BD Rebuilder Beta - Bug Reports Only

[jdobbs]

I don't think Roman will come back to create a new version of TsMuxer.
Would not it be easier to create a new muxer?

I had started making one before it corrects 3D. But I dropped because he had made his.

If only we had the source code.There is source code out there for TSRemux, which might make a start.

But, honestly, I don't think the issue is TSMUXER. If I use the original HEVC file from a disc, without reencoding, TSMUXER will mux it correctly, and all I have to do is go back and make some changes to update it to UHD-BD format (type codes, extensions, versions, etc.). When I put that in my Sony UHD-BD player, it plays back flawlessly.

I think the issue is X265, or at least every setting assortment that I've tried with X265. I have yet to find a configuration that doesn't have some issue when it is muxed. Now, to be fair, an HEVC file created with X265 will work fine when muxed with MKVMERGE -- but the UHD-BD standard's requirements don't exist when you do that, so it's kind of apples and oranges.

[LowDead]

Maybe use x265 for alternative mkv output and try hardware encoding for UHD BD, like NVENC, QuickSync and/or APP? Sure, one would lose some quality but would instead gain speed. This is the road the others have taken and it works for them.. I have no clue whatsoever though how much work would be needed to implement this.

[jdobbs]

Maybe use x265 for alternative mkv output and try hardware encoding for UHD BD, like NVENC, QuickSync and/or APP? Sure, one would lose some quality but would instead gain speed. This is the road the others have taken and it works for them.. I have no clue whatsoever though how much work would be needed to implement this.Yeah. That may be the way to go. I'd have to spend money on a nvidia card that supports NVENC/HEVC, though. Are there any cheap ones? I'm not sure what processor I'd have to have in order to support QuickSync... right now the only Intel processor I have in use is an i5.

[Lathe]

Yeah. That may be the way to go. I'd have to spend money on a nvidia card that supports NVENC/HEVC, though. Are there any cheap ones? I'm not sure what processor I'd have to have in order to support QuickSync... right now the only Intel processor I have in use is an i5.

Uh huh...

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd... if somebody had a simple easy to use gmail PayPal account instead of an antiquated, cumbersome Amazon gift card setup... http://lathe-of-heaven.com/rolleyes2.gif

[Mark_Venture]

Yeah. That may be the way to go. I'd have to spend money on a nvidia card that supports NVENC/HEVC, though. Are there any cheap ones? I'm not sure what processor I'd have to have in order to support QuickSync... right now the only Intel processor I have in use is an i5.
For Nvidia card... see https://developer.nvidia.com/video-encode-decode-gpu-support-matrix

It appears any GTX 10x0 card will work for NVENC, but for NVDEC it appears RTX 20x0 adds VP8 and will be getting support for H.265 (HEVC) 4:4:4 (8/10/12bit) "soon"

Has anyone found a chart that compares speed and quality between GTX10x0 and RTX20x0 cards? I've only seen what Nvidia said about RTX on their developer blog (https://devblogs.nvidia.com/nvidia-turing-architecture-in-depth/)... Turing’s new display engine supports HDR processing natively in the display pipeline. Tone mapping has also been added to the HDR pipeline. Tone mapping is a technique used to approximate the look of high dynamic range images on standard dynamic range displays. Turing supports the tone mapping formula defined by the ITU-R Recommendation BT.2100 standard to avoid color shift on different HDR displays.

Turing GPUs also ship with an enhanced NVENC encoder unit that adds support for H.265 (HEVC) 8K encode at 30 fps. The new NVENC encoder provides up to 25% bitrate savings for HEVC and up to 15% bitrate savings for H.264.

Turing’s new NVDEC decoder has also been updated to support decoding of HEVC YUV444 10/12b HDR at 30 fps, H.264 8K, and VP9 10/12b HDR.

Turing improves encoding quality compared to prior generation Pascal GPUs and compared to software encoders. Figure 11 shows that on common Twitch and YouTube streaming settings, Turing’s video encoder exceeds the quality of the x264 software-based encoder using the fast encode settings, with dramatically lower CPU utilization. 4K streaming is too heavy a workload for encoding on typical CPU setups, but Turing’s encoder makes 4K streaming possible.I've not seen any tests or reporting to validate these claims.

As for Quicksync, there is a list of processors that support QuickSync here -> https://ark.intel.com/Search/FeatureFilter?productType=processors&QuickSyncVideo=true but it doesn't have an easy way of knowing any other details..

[Ch3vr0n]

Yeah. That may be the way to go. I'd have to spend money on a nvidia card that supports NVENC/HEVC, though. Are there any cheap ones? I'm not sure what processor I'd have to have in order to support QuickSync... right now the only Intel processor I have in use is an i5.

Any Now that the RTX 20xx series is released, the 10xx series should start dropping in price. That said, just about ANY 10xx series can do HEVC encoding. Though i wouldnt go anything lower than a 1070 for that. I'd wait at least until black friday, or if you could hold off, until january. Then the 20xx series should really be in stock in general, and prices should drop even lower.

[zamengo]

I think NVENC not the best way.

There's a bug cause wrong resolution:

https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/1032118/video-codec-sdk/nvenc-hevc-encoding-of-3840x2160-results-in-coded-size-of-3840x2176/post/5252875/#5252875

This size of 3840x2176p don't run on Xbox One S.

[gonca]

I think NVENC not the best way.

There's a bug cause wrong resolution:

https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/1032118/video-codec-sdk/nvenc-hevc-encoding-of-3840x2160-results-in-coded-size-of-3840x2176/post/5252875/#5252875

This size of 3840x2176p don't run on Xbox One S.

Not a bug, it is standard compliant, I have no problem with playback, but I don't use Xbox

Re quality
At the bitrates we are talking about the quality is good

[LowDead]

Any Now that the RTX 20xx series is released, the 10xx series should start dropping in price. That said, just about ANY 10xx series can do HEVC encoding. Though i wouldnt go anything lower than a 1070 for that. I'd wait at least until black friday, or if you could hold off, until january. Then the 20xx series should really be in stock in general, and prices should drop even lower.

I only have a 1060 3GB card and it works great encoding HEVC. Great quality full disc in 30-60minutes with occasional encodes at 90 minutes.

[jdobbs]

Uh huh...

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd... if somebody had a simple easy to use gmail PayPal account instead of an antiquated, cumbersome Amazon gift card setup... http://lathe-of-heaven.com/rolleyes2.gifAs I have explained many times before -- PayPal killed my account because they (incorrectly) decided this software violates some rule -- even though I explained clearly that there is no code involved that circumvents any copyright protection in any way. I argued with them until I was blue in the face -- and they essentially said "F-ck you, we don't care."

So I'd appreciate it if you'd just stop hounding me about something that can't happen.

[jdobbs]

I only have a 1060 3GB card and it works great encoding HEVC. Great quality full disc in 30-60minutes with occasional encodes at 90 minutes.Thanks. The downside of using anything other than X265, of course, is that then it would only work for those who spend a lot on NVidia cards, or those that spend a lot on a compliant Intel processor.

I'd prefer to stick with X265, but if I can't find a solution in the near future I may be forced to dump it. Too bad. It's really good software that just seems to be incapable of outputting a UHD-BD compliant stream. I would seem to me that they would make that a priority considering the number of UHD-BDs being produced out there.

[Edit] I just looked at the pricing of NVidia cards in the GTX 1060/1070 category... the price is ridiculous, that ain't happening any time soon. I'd rather park the software without UHD support than pay that much and force my user base to do the same.

[zargana]

[Edit] I just looked at the pricing of NVidia cards in the GTX 1060/1070 category... the price is ridiculous, that ain't happening any time soon. I'd rather park the software without UHD support than pay that much and force my user base to do the same.

No need to get such expensive card. I have a cheap 1050 GTX 2GB and Dvdfab takes about an hour to compress UHD sources to BD-50.
Not good quality though even with slower compression. No option to remove unwanted streams to save space for video quality.

[Lathe]

As I have explained many times before -- PayPal killed my account because they (incorrectly) decided this software violates some rule -- even though I explained clearly that there is no code involved that circumvents any copyright protection in any way. I argued with them until I was blue in the face -- and they essentially said "F-ck you, we don't care."

So I'd appreciate it if you'd just stop hounding me about something that can't happen.

Okay Boss... But, just so I understand (so that I don't get vaporized...) You can't just simply make up an anybody gmail account like everyone else (for example JDRox@gmail) where just anyone for any reason what so ever can send money that 'officially' has absolutely NOTHING to do with BDRB...??? Isn't it fully anonymous enough where ANYONE can do that where friend 'A' can send money to friend 'B'...? Truly I cannot understand why you can't do that (thus my continuously harping on it :))

[Lathe]

Oh, just another thought... :) Why not simply set up some random gmail or email account for your wife and just 'tell' us here on the message boards what it is so that we know? You don't have to 'officially' attach it to BDRB, it will just be your wife. That way we can always very easily just 'send money' to that address 'friend to friend' Why in the name of all that is Holy can't you do that...? I'm try'n to help you here man... http://lathe-of-heaven.com/yes.gif

I REALLY would just like to be able to shoot some money over to some e'mail address so that you can get it when I happen to have it. Like, "Oh, I have an extra $20, I think that I'll just shoot it over to JD at 'IwishIhadaBiggerxxx@gmail.com'?", DONE! It would be SO much easier and I just about can guarantee that more people will send you money if they can do it that easily. For some odd reason, I just don't like the Amazon thing, IDK why... If there is honestly some good reason you can't do that, could you please tell me so that I will understand and stop bothering you...? Thanks!

[MrVideo]

You can't just simply make up an anybody gmail account like everyone else (for example JDRox@gmail) where just anyone for any reason what so ever can send money that 'officially' has absolutely NOTHING to do with BDRB...??? Isn't it fully anonymous enough where ANYONE can do that where friend 'A' can send money to friend 'B'...?
You are forgetting that the user needs to supply bank account info in order to get the money from/to the PayPal account. While the old PayPal account won't be active, PayPal will keep records and will look up bank info to determine if a user is trying to play that trick.

[LowDead]

As I have explained many times before -- PayPal killed my account because they (incorrectly) decided this software violates some rule -- even though I explained clearly that there is no code involved that circumvents any copyright protection in any way. I argued with them until I was blue in the face -- and they essentially said "F-ck you, we don't care."

So I'd appreciate it if you'd just stop hounding me about something that can't happen.

There are some alternatives to PayPal though, which may not be as thickheaded as PP.

https://ecommerce-platforms.com/articles/paypal-alternatives

[jdobbs]

You are forgetting that the user needs to supply bank account info in order to get the money from/to the PayPal account. While the old PayPal account won't be active, PayPal will keep records and will look up bank info to determine if a user is trying to play that trick.Exactly. The money has to go somewhere. Here in the US you also have to either provide a SSN or business FEIN, if you are receiving money, so PayPal can comply with federal law.

[Mark_Venture]

[Edit] I just looked at the pricing of NVidia cards in the GTX 1060/1070 category... the price is ridiculous, that ain't happening any time soon. I'd rather park the software without UHD support than pay that much and force my user base to do the same.GTX1050 cards will work and can be had for as low as $160 for a 2GB card.

There are some deals on GTX1060 6gig cards, like BB has an EVGA GTX1060 SSC 6GB card for $280 (sale, regular price has ranged between $340-370 range). But GTX1060 3GB non-OC cards can be as low as $240 regularly.

Its still a lot, if you are otherwise not in need of upgrading, or if these cards aren't as "fast" as your current card for "day to day" work.

BUT you have to keep in mind, which you already alluded to... There is NVENC, QS and even an AMD variant if you decide to look at it... so woudln't BD-RB get more complex to manage? You'd have to build routines for each of the 3 variants, add a method for selecting the method, etc. No to mention debugging... having to be sure the user tells you if they are using NVENC, QS, AMD, or software when it fails... I mean sure you could pick one (that works with what hardware you already have) and add that first... and go from there, but still...

Is that getting beyond the scope of BD-RB?


...I'd prefer to stick with X265, but if I can't find a solution in the near future I may be forced to dump it. Too bad. It's really good software that just seems to be incapable of outputting a UHD-BD compliant stream. I would seem to me that they would make that a priority considering the number of UHD-BDs being produced out there.Sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on the discussions on this topic... is this only an issue for doing a UHD-BD image/copy/backup? I mean, it doesn't impact Alt-Movie Only to MKV does it?

[Ch3vr0n]

Well if a 1050 works, all the better off course. Just don't recommend buying one arm, prices still way too high

Verstuurd vanaf mijn Nexus 6P met Tapatalk

[omegaman7]

Well if a 1050 works, all the better off course. Just don't recommend buying one arm, prices still way too high

Verstuurd vanaf mijn Nexus 6P met Tapatalk

I'm with you. I was hoping the 2000 series would drive costs down. But their improvement was marginally better, unfortunately.

I'm still sporting a GTX 570 lol. I've been told a 1050 would be a fair upgrade for me. But I'm afraid it may not handle GTA V @ 4k well enough. I believe a 1070 ti would give me 2+ years of contentment. I've seen a few under $400. Strongly considering black friday purchases of a monitor, and GPU. I'm a tight wad... we'll see if something tempts me lol

[jdobbs]

Sorry, I'm a little fuzzy on the discussions on this topic... is this only an issue for doing a UHD-BD image/copy/backup? I mean, it doesn't impact Alt-Movie Only to MKV does it?No. Alt-Movie-Only is fine. The only problem is when you try to create a UHD-BD structure and play it back on a UHD-BD player.

Interestingly, you can output to an MKV and play it back on a UHD player that supports an MKV just fine (since an MKV file doesn't have to be UHD-BD compliant). So the issue is (apparently) just getting X265 to create a compliant stream.

[jdobbs]

I'm with you. I was hoping the 2000 series would drive costs down. But their improvement was marginally better, unfortunately.

I'm still sporting a GTX 570 lol. I've been told a 1050 would be a fair upgrade for me. But I'm afraid it may not handle GTA V @ 4k well enough. I believe a 1070 ti would give me 2+ years of contentment. I've seen a few under $400. Strongly considering black friday purchases of a monitor, and GPU. I'm a tight wad... we'll see if something tempts me lolYou think you're a tightwad? I'm still using a GT520 on my video computer.

[Lathe]

You are forgetting that the user needs to supply bank account info in order to get the money from/to the PayPal account. While the old PayPal account won't be active, PayPal will keep records and will look up bank info to determine if a user is trying to play that trick.

Ah, I see... But, surely JD is rich and powerful and has numerous bank accounts, on and off-shore, that he could use...?

[mparade]

Is it recommended to run more instances of BD-RB when the processor utilization is too low using only one instance with x264?

[MrVideo]

Exactly. The money has to go somewhere. Here in the US you also have to either provide a SSN or business FEIN, if you are receiving money, so PayPal can comply with federal law.
Personal receipt of money does not require SSN or FEIN.

[jdobbs]

Is it recommended to run more instances of BD-RB when the processor utilization is too low using only one instance with x264?Yes, that's why that function was created... but more recent versions of X264 made that feature less useful, as they use multiple processors much more effectively. Are you running lower than 90% processor utilization?

[jdobbs]

Ah, I see... But, surely JD is rich and powerful and has numerous bank accounts, on and off-shore, that he could use...?Personal receipt of money does not require SSN or FEIN.Given my prior experience with them, I'd rather eat dogsh-t off a hot sidewalk than ever do business with PayPal again. So there's that too.

[Lathe]

Given my prior experience with them, I'd rather eat dogsh-t off a hot sidewalk than ever do business with PayPal again. So there's that too.

Well then... (cough...) http://lathe-of-heaven.com/whistle.gif

[mparade]

Yes, that's why that function was created... but more recent versions of X264 made that feature less useful, as they use multiple processors much more effectively. Are you running lower than 90% processor utilization?

Between 35-41% with MULTIPROCESS=2 and 57-63% with MULTIPROCESS=4 and 76-90% with MULTIPROCESS=6.
Still testing this function but seems to be more than fantastic using Ryzen Threadripper.

[AmigaFuture]

There are a lot of hidden options to rerender video, to change video, but I don't see anything for changing BD menu(s) that have 4:3 set when 16:9 should be. I got a hold of a compilation BD, and the movies are fine in 16:9, if I play the .TS files (or convert them to MKV from BD-RB). MPC-HC plays them as should be. But through PDVD 12 and Player, naaaah. Every video "displays" as 4:3 until the menu. Which is 16:9. Pick a movie, and menu for it is displayed with an clip from the movie. In 4:3 with Subtitles On/Off, or back to menu...a cheap menu. Pick Play and the movie starts..in 4:3. For PDVD 12 I have to change "Keep Aspect Ratio" and select "Stretch to Fit Screen". Solved, but I'd like to not have to do that. Is there an option I haven't come across yet, or some other tool? I don't use TSMuxeR outside of BD-RB..so I'm not sure. I don't want to rerender the videos, so I suspect it's as "simple" as editing a DVD and changing a flag and saving back (DvdRemakePro) and is non-destructive to video. :-)

[gonca]

If so desired, those of us with GTX 10xx cards can run some tests so others don't have to get one unnecessarily

[MrVideo]

If so desired, those of us with GTX 10xx cards can run some tests so others don't have to get one unnecessarily
And how is this going to help the user that cannot afford a new GTX card? BDRB with UHD support that requires the purchase of an expensive graphics card is going to keep that user from using BDRB.

[gonca]

And how is this going to help the user that cannot afford a new GTX card? BDRB with UHD support that requires the purchase of an expensive graphics card is going to keep that user from using BDRB.
Maybe we can figure out some settings that carry over to software encoding
By the way, BDRB already supports DGIndexNV
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125920
Why don't you offer some suggestions to help the situation

[jdobbs]

Maybe we can figure out some settings that carry over to software encoding
By the way, BDRB already supports DGIndexNV
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125920
Why don't you offer some suggestions to help the situationYes. But DGIndexNV isn't required for BD-RB to work!

[gonca]

Yes. But DGIndexNV isn't required for BD-RB to work!

True, but CPU encoding is causing issues that you are having problems solving
There might be some setting that is causing the issue, I thought that using NVEnc for testing might show it and then the settings could be adapted to CPU encoding
Either way, to play UHD discs or files smoothly on a HTPC requires a GTX 10xx card or equivalent unless the bit rate is real low

[Wizzu]

Hi Jdobbs, hi all,

After 2 years without a glitch and dozens of flawless encodes,(thanks!), an old demon comes to haunt me again: AUDIO ENCODING ERRORS! My, oh my...:( :scared:

I suspect it's the source that is the culprit. ROME Season 2 Blu-rays. HD-XLL audio files.

With older versions of BD-Rebuilder (50.10.18 for instance), the error comes out as an AFTEN error. With the latest version, just as an audio encoding error.

Any idea?.....

-------------
[11/18/18] BD Rebuilder v0.60.04
[13:11:53] Source: ROME_SAISON_2_1-5
- Input BD size: 70.40 GB
- Approximate total content: [04:37:20.039]
- Target BD size: 22.95 GB
- Windows Version: 6.2 [9200]
- Quick-Play Reauthoring mode enabled
- Quality: High Quality (Default), Two Pass
- Decoding/Frame serving: DirectShow
- Audio Settings: AC3=0 DTS=1 HD=0 Kbs=448
[13:11:55] PHASE ONE, Encoding
- [13:11:55] Processing: VID_00001 (1 of 5)
- [13:11:55] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00001]
- [13:16:21] Reencoding video [VID_00001]
- Source Video: MPEG-4 (AVC), 1920x1080
- Rate/Length: 23.976fps, 83'199 frames
- Bitrate: 10'504 Kbs
- [13:16:21] Reencoding: VID_00001, Pass 1 of 2
- [14:17:59] Reencoding: VID_00001, Pass 2 of 2
- [16:56:44] Video Encode complete
- [16:56:44] Processing audio tracks
- Track 4352 (eng): Reencoding audio to AC3...
- [16:56:44] ReencodeAudio() 00075 1801
[18:21:44] - Failed to reencode audio, aborted

[Wizzu]

OK, I recalled that the first time I had audio encoding errors with BD-RB (in 2012... lol...) it was down to the use of a special character in the output path name. Specifically it was a "§" that was not accepted by AFTEN.

So I tried a couple of different path names with the ROME episodes. To my surprise I discovered that the culprit was the french diacritic character "É" (Episodes in french is "Épisodes"). BUT... only the uppercase "É": the lowercase "é" works OK... go figure! :confused:

It's stunning that non-english or special characters in folder/file names can still be an issue in 2018. Brings back memories from the 80's and DOS. Lol :D

Anyway, problem solved again. Audio encoding errors? Try changing the output path name to something simpler without accentuated or special characters.... ;)

[MrVideo]

Why don't you offer some suggestions to help the situation
I know nothing about UHD video. The settings I use to encode BD compliant video I got off the net from those who created/work with x264. As for x265, there has to be something out there that says what the settings should be for UHD compliant video. If the x265 developers want the industry to use their product, they have to be providing help somehow.

[gonca]

I know nothing about UHD video. The settings I use to encode BD compliant video I got off the net from those who created/work with x264. As for x265, there has to be something out there that says what the settings should be for UHD compliant video. If the x265 developers want the industry to use their product, they have to be providing help somehow.

The software is using x265 thru ffmpeg. Is the problem in x265 or the way ffmpeg does the settings

[jdobbs]

Update: I've found at least one source of the sync issues in UHD-BD. When you use closed GOPs (automatically set when --uhd-bd is used) TSMUXER randomly loses frames from the .hevc file when it is muxing, causing the sync issues. I have no idea why, but running a trace through all the packets shows the problem. It doesn't happen when I use an original .hevc file that came directly from a disc, so I'm not sure whether TSMUXER or X265 should get the blame.

What I found, though, is that I can generate an M2TS file using FFMPEG without the missing frames. Luckily FFMPEG has to be included with BD-RB for UHD anyway (in order to frame-serve HDR to X265). So right now the plan is to manually integrate the video stream from the FFMPEG output into a BD structure created by TSMUXER. The other option (if that gets problematic) is to simply have BD-RB generate the rest of the structure itself. If this works I may have a solution by Thanksgiving. But I've gone down a lot of other promising rabbit holes in the past few weeks -- so I'm not promising anything. Still, I'm cautiously optimistic.

[Lathe]

Update: I've found at least one source of the sync issues in UHD-BD. When you use closed GOPs (automatically set when --uhd-bd is used) TSMUXER randomly loses frames from the .hevc file when it is muxing, causing the sync issues. I have no idea why, but running a trace through all the packets shows the problem. It doesn't happen when I use an original .hevc file that came directly from a disc, so I'm not sure whether TSMUXER or X265 should get the blame.

What I found, though, is that I can generate an M2TS file using FFMPEG without the missing frames. Luckily FFMPEG has to be included with BD-RB for UHD anyway (in order to frame-serve HDR to X265). So right now the plan is to manually integrate the video stream from the FFMPEG output into a BD structure created by TSMUXER. The other option (if that gets problematic) is to simply have BD-RB generate the rest of the structure itself. If this works I may have a solution by Thanksgiving. But I've gone down a lot of other promising rabbit holes in the past few weeks -- so I'm not promising anything. Still, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Sounds clever and innovative Boss, good work! http://lathe-of-heaven.com/thumbsup.gif

[mparade]

Christmas is coming and BD-RB is better and better thanks to jdobbs incredible efforts. It is high time I prepared some "moderate" gift that can be put under the Christmas tree...:)

@Lathe

on the label of the present I am going to write: "Merry Christmas jdobbs!

mparade&Lathe", if you don't mind of course :)

[Lathe]

Christmas is coming and BD-RB is better and better thanks to jdobbs incredible efforts. It is high time I prepared some "moderate" gift that can be put under the Christmas tree...:)

@Lathe

on the label of the present I am going to write: "Merry Christmas jdobbs!

mparade&Lathe", if you don't mind of course :)

That is most kind mate! :)

[jdobbs]

Update: I've found at least one source of the sync issues in UHD-BD. When you use closed GOPs (automatically set when --uhd-bd is used) TSMUXER randomly loses frames from the .hevc file when it is muxing, causing the sync issues. I have no idea why, but running a trace through all the packets shows the problem. It doesn't happen when I use an original .hevc file that came directly from a disc, so I'm not sure whether TSMUXER or X265 should get the blame.

What I found, though, is that I can generate an M2TS file using FFMPEG without the missing frames. Luckily FFMPEG has to be included with BD-RB for UHD anyway (in order to frame-serve HDR to X265). So right now the plan is to manually integrate the video stream from the FFMPEG output into a BD structure created by TSMUXER. The other option (if that gets problematic) is to simply have BD-RB generate the rest of the structure itself. If this works I may have a solution by Thanksgiving. But I've gone down a lot of other promising rabbit holes in the past few weeks -- so I'm not promising anything. Still, I'm cautiously optimistic. Well... the FFMPEG M2TS output is pretty ugly and can't be used as-is. I'm going to have to scan the stream and make corrections. This will add more time (to write more code to do this) and to the process (scanning the stream). It already needs an extra conversion step to create timestamps (FFMPEG can't generate the M2TS directly from an hevc elementary stream). Uhhhgghh.

[Edit] An interesting sidenote. When TSMUXER creates its stream and misses frames during playback -- it never actually modifies the HEVC stream. If I demux it from the created M2TS the output is identical to what went in. What appears to be happening is that TSMUXER fails to recognize some of the frames -- and they don't get a timestamp for playback and (apparently) get lost in the PES packet of the previous frame. Not positive about that... guessing. I'll need to pull out the PES packets to know for sure.

The bottom line is that I'm not sure how long all this might take -- but Thanksgiving is out of the picture.

[LowDead]

Would this thread be of any interest?

https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=174491

[videoh]

Formally, per spec and common practice, not all pictures must have timestamps, because the decoder/player should interpolate them.

[jdobbs]

Formally, per spec and common practice, not all pictures must have timestamps, because the decoder/player should interpolate them.You missed the point... FFMPEG won't mux them without timestamps... whether they are required or not. But that's just one of many problems -- there are a ton of other issues. FFMPEG can't mux HEVC directly, so it has to go through something else first (like MKV or MP4) -- so much is lost, for example some of the NAL info that is required for BD muxing.

With that said, per the BD standard (para 9.4.6), all frames are required to have PTS values and all I/P frames must have PTS and DTS timestamps.

[Wizzu]

Hi!

I tried to use the feature "Use Tesseract to convert PGS to SRT".

- Downloaded Tesseract from your site and unzipped it in a folder
- Checked the relevant option in BDRB setup
- Entered the correct path when asked (checked since, by looking at the INI file)
- Loaded the source BD with PGS subtitles
- Launched the job

But the output subtitles are still PGS only. No SRTs to be found. Ideas?

[jdobbs]

Hi!

I tried to use the feature "Use Tesseract to convert PGS to SRT".

- Downloaded Tesseract from your site and unzipped it in a folder
- Checked the relevant option in BDRB setup
- Entered the correct path when asked (checked since, by looking at the INI file)
- Loaded the source BD with PGS subtitles
- Launched the job

But the output subtitles are still PGS only. No SRTs to be found. Ideas?What output format are you using? It must be ALTERNATE to an MKV or an MP4. Do you have a log?

[Wizzu]

It must be ALTERNATE to an MKV or an MP4. Doh! Didn't gather that. Sorry. I was trying a standard Blu-Ray output. My bad then.

I certainly don't want to sound like a brat (even though I tend to be one sometimes :D), but the feature would be nice to have with regular BR output (and specially for Quick-play output)... reason being that I like to change the color and position of my BD subtitles (through remuxing with Tsmuxer) before burning discs, so I tend to OCR [PGS's → SRT] quite often. Having BD-RB do that automatically would have avoided me the additional step of de-muxing the BDRB output before OCR. :cool:

No biggie. Congrats again for the long way you came since you started the project. The software is now very reliable and full of great features. I'm starting to wonder why you still consider it in beta, actually. :)