: Tweak(bright=20). That filter also lets you adjust other parameters such as contrast, hue, and saturation.

Thanks Jdobbs for the info, and Lathe for the example. I will give this a try and see if the results are more to my liking for my particular case.

[AmigaFuture]

... setting 2 Pass when I'm trying to be 'Mr. Anal' (so to speak, no cracks please...) and, ....

Uhh-heh - heh - heh...he typed anal and crack..uhhh-huh-huh-hehe hehe...

I couldn't pass it over... :D :goodpost:

[AmigaFuture]

Sorry...I left IVTC turned on in the setup dialog. I thought it had no effect on pure progressive content at all. But now, I see.

I had to remember that a few times also to switch it off.

[MrVideo]

Sorry...I left IVTC turned on in the setup dialog. I thought it had no effect on pure progressive content at all. But now, I see.
Technically there are two progressive video formats that can have telecine video:
1) 1080p with repeat frame to get 23.976 to 29.97 fps.
2) 720p 59.94 with 2:3 pulldown.

[Lathe]

Uhh-heh - heh - heh...he typed anal and crack..uhhh-huh-huh-hehe hehe...

I couldn't pass it over... :D :goodpost:

Just trying to provide the top quality humour that this group has come to expect.

JD has taught us well... http://lathe-of-heaven.com/yes.gif

[AmigaFuture]

Technically there are two progressive video formats that can have telecine video:
1) 1080p with repeat frame to get 23.976 to 29.97 fps.
2) 720p 59.94 with 2:3 pulldown.

I've still not gotten 2) to render to 23.976 or 29.97 correctly. Always jerky or 59.94 results. I haven't check into it for a while (private matters)...hence the lack of my replies.

[MrVideo]

I've still not gotten 2) to render to 23.976 or 29.97 correctly. Always jerky or 59.94 results.
The IVTC setting should do the job correctly. The AVISynth filter that Jdobb uses works with 720p 59.94 fps telecine video. Converting 59.94 to 29.97 with telecine material is not going to look pretty.

[raisingcanex]

Not sure if it's possible. But would like to know. What's the best settings to save or rebuild a Blu-Ray movie to a format that can be saved on a external drive connected to an Xbox One S and keep the original file size and audio (ex. Dolby Atmos). Where Xbox would recognize it like it was a Disc. Where you don't have to search the Blu-Ray folder looking for the right movie file to play. But hopefully like a disc.

[mparade]

Hello,

In Full-backup mode there is no chance to blank some of the very annoying m2ts files (mostly warnings) because they are not included in streamlist (even with MIN_M2TS_SIZE=0 set).
If I change to menu&movie only mode they can be blanked in the streamlist but the menu will be not fully functional finally(e.g. after changing the language from English to an other in the menu and then playing the movie until the end, the viewer will not get back to the menu automatically (permanent black screen). If I do not change the language from English in the menu the menu seems to be fully functional). This is not happening in Full-backup mode but at the same time I cannot blank the unwanted, annoying m2ts files.

Please help. My menus are not functioning this way.

[AmigaFuture]

The IVTC setting should do the job correctly. The AVISynth filter that Jdobb uses works with 720p 59.94 fps telecine video. Converting 59.94 to 29.97 with telecine material is not going to look pretty.

So far, 59.94 to 23.976 is producing a very slight jerky output. I'm checking a few other files to see if the same.

[MrVideo]

So far, 59.94 to 23.976 is producing a very slight jerky output. I'm checking a few other files to see if the same.
Any chance you can post a snippet of the original, say 30 sec worth, and the same snippet after recoding. I can then look at them to see if I can see anything that sticks out. M2TS, TS, MKV or MP4 wrappers would be fine.

[MrVideo]

So far, 59.94 to 23.976 is producing a very slight jerky output. I'm checking a few other files to see if the same.
OK, got the videos and it took me all of <30 sec to determine why you are having issues.

It is not 2:3 pulldown telecine source. You have to leave it as 59.94. Why? Because the source contains true 59.94 fps source and 29.97 fps source repeat framed to 59.94 fps. There is zero 23.976 source telecined. Even if there was in other portions of the complete video, what I've seen is enough to stop you from trying to do IVTC.

Sorry, but that is why you are having issues.

[AmigaFuture]

OK, got the videos and it took me all of <30 sec to determine why you are having issues.

It is not 2:3 pulldown telecine source. You have to leave it as 59.94. Why? Because the source contains true 59.94 fps source and 29.97 fps source repeat framed to 59.94 fps. There is zero 23.976 source telecined. Even if there was in other portions of the complete video, what I've seen is enough to stop you from trying to do IVTC.

Sorry, but that is why you are having issues.

Nothing to be sorry about. Ahhh...I think this help me come closer to understanding why some 59.94 fps will go to 23.976 and why some I have to use HandBrake still to get 29.97. When I use HandBrake I leave the Detelecine option "Off" in the Filters Tab, and the other filters "off" as well, but in the Video Tab I change the "framerate" to 23.976 or 29.97, and with this video I used 29.97. Then switch "Peak Framerate" to "Constant Framerate" and I notice totally smooth video. But I haven't found any info through HandBreak to find any filter switches like you can for AVISynth. But since it doesn't use AVISynth.. I'm not able to repeat this with BD-RB. HandBreak is a transcoder ONLY. But the video result is smooth, and I'm...not...a fan of transcoding. Since too much is "yanked" from the video which is already lower quality from Cable TV.

With a previous version of BD-RB, (49.xx)...??... I'd have to go back to check, anyway, then BD-RB was able to get 59.94 to 23.976 with IVTC, but since then it hasn't. So, I think there was a bug that JD caught. Laughing, I remember thinking, "Ahhh, man!! Back to HandBreak" since it wouldn't do it anymore.

Anyway, now I know there are 2 possible differences in 59.94, not just a "bug" causing a challenge. This is what's really complex to me and I'm attempting to understand it. Hence the joking friendly comment to Lathe a while back.

This is why I wondered if there's "switch" that could be added to BD-RB (not really knowing how else to ask the question) to "force?" a 23.976 or 29.97 framerate which HandBreak "seems" to do so a rerender without transcoding becomes possible. Hmm.. Really appreciate the continuity help with this. I also understand why JD prefers sources like this to be kept in original form.

[m.rup]

Hello,

In Full-backup mode there is no chance to blank some of the very annoying m2ts files (mostly warnings) because they are not included in streamlist (even with MIN_M2TS_SIZE=0 set).


That's also my experience, from some discs you can remove all boring warnings, from other ones (e.g. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2) you can't. I use MultiAVCHD in that cases, but since it seems to be not longer developed, it fails on new movies more and more. It would be really great if BR would allow to blank all warnings, regardles where they are hidden.

[MrVideo]

Nothing to be sorry about. Ahhh...I think this help me come closer to understanding why some 59.94 fps will go to 23.976 and why some I have to use HandBrake still to get 29.97.
Why do you want to convert 59.94 source material to 29.97, when the source contains true 59.94 fps video? By doing so, you've reduced the time spatial info.
This is why I wondered if there's "switch" that could be added to BD-RB (not really knowing how else to ask the question) to "force?" a 23.976 or 29.97 framerate which HandBreak "seems" to do so a rerender without transcoding becomes possible.
Transcoding is generally when you go from one video codec to another, i.e., MPEG-2 to H.264, or H.264 to H.265. This requires a re-encoding, which you are calling a rerender.

Keep in mind that changing frame rates also requires a re-encoding. There is no way around that. You can't just "drop" frames in a 59.94 fps video to get to 29.97 fps. That isn't the way digital video works.

[AmigaFuture]

I can see the difference between using CloneDVD 2 from Elaborate Bytes if allowing it to clone a DVD using DVD-5 transcoding for rerendering vs DVD-RB's BEST 2-pass rerendering using HC as the encoder after disabling CloneDVD 2's transcoding using DVD DL. As an example. That means to me, using CloneDVD 2 to clone to a DVD-5 uses it's transcoder to rerender. Using it to process in conjunction with AnyDVD to rip a DVD but using DVD DL disables the transcoder and makes it all lossless to then use DVD-RB to rerender in 2-pass in BEST quality produces a much better looking DVD, I can see very well. I can also see the transcoded CloneDVD 2 version looking much worse, but to "normal eyes" of friends, it looks ok or GOOD.

When using BD-RB and disabling CRF/ABR I can see a difference in quality in whatever video I'm having it rerender. To me, and I'm realizing now that I might have been misunderstanding something in the reencoding process for some years now, that means transcodiing is disabled and quality encoding is happening.

I understand it doesn't "drop" the frames, I'm lacking in technical words to explain and attempting to get it across. :-) I understand when I used 29.97 and changed to Constant Framerate that means clicking "Start" means it starts a rerendering process otherwise it would all be lossless, or untouched.

In my mind, and I'm realizing I might have accepted something incorrectly for some years, that if the video is rerendered to it's actual source framerate that it's in better quality, AND...you can change the size of the file to fit projects. I'm still considering I might have taken on some misunderstandings. Ahhh, evolution.

[MrVideo]

There is no such thing as lossless recoding. Any time a video is recoded, there are digital losses. Depending on the bitrate involved, the loss can be so subtle that the viewer cannot see it. But, each and every re-encoding results in added digital artifacts. Initially, the broadcast industry was kinda worried about the re-encoding that goes on from the production stage up thru the broadcast stage. But, that point is kinds moot now that the video that is broadcast (OTA/cable/DBS) is so bit starved that it can look horrible.

You also cannot have something re-encoded and have it "look better" than the original. It is impossible to create something from nothing. It it like those TV shows where a still image, or surveillance video, is "enhanced" to get a sharp clear image. A crappy pixel image is going to stay a crappy pixel image.

When you re-encode from 59.94 fps to 29.97 fps, one of two things has to happen: 1) every other frame is dropped, or 2) two consecutive frames are blended together to create a single frame. You didn't say why you want to go to 29.07 fps, instead of keeping the original 59.94 fps video.

The general rule of thumb is that when you re-encode, in order to reduce the added artifacts, is to have at least a 2:1 bitrate difference. That means if the resulting bitrate is 10 Mbps, the source bitrate needs to be 20 Mbps, or more. Keep in mind that 20 Mbps MPEG-2 video is approximately equal to H.264 video at 40 Mbps. So, recoding 10 Mbps MPEG-2 video to 10 Mbps MPEG-2 video does nothing but add digital artifacts. It will not result in a better looking video. Recoding from 10 Mbps MPEG-2 video to 10 Mbps H.264 video will result in fewer digital artifacts due to the 2:1 ratio and the better H.264 encoder. But, in all cases, the resultant recoded video will not look better than the original.

[Lathe]

Why do you want to convert 59.94 source material to 29.97, when the source contains true 59.94 fps video? By doing so, you've reduced the time spatial info.

Transcoding is generally when you go from one video codec to another, i.e., MPEG-2 to H.264, or H.264 to H.265. This requires a re-encoding, which you are calling a rerender.

Keep in mind that changing frame rates also requires a re-encoding. There is no way around that. You can't just "drop" frames in a 59.94 fps video to get to 29.97 fps. That isn't the way digital video works.

I THINK, if I understand this correctly, that in the past I've just left the video at 59.94 (I can't remember exactly what I did to 'double' the rate - IDK if it had something to do with it being interlaced or something...) Anyway, the 'doubled' rate at 59.94 looked a LOT better than when I tried to convert it to, what, 23.xx, I don't remember. But, since my player simply played the 59.94 perfectly fine 'as is', I just left it.

Now, you were saying that you cannot change the frame rate without re-encoding. How then does TSMuxer allow you to change the frame rate for the video track when it is simply remuxing the file...? Many times I get 'a hold of' an MKV file where when I drop it into TSMuxer it shows an improper frame rate of 90,000 fps (or something like that) I just choose the correct fps from the drop down menu. I can choose 24,000/0001, 24, 25, 30, 30,000/0001 if I remember correctly, and when I remux it, the actual frame rate DOES change to whatever I've chosen. So, if it is the wrong one, the A/V sync will be off.

How can it do this without re-encoding?

[MrVideo]

You aren't changing the frame rate, you are setting it to the correct one. The frame rate is set in the file. When you see that 90k frame rate, it means that it was not set, or not set correctly.

[jdobbs]

There is no such thing as lossless recoding.Actually there is. It's typically huge, but you can use a lossless setting in X264 and get an exact duplicate of the original in which the rendered picture will match bit-for-bit. There are also several lossless codecs that will do the same.

[jdobbs]

How then does TSMuxer allow you to change the frame rate for the video track when it is simply remuxing the file...? I think he's talking about changing the framerate but staying temporally accurate. You can change the frame rate without reencoding by only changing the internal flags (that indicate framerate) -- but (unless it is using pulldown flags and you're doing iVTC) the video will speed up or slow down and not be accurate temporally.

In telecining the video is actually 23.976fps (24fps)... and then pulldown flags are used to repeat fields and a new frame is generated for every 4 that actually exists during playback. In simple iVTC you can just reset those flags and the result comes out at the original frame rate. Telecining was created so that 24fps films could be easily converted to NTSC (29.97fps) for broadcast.

Pulldown flags can also be used for other conversions (like PAL->NTSC or FILM->PAL) but you don't see that as often.

[MrVideo]

Actually there is. It's typically huge, but you can use a lossless setting in X264 and get an exact duplicate of the original in which the rendered picture will match bit-for-bit.
Then just copy the original video file. :D

[MrVideo]

In telecining the video is actually 23.976fps (24fps)... and then pulldown flags are used to repeat fields and a new frame is generated for every 4 that actually exists during playback. In simple iVTC you can just reset those flags and the result comes out at the original frame rate.
The only service that I know of that uses pulldown flags is HBO.

[Sharc]

Then just copy the original video file. :D
And how to convert the format by just copying?

[MrVideo]

And how to convert the format by just copying?
You can't convert the format and have a bit-for-bit copy. Maybe our ideas of what a format change is, is a little different.

[Sharc]

You can't convert the format and have a bit-for-bit copy. Maybe our ideas of what a format change is, is a little different.
I think our ideas of "lossless compression" are different.
The comparison is after decoding, i.e. after reconstruction of the original data.

[MrVideo]

I think our ideas of "lossless compression" are different.
The comparison is after decoding, i.e. after reconstruction of the original data.
It therefore cannot be lossless. As soon as you decode the video, it is turned into raw video. When you then run it through a MPEG-2, H.264 or H.265 encoder, it is compressed. Especially at the bitrates that we typically use.

An example of a lossless compressor is a program that produces TIFF images. MPEG-2, H.264 or H.265 encoders are lossy.

Take a look at: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/768999/what-is-a-good-lossless-video-codec

Google lossless video encoder for more places to look.

[jdobbs]

The only service that I know of that uses pulldown flags is HBO.Well, that, and pretty much every DVD that has ever been encoded for US distribution. That's millions...

[jdobbs]

You can't convert the format and have a bit-for-bit copy. Maybe our ideas of what a format change is, is a little different.Listen, I know you think you know what you're talking about -- but you're completely wrong. What, exactly, do you think "lossless" means? It means no loss.

[jdobbs]

You can't convert the format and have a bit-for-bit copy. Maybe our ideas of what a format change is, is a little different.Yes. You can. It's completely silly to say otherwise and just shows that you don't understand how it works. I'm sorry -- but that is a fact.

Example: You display the individual frames and save them with no encoding. Is that not lossless? When you look at the frames after encoding it will match bit-for-bit. Now -- use a lossless encoding method (there are hundreds of them) -- when it recreates the image it is EXACTLY THE SAME BIT-FOR-BIT PICTURE as the original.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it any less a fact. H.264, MPEG-2, etc are not typically lossless. But there are many, many encoding methods that reduce size without losing a single bit. When you zip a file, do you expect the same output as input? Yes, because a zip uses lossless compression. There are also video codecs that use lossless compression methods that are designed specifically for video.

[jdobbs]

I think our ideas of "lossless compression" are different.
The comparison is after decoding, i.e. after reconstruction of the original data.A true lossless encoding doesn't change the original. It is an EXACT duplicate. That's the whole purpose of lossless encoding -- it has no changes between encoding generations. You could do 9000 generations and have absolutely no difference between the original and the 900th encode. I'm not talking about "almost lossless" I mean lossless. You'd probably also find that the intermediate (compressed) files are exact duplicates as well.

[MrVideo]

Well, that, and pretty much every DVD that has ever been encoded for US distribution. That's millions...
I said service. DVD releases are not a service.

[MrVideo]

Listen, I know you think you know what you're talking about -- but you're completely wrong. What, exactly, do you think "lossless" means? It means no loss.
Exactly. Yet, posters seem to think that they can get lossless recoding using H.264, which is defined as a lossy codec.

[MrVideo]

Example: You display the individual frames and save them with no encoding. Is that not lossless? When you look at the frames after encoding it will match bit-for-bit. Now -- use a lossless encoding method (there are hundreds of them) -- when it recreates the image it is EXACTLY THE SAME BIT-FOR-BIT PICTURE as the original.
Yes, using a lossless encoder. We are talking about MPEG-2, H.264 and H.265 encoders. You can't burn lossless encoder output to a Blu-ray using BD-RB. Lossy encoders cannot create lossless output. That is the point I've been trying to make. While you can set the encoders to be as near lossless (not truly lossless), it can create unmanageable file sizes.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it any less a fact. H.264, MPEG-2, etc are not typically lossless. But there are many, many encoding methods that reduce size without losing a single bit. There are also video codecs that use lossless compression methods that are designed specifically for video.
See above about using lossless encoders by users of BD-RB.

I do understand what I am talking about. I just do not seem to be getting the info across.

[jdobbs]

You will also note that X264 has a lossless mode.Lossy encoders cannot create lossless output. That is the point I've been trying to make. You're misrepresenting your position. Your statement quoted exactly was There is no such thing as lossless recoding. Any time a video is recoded, there are digital losses. That statement was wrong, no matter how hard to try to change it or its intent.In telecining the video is actually 23.976fps (24fps)... and then pulldown flags are used to repeat fields and a new frame is generated for every 4 that actually exists during playback. In simple iVTC you can just reset those flags and the result comes out at the original frame rate.
The only service that I know of that uses pulldown flags is HBO.I said service. DVD releases are not a service.Why would you respond to my post talking just about "service" when you know the description is accurate in response to the original subject of how framerate can be changed in a video file without changing the underlying video. Sounds to me, again, like you're trying to misrepresent the intent of your post in order to attempt to be "right". Why even post a response at all?

[AmigaFuture]

There is no such thing as lossless recoding. Any time a video is recoded, there are digital losses. Depending on the bitrate involved, the loss can be so subtle that the viewer cannot see it. But, each and every re-encoding results in added digital artifacts. Initially, the broadcast industry was kinda worried about the re-encoding that goes on from the production stage up thru the broadcast stage. But, that point is kinds moot now that the video that is broadcast (OTA/cable/DBS) is so bit starved that it can look horrible.

CloneDVD 2 with DVD DL active will pass the video/audio through (lossless) and remove Layer Break as well as languages if you choose. I usually don't, I allow other software to remove it. But for ripping, it's a nice GUI.

You also cannot have something re-encoded and have it "look better" than the original. It is impossible to create something from nothing. It it like those TV shows where a still image, or surveillance video, is "enhanced" to get a sharp clear image. A crappy pixel image is going to stay a crappy pixel image.

I wasn't meaning it would look better. I meant that I can see the difference in rerendering in transcoding and higher quality. Many people I know don't see it, but I do. Upscaling a video can look really good, but I do agree...not better than the original. Some Star Trek TNG is showing through Cable and they've "upscaled" the video some, and I can see the "fuzziness" but I like the show..so I "ignore it", haha.

When you re-encode from 59.94 fps to 29.97 fps, one of two things has to happen: 1) every other frame is dropped, or 2) two consecutive frames are blended together to create a single frame. You didn't say why you want to go to 29.07 fps, instead of keeping the original 59.94 fps video.

File size for storage and making disks...or discs. Also, sometimes, for keeping it closer to "original" framerates. But TV shows I'm starting to think..if it's 59.94 then just remove the commercials and it's in great quality since it IS from TV and they aren't using Blu-ray or HD great quality. That's saved for the series/moves we buy.

The general rule of thumb is that when you re-encode, in order to reduce the added artifacts, is to have at least a 2:1 bitrate difference. That means if the resulting bitrate is 10 Mbps, the source bitrate needs to be 20 Mbps, or more. Keep in mind that 20 Mbps MPEG-2 video is approximately equal to H.264 video at 40 Mbps. So, recoding 10 Mbps MPEG-2 video to 10 Mbps MPEG-2 video does nothing but add digital artifacts. It will not result in a better looking video. Recoding from 10 Mbps MPEG-2 video to 10 Mbps H.264 video will result in fewer digital artifacts due to the 2:1 ratio and the better H.264 encoder. But, in all cases, the resultant recoded video will not look better than the original.[/QUOTE]

Argh, that 2:1 stuff is still very confusing to me. I under 4:3 is SD and 16:9 is Letterbox or HD...but otherwise...

I don't think I'll ever be a fan of MiB and Mbps. I still love and understand MB and KB or Kb. But I get your idea. :-)

[AmigaFuture]

Actually there is. It's typically huge, but you can use a lossless setting in X264 and get an exact duplicate of the original in which the rendered picture will match bit-for-bit. There are also several lossless codecs that will do the same.

Okay!! Ahhh, yeah, this I have read and I have used them some years ago. They are uncompressed images. Thanks, JD, I knew I remembered correctly. Like BMP can be compressed or not, same as the old IFF format the Amiga used to name a couple. Indeed, very large. A lot of people don't know what compression is that I know. When I talk about it I'm usually asked what it means. I don't go into the details that MrVideo does but it gets it across. :D

[MrVideo]

You will also note that X264 has a lossless mode.
I admit that I didn't know that x264/ffmpeg had a lossless mode. I found the following in the ffmpeg site:
[code]Note that lossless output files will likely be huge, and most non-FFmpeg based players will not be able to decode lossless, so if compatibility or file size issues you should not use lossless. If you're looking for an output that is roughly "visually lossless" but not technically lossless use a -crf value of around 17 or 18 (you'll have to experiment to see which value is acceptable for you). It will likely be indistinguishable from the source and not result in a huge, possibly incompatible file like true lossless mode.[/quote]

A lot of my wording indeed left a lot to be desired. Posts, not just by me, went astray from just changing the frame rate.

I got the impression from posts that usable lossless output could be created for use with BD-RB, or at least desired. Yes, I did not include DVD sources. I limited responses to HD sources and should have said so.

For files that members want to change from 29.97 to 23.976 that do not have pulldown flags (a majority of MPEG-2/H.264 HD videos), lossless recoding is not really a choice. The files will be way too large and more-than-likely not playable. Most certainly can't be burned to Blu-ray by BD-RB, as is.

So, in a broad sense, the way HD videos are used with BD-RB, lossless recoding doesn't exist. As noted in the above quote, "visually lossless" output is very possible. I do it all the time.

Time to move on. We've each made our points.

[MrVideo]

Argh, that 2:1 stuff is still very confusing to me. I under 4:3 is SD and 16:9 is Letterbox or HD...but otherwise...
Ah, but there is 4:3 HD. Your ST:TNG mention is a prime example. They went back to the original film negatives and rescanned for HD. While the actual video that is displayed is 16:9, the 4:3 content is pillarboxed within the 16:9 frame.

BTW, the 2:1 ratio tends to be moot at extremely high bit rates. :D