Inaccurate TargetSectors setting

[blutach]

I know other members have mentioned this, but I thought this experiment might come in useful.

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?postid=294520#post294520

Regards

[setarip_old]

Don't see any experiment in that link...

[robot1]

In RB-Opt I use this formula:
actual=targetsectors*2*1.013/1024

Usually it comes within an error of 3-4 MB.

[blutach]

Thanks for the info robot1. I'll pass it on the cynthia.

Regards

[manono]

Procoder is the best, blutach? If you like your movies blurry, maybe. And HC puts CCE to shame? Interesting read, that thread. Can't say that I agree with all of it, though.

[Skunk]

I dont know why everyone knocks procoder. I used to use it for almost all of my encodes and was always happy with the results. I use HC alot more often now though, mostly because procoder doesn't support custom matrices, but I am still convinced that nothing does a better job with interleaved or CG sources.

[manono]

I was knocking Procoder for use in high quality, reasonably high bitrate movie backups. It has a built in Low-Pass filter (I think) that noticeably smooths the video. And also because of that, it's very good for low bitrate encodes, interlaced encodes, and noisy encodes, of extras, for example. I also think though, that you can get similar results using CCE with AviSynth filters, lower bitrate matrices, and/or use of the Low-Pass and Vertical filters.

I can't really knock HC as I've never used it, and I do read glowing reports about it. But CCE, particularly if you know how to tweak its settings, is damn good.

[blutach]

@manano - With apologies in advance as you are a mod: Notwithstanding that it might be interesting to debate the merits of each encoder, I don't think it wise to get into discussions of "what is the best..." on this forum, as undoubtedly, this is against Rule 12 :)

Regards

[jdobbs]

DVD-RB uses raw values to compute this and doesn't account for the packet header overhead... it wasn't really designed to be modified, I just made it available when someone asked... it was set up to output (using CCE) to a size of 4.32GB. The reason it isn't set higher is because different encoders result in different levels of accuracy concerning the bitrate. It's is always better to come in a little undersized than to have to reaccomplish a two hour encode...

I'll be honest. I frankly have a hard time understanding why people put so much effort into trying to recover 50MB at the risk of oversizing... on a two hour movie that would be about an additional 55Kbs -- and that just won't make a detectable difference in MPEG-2, 720xNNN video quality.

[manono]

No apologies needed, blutach. As a mod, if I dish it out, I have to be able to take it as well. As maybe you know, I don't enforce the rules very strictly. I belong to the "rules are made to be broken" school of thought. But you're right; what may be OK to discuss at that other forum may be off-limits here.

[blutach]

I know you are manono, so please take what I say as tongue in cheek, OK ;)

@jdobbs - so, there will be no modification to the 4.32Gb then in v1.10?

Regards

[jdobbs]

I know you are manono, so please take what I say as tongue in cheek, OK ;)

@jdobbs - so, there will be no modification to the 4.32Gb then in v1.10?

RegardsNot planned. If I did that then everyone who has set up a TargetSectors value they really like would find it start oversizing... I'm a big believer in backward compatibility.

[blutach]

K. I'll try Robot1's forumula.

Later :)

Regards

[jdobbs]

Ok... but just be warned. Even CCE can have different results on different sources... getting that precise with TargetSectors is very much like measuring with a micrometer and then cutting with an axe.

[laserfan]

Two questions:

1. What would folks here suggest for a DVD+R DL TargetSectors value? I believe a DVD+R DL is 4,148,992 sectors.

2. Can I put two TargetSectors values in my ini, and then comment-out the one I don't want to use? What's the magic i.e. ; or # or...

Thanks!