BD Rebuilder Beta - Bug Reports Only

[AmigaFuture]

noticed when encoding its using the 32bit version of x264 ?? why is it not using 64 bit

also how do you add stuff to the avisynth script, i want to enable the MT mode ?

Thanks

I've noticed that, and I've wondered why "it's" not doing it also. The rest is redundant. :)

[Michi]

Error on Wizard of OZ:

[11.21.19] BD Rebuilder v0.60.29
[19:50:51] Source: WIZARD_OF_OZ
- Input BD size: 77,81 GB
- Approximate total content: [02:46:04.245]
- Target BD size: 46,26 GB
- Windows Version: 6.2 [9200]
- Quality: Good (Fastest, BD-25+), ABR
- Decoding/Frame serving: FFMPEG
- Audio Settings: AC3=0 DTS=0 HD=1 Kbs=448
[19:50:51] PHASE ONE, Encoding
- [19:50:51] Processing: VID_00000 (1 of 9)
- [19:50:51] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00000]
- [19:50:55] Reencoding video [VID_00000]
- Source Video: HEVC, 3840x2160
- Rate/Length: 23,976fps, 486 frames
- Bitrate: 12.895 Kbs
- [19:50:55] Reencoding: VID_00000, Pass 1 of 1
- [19:51:23] Video Encode complete
- [19:51:23] Processing audio tracks
- [19:51:23] Multiplexing M2TS
- [19:51:27] Processing: VID_00001 (2 of 9)
- [19:51:27] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00001]
- [19:51:31] Reencoding video [VID_00001]
- Source Video: HEVC, 3840x2160
- Rate/Length: 23,976fps, 457 frames
- Bitrate: 5.393 Kbs
- [19:51:31] Reencoding: VID_00001, Pass 1 of 1
- [19:51:57] Video Encode complete
- [19:51:57] Processing audio tracks
- [19:51:57] Multiplexing M2TS
- [19:52:00] Processing: VID_00002 (3 of 9)
- [19:52:01] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00002]
- [19:53:56] Reencoding video [VID_00002]
- Source Video: HEVC, 1920x1080
- Rate/Length: 23,976fps, 74.301 frames
- Bitrate: 32.449 Kbs
- [19:53:56] Reencoding: VID_00002, Pass 1 of 1
- [20:13:41] Video Encode complete
- [20:13:41] Processing audio tracks
- Track 4352 (eng): Keeping original audio
- [20:13:41] Multiplexing M2TS
- [20:18:53] Processing: VID_00004 (4 of 9)
- [20:18:53] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00004]
- [20:19:00] Reencoding video [VID_00004]
- Source Video: HEVC, 3840x2160
- Rate/Length: 23,976fps, 8.160 frames
- Bitrate: 8.020 Kbs
- [20:19:00] Reencoding: VID_00004, Pass 1 of 1
- [20:26:27] Video Encode complete
- [20:26:27] Processing audio tracks
- [20:26:27] Multiplexing M2TS
- [20:26:39] Processing: VID_00007 (5 of 9)
- [20:26:39] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00007]
- [20:31:17] Reencoding video [VID_00007]
- Source Video: HEVC, 3840x2160
- Rate/Length: 23,976fps, 146.383 frames
- Bitrate: 35.000 Kbs
- [20:31:17] Reencoding: VID_00007, Pass 1 of 1
- [22:56:20] Video Encode complete
- [22:56:20] Processing audio tracks
- Track 4354 (deu): Keeping original audio
- [22:56:20] Multiplexing M2TS
- Error in attempt to multiplex: MUX_00007.meta
- Bitstream exception Unknown exception. It does not have to be! Please contact application support team for more information.
[22:56:44] - Failed to build structure, aborted

[Alleycat]

I rebuilt a concert blu-ray which had 720 x 480i mpeg 2 source with a 16:9 display aspect ratio. I noticed that the rebuilt version has small black bars at the top and bottom and the picture was of reduced height (slightly squashed) compared to the original. When I used the hidden option show_encoder=1, x264 reported the following: "lav [info]: 720x480i 32:27 @ 30000/101 fps (cfr)"
I could see that bd-rb was then telling x264 to use SAR=40/33 when doing the re-code, which I believe is the cause of this problem. Is there a way of forcing bd-rb to preserve the original SAR value?

[prologic]

Tried to remux Game of thrones S8 disc1(BLURAY) , Bd rebuilder came back with , error reading disc .. went back to version 60.04 and all read ok

[Ch3vr0n]

Tried to remux Game of thrones S8 disc1(BLURAY) , Bd rebuilder came back with , error reading disc .. went back to version 60.04 and all read ok

Now how about you post the encoding log of the build that fails, so @jdobbs actually has something to work with and maybe fix?

[jdobbs]

Now how about you post the encoding log of the build that fails, so @jdobbs actually has something to work with and maybe fix?Yeah. Especially since "error reading disc" isn't an error from within BD-RB.

[Michi]

Muxing Error on RED 2:

[11.24.19] BD Rebuilder v0.60.29
[09:54:01] Source: RED_2
- Input BD size: 59,23 GB
- Approximate total content: [03:02:05.879]
- Target BD size: 46,26 GB
- Windows Version: 6.2 [9200]
- Quality: Good (Fastest, BD-25+), ABR
- Decoding/Frame serving: FFMPEG
- Audio Settings: AC3=0 DTS=0 HD=1 Kbs=448
[09:54:03] PHASE ONE, Encoding
- [09:54:03] Processing: VID_00000 (1 of 8)
- [09:54:03] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00000]
- [09:58:45] Reencoding video [VID_00000]
- [09:58:45] Keeping original video (no reencode)
- [09:58:45] Processing audio tracks
- Track 4352 (deu): Keeping original audio
- [09:58:45] Multiplexing M2TS
- [10:07:08] Processing: VID_00001 (2 of 8)
- [10:07:08] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00001]
- Extracting video streams [VID_00001]
- Extracting audio/subtitle streams [VID_00001]
- Network Optix tsMuxeR. Version 2.6.12. www.networkoptix.com
- Extracting audio streams [VID_00001]
- Error in attempt to extract audio.
- Network Optix tsMuxeR. Version 2.6.12. www.networkoptix.com
- Network Optix tsMuxeR. Version 2.6.12. www.networkoptix.com
[10:09:20] - Failed to retrieve audio, aborted

[ggtop]

Hi,

when opening the source path to a mounted ISO I get an error message "Error Condition" "BD Rebuilder experienced an error 2503 [timestamp] SourceCheck() 0006 2503".
It's a Multi Part BluRay interesstingly it only happens in Movie Only Mode. Switching to Full Backup mode lets BDRB show the stream overview as expected.

As a workaround I used TSMuxer to create a new structure (ISO) with the desired MPLS and used that which worked so far as I can say.

What kind of "illegal source" is this error indicating?

Glad to help and Thank you in advance,
ggtop

[jdobbs]

Hi,

when opening the source path to a mounted ISO I get an error message "Error Condition" "BD Rebuilder experienced an error 2503 [timestamp] SourceCheck() 0006 2503".
It's a Multi Part BluRay interesstingly it only happens in Movie Only Mode. Switching to Full Backup mode lets BDRB show the stream overview as expected.

As a workaround I used TSMuxer to create a new structure (ISO) with the desired MPLS and used that which worked so far as I can say.

What kind of "illegal source" is this error indicating?

Glad to help and Thank you in advance,
ggtopIt wasn't necessarily an illegal source. It looks like BD-RB experienced an overflow error while doing a source check. Can you provide the log? I'm kinda flying blind without it.

[terrykuntz]

Will an 8 core CPU be able to complete a bd rebuild twice as fast as an 4 core CPU? Would it be better to get an 8 core intel processor than an 16 core AMD processor?

[Atak_Snajpera]

Will an 8 core CPU be able to complete a bd rebuild twice as fast as an 4 core CPU? Would it be better to get an 8 core intel processor than an 16 core AMD processor?

x264 and x265 can utilize more than 8 cores so buying Intel CPU makes zero sense.

[jdobbs]

Will an 8 core CPU be able to complete a bd rebuild twice as fast as an 4 core CPU? Would it be better to get an 8 core intel processor than an 16 core AMD processor?An 8 core CPU will likely complete faster than a 4 core -- but not twice as fast. That's not how multiprocessing works.

[SquallMX]

An 8 core CPU will likely complete faster than a 4 core -- but not twice as fast. That's not how multiprocessing works.

Sometimes the gains are even bigger. Going from an 8 core Ryzen 1700x to a 12 core Ryzen 3900 I got a 2X speed boost with only 50% more cores, something to do with optimizations for AVX instruction sets.

[gg72]

Is there any option to disable the 4-way splitting in DirectShow mode?

[Ch3vr0n]

Not "just" for DS mode no. There is a general one, disable multiprocess in bdrebuilder.ini (either comment out the line with # in front of it, or just delete it entirely). That's the only possibility

[jdobbs]

Is there any option to disable the 4-way splitting in DirectShow mode?The default is no splitting. The only way it has 4 way splitting is if you've (at some point) set MULTIPROCESS=4 in your INI file or MULTIPROCESS=1 in your INI file and you have 6 (or more) processors.

[jdobbs]

Thought I'd share an interesting point I discovered. I recently got a UHD television and have been experimenting with playback with different 2160p files. Then I decided to disable 4K upscaling on my Sony UBP-X800 so I could make sure I am really getting UHD.

I was a little shocked to find that many of the reencoded UHD MKV/MP4 files weren't actually playing in UHD -- they were playing in 1080p and were being upscaled. Some experimenting showed that only the files I'd reencoded with BD-RB (ALTERNATE mode), or original BD files, were actually playing in true 2160p. My guess is that the player requires the files to be encoded with settings that are uhd-bd compatible (which BD-RB does via X265) and many downloads are not encoded that way.

Just thought I'd pass that on as food for thought. It may be peculiar to my player, I don't know, but I think there are possibly people out there who think they are getting 2160p output when they are actually only getting 1080p upscaled to 2160p on reencoded MKV/MP4 UHD files.

[jdobbs]

Sometimes the gains are even bigger. Going from an 8 core Ryzen 1700x to a 12 core Ryzen 3900 I got a 2X speed boost with only 50% more cores, something to do with optimizations for AVX instruction sets.That's pretty cool.

[gg72]

Thanks jdobbs & Ch3vr0n ;-)

[MrVideo]

[...]but I think there are possibly people out there who think they are getting 2160p output when they are actually only getting 1080p upscaled to 2160p on downloaded UHD files.
Are you saying that some 2160p files are being reduced to 1080p by your player before being sent to the display? If so, that player, IMHO, is seriously flawed.

[Sharc]

I rebuilt a concert blu-ray which had 720 x 480i mpeg 2 source with a 16:9 display aspect ratio. I noticed that the rebuilt version has small black bars at the top and bottom and the picture was of reduced height (slightly squashed) compared to the original. When I used the hidden option show_encoder=1, x264 reported the following: "lav [info]: 720x480i 32:27 @ 30000/101 fps (cfr)"
I could see that bd-rb was then telling x264 to use SAR=40/33 when doing the re-code, which I believe is the cause of this problem. Is there a way of forcing bd-rb to preserve the original SAR value?
Is your source a DVD? 32:27 = 1.1852 is the 'Generic' PAR of anamorph 16:9 NTSC DVDs. It is an assumption because the true PAR of DVDs/mpeg2 cannot be read from the video stream. The DVD could also have been authored using the ITU PAR of 1.212954 for 16:9. We simply don't know.
BD-RB uses the mpeg4 SAR of 40:33 = 1.212121... for x264 16:9 anamorph 720x480 encoding. It is AVC/mpeg4/blu-ray compliant and a very close approximation to the ITU PAR of 1.212945, but exhibits the well known aspect ratio difference of 2.3% compared to the 'Generic' PAR of 1.1852. This slight difference is normally not even noticed. As far as I remember you can't change the SAR in BD-RB to avoid non-compliant mpeg4/AVC video.

Thinking about it and hoping I remembered all this correctly, I am now wondering why BD-RB added top and bottom borders rather than left and right 8 pixels each. Did your original already come with any borders? Did you resize? What is your playback scenario? Does your player/TV add the top/bottom borders rather than BD-RB? Does your player read the SAR or force 16:9 DAR playback?

[Mike-uk]

Thought I'd share an interesting point I discovered. I recently got a UHD television and have been experimenting with playback with different 2160p files. Then I decided to disable 4K upscaling on my Sony UBP-X800 so I could make sure I am really getting UHD.

I was a little shocked to find that many of the reencoded MKV/MP4 UHD files weren't actually playing in UHD -- they were playing in 1080p and were being upscaled. Some experimenting showed that only the files I'd reencoded with BD-RB (ALTERNATE mode), or original BD files, were actually playing in true 2160p. My guess is that the player requires the files to be encoded with settings that are uhd-bd compatible (which BD-RB does via X265) and many downloads are not encoded that way.

Just thought I'd pass that on as food for thought. It may be peculiar to my player, I don't know, but I think there are possibly people out there who think they are getting 2160p output when they are actually only getting 1080p upscaled to 2160p on reencoded MKV/MP4 UHD files.

what does mediainfo say about the file you are trying to play ? does it report the file as 1080p ??
also what is the file size of said 2160p file ?

[jdobbs]

Are you saying that some 2160p files are being reduced to 1080p by your player before being sent to the display? If so, that player, IMHO, is seriously flawed.I'd say it's more likely that the source is seriously flawed. Players have built-in downscaling to cover being attached to non-UHD monitors and other non-compliance issues.

[jdobbs]

what does mediainfo say about the file you are trying to play ? does it report the file as 1080p ??
also what is the file size of said 2160p file ?No. It is UHD. But, some of them, at least, aren't 3840x2160. For example one that I'm looking at now is 3840x1600. So there may be more to it than just the encoding parameters.

[Edit] In fact, several of the files I've looked at (that I had previously tested) are actually 3840x1600, which seems to be a fairly common format for reencoded MKV/MP4 files (even though the file title says "2160p"). In the end it may turn out to be the non-compliant sizing that is the real issue. But the original point is still valid. People may think they are watching these in UHD when they are actually simply watching an upscaled representation of it from a picture that was downscaled to 1080p. I know that is true at least on my Sony player, I can't speak for other units.

[Sharc]

... People may think they are watching these in UHD when they are actually simply watching an upscaled representation of it from a picture that was downscaled to 1080p.....
LOL, who cares as long as people are happy with placebos … :devil:

[jdobbs]

Placebos work. That's the reason so many "natural cures" are sold.

I'll take of a couple of these and reencode them with the borders that bring it up to 2160. I suspect that will fix the issue.

I have to say... I'm pretty impressed with the UHD blu-rays I've been watching since getting my UHD TV. It's more noticable than I thought it would be (on some discs, not all). Some of the reviews I read say that most people won't see the difference between HD and UHD from a normal viewing distance. But to me it looks more crisp (from about 10 feet where I usually watch).

But then again... there's always the placebo effect. :)

[MrVideo]

NIn fact, several of the files I've looked at (that I had previously tested) are actually 3840x1600, which seems to be a fairly common format for reencoded files (even though the file title says "2160p").
Well, that explains it. Many of the groups have it in their little heads that removing the letterbox bars from widescreen videos will reduce the file size. While it is true that it will, it obviously causes issues like this.

If I play a MKV file thru my Samsung and if it is 1920x800, the player will add the letterbox bars. But, if I author the file onto a BD, the player will vertically expand the video to fill the screen. Those cropped videos are a PITA. :devil:

[SeeMoreDigital]

If I play a MKV file thru my Samsung and if it is 1920x800, the player will add the letterbox bars. But, if I author the file onto a BD, the player will vertically expand the video to fill the screen. Those cropped videos are a PITA. :devil:Indeed.... It's a shame that the Blu-ray 'HD' disc format does not support 'cropped' video. And even a bigger shame that the Blu-ray 'UHD' disc format followed suit :eek:

[cartman0208]

I have to say... I'm pretty impressed with the UHD blu-rays I've been watching since getting my UHD TV. It's more noticable than I thought it would be (on some discs, not all). Some of the reviews I read say that most people won't see the difference between HD and UHD from a normal viewing distance. But to me it looks more crisp (from about 10 feet where I usually watch).


I totally agree... I had an UHD TV before, but with the new one UHD sources look even better ... WAY better. You can already see it during the first few seconds when the Warner Bros Logo turns up, for example.
And at 5 feet even the blindest will see a difference ;)

[Glarioo]

I'll take of a couple of these and reencode them with the borders that bring it up to 2160. I suspect that will fix the issue.



How do you do that?
Adding "black bars" to cropped videos?

[MrVideo]

How do you do that?
Adding "black bars" to cropped videos?
With AVISynth and one of the many available plugins that do many different kinds of video processing.

[jdobbs]

How do you do that?
Adding "black bars" to cropped videos?Use BD-RB to import and reencode. It adds them automatically.

[Glarioo]

Use BD-RB to import and reencode. It adds them automatically.

Thanks.
And use alternate output?

[Glarioo]

Just reencode an 1920x808 file an the result was 1920x1080. Thanks jdobbs.

[Alleycat]

Is your source a DVD? 32:27 = 1.1852 is the 'Generic' PAR of anamorph 16:9 NTSC DVDs. It is an assumption because the true PAR of DVDs/mpeg2 cannot be read from the video stream. The DVD could also have been authored using the ITU PAR of 1.212954 for 16:9. We simply don't know.
BD-RB uses the mpeg4 SAR of 40:33 = 1.212121... for x264 16:9 anamorph 720x480 encoding. It is AVC/mpeg4/blu-ray compliant and a very close approximation to the ITU PAR of 1.212945, but exhibits the well known aspect ratio difference of 2.3% compared to the 'Generic' PAR of 1.1852. This slight difference is normally not even noticed. As far as I remember you can't change the SAR in BD-RB to avoid non-compliant mpeg4/AVC video.

Thinking about it and hoping I remembered all this correctly, I am now wondering why BD-RB added top and bottom borders rather than left and right 8 pixels each. Did your original already come with any borders? Did you resize? What is your playback scenario? Does your player/TV add the top/bottom borders rather than BD-RB? Does your player read the SAR or force 16:9 DAR playback?

Thanks for replying, Sharc. The source was "Out of Season" by the band Marillion. It's a triple disc set which was originally released on DVD, but now is out on Blu-Ray to take advantage of the higher quality sound. The small black bars only appeared on the rebuilt copy. Funnily enough I did try upscaling to 1080 and found there were no black bars. But this introduced a different problem: When using the pop-up menu, if I hovered the mouse over a chapter near the top of the page, it highlighted and activated one several lines below!
So I decided to keep it at 720x480, but the only way I could get a perfect copy was to grab the output of lastcmd.txt after each pass and manually recode each affected file in x264 replacing --sar 40:33 with --sar 32:27, then remuxing to m2ts myself. I then replaced the files created by BDRB with my own, which obviously broke the chapters. I fixed this by getting BDRB to rebuild the copy containing the replaced files, this time with no encoding of the video (as the file sizes were now correct for BD25). All menus and chapters work fine and the video is identical to the original. I've no idea if the new copy is blu-ray compliant, but it works perfectly on both the PS4 and in J River media centre. Obviously this was a very laborious way of doing a 3 disc set, but I could find no other method, and wondered if I could have done anything to make BDRB work automatically with these discs.

[AmigaFuture]

LOL, who cares as long as people are happy with placebos … :devil:

Placebos work. That's the reason so many "natural cures" are sold.

I'll take of a couple of these and reencode them with the borders that bring it up to 2160. I suspect that will fix the issue.

I have to say... I'm pretty impressed with the UHD blu-rays I've been watching since getting my UHD TV. It's more noticable than I thought it would be (on some discs, not all). Some of the reviews I read say that most people won't see the difference between HD and UHD from a normal viewing distance. But to me it looks more crisp (from about 10 feet where I usually watch).

But then again... there's always the placebo effect. :)

The body can do its own healing very, very well without intervention. I saw much of this so far. But there are times when intervention is required. I can also still see some differences in upscaling from DVD to 720P, but it's becoming more challenging when it's happening with hardware.

I still adore 1080P, but I don't really embrace the 4K thing as so many. Yes, video looks larger, from my phone, yes, outside video of events and nature are really sweet that way. But movies and T.V. shows where there are a lot of makeup and and all that...acne, and stuff...I don't see any reason for that to be really huge. Now, you present Mars photos that large, and other pictures of our planets...I'm alllllllll in! I want to see all that very clearly. I guess it's a "catch 22" to me. Hmm..

[MrVideo]

@Alleycat: Are the original BD discs dual layer 50GB? If so, are you trying to get each one to fit on a 25GB disc?

[Alleycat]

Yes, the 3 original discs are BD50. I was simply creating a backup of each onto 3 separate 25GB discs. The SD video files inside the m2ts containers are mpeg-2.
When starting the x264 encoder, the first line shows "lav [info]: 720x480i 32:27 @ 30000/1001 fps (cfr)". If you import the same file into Handbrake, the dimensions tab shows: "Source 720x480, PAR 32/27".
Those references to 32:27 made me suspect the black bars on the BDRB copy were caused by the SAR 40:33 in BDRB's x264 command line. I found that if I used SAR 32:27, or if I just omitted the SAR parameter completely, both scenarios produced video identical to the source, with no black bars.

[MrVideo]

The SAR of 40:33 is based upon a 704x480 video. With NTSC analog conversion to digital, 8 pixels are removed from each side of the 720 video to get you the 704 video. But, if the 16 total pixels are not removed, you end up with the situation you found yourself in. You could have added an AVISynth plugin command to crop 8 pixels off each side and you should have come up with the correct result [crop(8,0,-8,0)].

The reason for doing the cropping is that in correctly digitized video, there are about 8 pixels of vertical black on each side of the video. By removing it, you get video out to each side, without any annoying vertical black bars.

[Alleycat]

Thanks for your suggestion re cropping. I gave it a try and found that it did indeed remove the bars. The bars had been at the top and bottom, not the sides, but cropping 8 pixels from each side made them disappear. Compared with the original, the height of the picture was now the same, with no part of the original frame missing. The width of the picture was very slightly stretched, with a very small part of each side cropped. Viewed in isolation, I probably would not have noticed, so that's preferable to the black bars.

What I can't figure out is this: If I get BD-RB to convert it from SD to 1080, there are no bars, and nothing is cropped from the edges.

Also, given that the source disc has the SAR of 32:27, does that mean the original BD is not compliant? Or it is allowed for MPEG-2 on BD but not AVC?
That may explain why they stuck with MPEG-2 coding on the original.

[MrVideo]

The 704x480 is really only for DVDs. The BD spec only has 720x480, which would only mean supporting 32:27 (for 16:9 video). No idea why BDRB was not getting it right. Doing the cropping trick does end up distorting the image, as you noted.

The original BDs are compliant. The BD spec allows for MPEG-2/AVC/VC1 as codecs for 720x480 video.

JDobbs is going to have to respond as to what is happening.

EDIT: Add "IMPORT_OVERSCAN=0" to the options file. Don't do the cropping. I'm curious as to what this does.

[jdobbs]

The BD spec only has 720x480, which would only mean supporting 32:27 (for 16:9 video). Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying? The BD Spec supports 4:3 video in 720x480. 720x480 at 4:3 is mentioned more times than I can even reference. For example, see page 1-147, Table 5-17 of the spec, and look under primary video formats. Adjusting for overscan is normal for 720x480 sources. Often people just forget about it and leave the aspect slightly stretched (by removing the overscan areas).

I'd have to see the source to decide what is going on in Alleycat's case. The part about bars being at the top and bottom (rather than the sides) throws me. Overscan adjustments should only apply to the sides??? I guess I need to go back and read his posts again.

I can tell you that I, for one, am happy to see the 1:1 ratios used in HD and UHD. Having to adjust for the leftovers from analog television (like overscan) is a real pain. These days trying to decide whether to adjust for overscan depends on what mood the original author was in at the time the disc was created. Many MKV files out there that hold old TV shows, for example, typically just resize the original 720x480 sources (minus overscan) to 640x480 with a 1:1 ratio (which means they are stretched slightly). But that depends on what the person doing the encoding knew or didn't know about video.

It's nothing if not confusing.

[Alleycat]

@ Mr. Video: I tried adding IMPORT_OVERSCAN=0 to the ini file, but it made no difference. I was using the full backup mode, so maybe that function only operates when using the import mode.

@jdobbs: In my fist post I noticed BD-RB was re-encoding my disc with an SAR of 40:33 in X264, but the original has an SAR of 32:27, due to the video being in MPEG-2 blu-ray.

Would the problem not be solved by removing the --SAR X:X from the X264 command line when full back up mode is used? As the source is already a blu-ray, the original SAR must be compliant, so the BD-RB copy need not be any different?

[MrVideo]

Maybe I misunderstood what you're saying? The BD Spec supports 4:3 video in 720x480.
We were discussing the OP's original files, which are 16:9 720x480, which only has the one SAR. No discussion of 4:3 video.

[MrVideo]

@ Mr. Video: I tried adding IMPORT_OVERSCAN=0 to the ini file, but it made no difference. I was using the full backup mode, so maybe that function only operates when using the import mode.
It was worth a try. No idea what JDobbs intended that option for.

[Sharc]

@Alleycat
Can you upload a sample of a few seconds duration of the original file?
Without a sample all the discussions remain speculative.

[Lathe]

Well, that explains it. Many of the groups have it in their little heads that removing the letterbox bars from widescreen videos will reduce the file size. While it is true that it will, it obviously causes issues like this.

If I play a MKV file thru my Samsung and if it is 1920x800, the player will add the letterbox bars. But, if I author the file onto a BD, the player will vertically expand the video to fill the screen. Those cropped videos are a PITA. :devil:

Fully agree... Same here with my OPPO. I've Always thought it was nonsense removing the black bars, it doesn't save that much space and automatically makes it noncompliant. Stupid...

[gamete]

Im trying to backup for the first time bluray 4k

My pc is
Win10 64bit
Intel i7 2.94ghz 4core(i Think)
6 gb ram

If i make backup of bluray 2k in bd25 is necessary 5 hours about

In my first 4k bluray backup time estimated from 55gb to 25gb in two pass is 40 hours
0.95 fps

Im trying using " x264 internal LAVF for frame serving"
Is it correct ?
40 hours for 4k backup ?
Thank to all

[raul124]

Im trying to backup for the first time bluray 4k

My pc is
Win10 64bit
Intel i7 2.94ghz 4core(i Think)
6 gb ram

If i make backup of bluray 2k in bd25 is necessary 5 hours about

In my first 4k bluray backup time estimated from 55gb to 25gb in two pass is 40 hours
0.95 fps

Im trying using " x264 internal LAVF for frame serving"
Is it correct ?
40 hours for 4k backup ?
Thank to all

Same here...

[jdobbs]

Im trying to backup for the first time bluray 4k

My pc is
Win10 64bit
Intel i7 2.94ghz 4core(i Think)
6 gb ram

If i make backup of bluray 2k in bd25 is necessary 5 hours about

In my first 4k bluray backup time estimated from 55gb to 25gb in two pass is 40 hours
0.95 fps

Im trying using " x264 internal LAVF for frame serving"
Is it correct ?
40 hours for 4k backup ?
Thank to allI'd recommend you set your encoder to "Very Good (Fast)" and "One Pass (ABR) Encoding" if you want to speed up encoding. On my system (which is pretty old) it usually takes about 10-12 hours with that setting (I typically get 4 - 4.5 fps). Honestly, there is plenty of room on a 25GB disc even for UHD, and you don't need higher settings. Of course people have different opinions about that. But, I've done tests using different CRF settings to get constant quality to see how much space is needed, and I rarely hit anywhere near 25GB even when using high quality CRF values. With that said, it depends a lot on how much content is on the disc you're backing up.

If encode time isn't important to you... then ignore what I just said and use a higher quality setting and/or keep two pass encoding enabled.

It makes no difference what frame-serving option you select when doing UHD. BD-RB is going to use FFMPEG anyway so that the HDR10 settings get passed along to the encoder. I'm assuming you are doing a full or movie-only backup? If so, X264 isn't used either. UHD on blu-ray requires HEVC (X265).