Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > General > Decrypting

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 25th December 2011, 00:35   #1  |  Link
six13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 102
Blue Ray Rips

I have seen how people back up their personal DVD's burning to a DVD 5 or 9. However, a blue ray has so much more data on it for the movie... my questions is:

are people ripping a blue ray to the HDD then compressing the files to fit a DVD 5 or 9 or are they backing up to a blank blue ray disk? If the output is going to a DVD5 or 9 the quality must be really degrated as the capacity of the DVD is very small compared to the source blue ray.

Just wondering how the blue ray back up is done compared to the DVD back up method.
six13 is offline  
Old 25th December 2011, 07:19   #2  |  Link
CWR03
Custom User Title
 
CWR03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,734
You can back up an entire Blu-Ray movie to a file using x264 video and AC3 5.1 audio and store it on a DVD data disk with so little loss of quality it's hardly noticeable. The disk won't play on most standalone DVD players, but if you have a media PC connected to a large TV it works well.
CWR03 is offline  
Old 26th December 2011, 02:24   #3  |  Link
six13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 102
so the output files is mpeg4 like a .mkv file, not mpeg2 dvd files VOB, etc...
six13 is offline  
Old 26th December 2011, 18:42   #4  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,698
Yes. Many hardware players including most Bluray players these days, will play AVI, MP4 or MKV files etc. from a USB stick or USB hard drive.
In fact only today I went shopping with someone to help pick a TV as a birthday present. Times are changing very quickly. It's almost hard to find a TV these days which doesn't have it's own built in media player capable of playing those sort of files. Whether they all support the same formats is another thing, but I imagine it won't be long before they do. The days of being restricted to watching encoded video on a PC or a limited number of hardware devices are well and truly over. My Sony Bluray player will happily read and play the contents of a 2TB USB hard drive, although admittedly I have my PC hooked up to my TV and mainly use it for playing video as it seems the average Bluray player can't compete with the PC for picture quality, especially when it comes to upscaling standard definition video.

Many people (myself included) also reduce the resolution from 1080p to 720p when encoding to keep the file size down as depending on your TV size and viewing distance you may not see any difference. Even using a fairly high quality setting most x264, 720p movie encodes would easily fit on a DVD5. Mine probably average around 2.5GB to 3GB per movie.

Last edited by hello_hello; 26th December 2011 at 18:45.
hello_hello is offline  
Old 26th December 2011, 21:22   #5  |  Link
six13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 102
thanks, I wondered if the blue ray had the ability to read a mpeg4 .mkv file at 720p, the PC conected to the TV is a great way like you say so you could use VLC or whatever app you want.

I just thought if someone is making a ISO of a Blue ray and then puting it on a blank Blue ray they have a pretty expensive back up, and it would pay to be very cautious with your original blue ray so you don't need to them back up.
six13 is offline  
Old 1st January 2012, 19:49   #6  |  Link
setarip_old
Registered User
 
setarip_old's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,267
@six13

Hi!

Try the easy to use "BD Rebuilder" if you'd like to make fully functional (WILL play on standalone Blu-ray players and software players), extremely high quality, backup copies of your original Blu-ray discs on DVD5 or DVD9 media (referred to as "BD5" and "BD9" when used for Blu-ray backups)...
setarip_old is offline  
Old 1st January 2012, 21:16   #7  |  Link
Keiyakusha
契約者
 
Keiyakusha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen View Post
If you start with a ~25GB original you cut quite a few corners to bring it down to one tenth the size.
let's not forget that blurays are that big not because this amount of information is needed to preserve good quality, but because they need to fill more space on the discs so they can earn more money selling 2 discs instead of one (or it won't looks like they can put 3 movies on 1 disc) and because settings that used to encode are quite low compared to what you can specify by yourself (+restrictions applied by standard). If you take movie from 1 bluray, leave only one audio stream and encode 1080p dvd9 with right processing and encoding settings - you won't notice the difference.

Last edited by Keiyakusha; 1st January 2012 at 21:22.
Keiyakusha is offline  
Old 1st January 2012, 23:20   #8  |  Link
diogen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
Sorry, but based on my experience nothing in your post seems either logical or remotely accurate to me.
You are missing the point entirely.
Blu-ray specs have been frozen in time somewhere around 2007.
But the development of codecs - like x264 as the best example - hasn't stopped.
For example, QPel can't be handled by many (most?) hardware decoders. But can be very useful in encoding.

You want to cater to 2007 state of art - be my guest.
I don't. And using an HTPC as the only playback device since 2003, I'm very much interested in the today's state of art.

Also, 2.5GB is about the size you can compress a DVD version of a movie without loosing quality.
If you don't see any difference between the 25GB original and 2.5GB encode, you need either a better TV or better glasses.

Diogen.
diogen is offline  
Old 1st January 2012, 23:25   #9  |  Link
diogen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keiyakusha View Post
let's not forget that blurays are that big not because this amount of information is needed to preserve good quality, but because they need to fill more space on the discs...
And that was the reason I said 25GB and not 50GB - what a dual-layer BD is capable of storing.

Video plus one lossless audio track uses about 25GB.
Whether it can be done better, is a different question altogether.
And will never be answered since you will never have access to the original.

Diogen.
diogen is offline  
Old 1st January 2012, 23:41   #10  |  Link
diogen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 365
Just a clarification: the encoding scene has its own forum, here on doom9.
You have a chance to talk to those in the business and/or developers of the latest and greatest codecs.

Just browse it.

Diogen.

Last edited by Guest; 2nd January 2012 at 00:32. Reason: rule 4: no insults
diogen is offline  
Old 2nd January 2012, 00:33   #11  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,907
Posts violating rule 6 have been removed.
Guest is offline  
Old 2nd January 2012, 02:44   #12  |  Link
six13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 102
thanks but I don't have a blu ray player or blu ray in my PC, I was just curious as to how it was done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by setarip_old View Post
@six13

Hi!

Try the easy to use "BD Rebuilder" if you'd like to make fully functional (WILL play on standalone Blu-ray players and software players), extremely high quality, backup copies of your original Blu-ray discs on DVD5 or DVD9 media (referred to as "BD5" and "BD9" when used for Blu-ray backups)...
six13 is offline  
Old 2nd January 2012, 07:40   #13  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen View Post
You are missing the point entirely.
Blu-ray specs have been frozen in time somewhere around 2007.
But the development of codecs - like x264 as the best example - hasn't stopped.
For example, QPel can't be handled by many (most?) hardware decoders. But can be very useful in encoding.
I'm not missing the point at all. You however seem to be ignoring the facts. While I pretty much always use a PC for playback myself, between the Bluray players and TVs in this house there's five different media players and each and every one of them play my encodes using the latest version of x264 and it's default settings with a level of 4.1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen View Post
You want to cater to 2007 state of art - be my guest.
I don't. And using an HTPC as the only playback device since 2003, I'm very much interested in the today's state of art.
It seems to me you need to use something else other than a HTPC as a playback device before offering generalizations as to what today's media players will and won't play. I'm not catering to 2007, none of the hardware players in this house is more than two years old. And that's what I was referring to in my original post when I said "these days". I wasn't referring to 2007 even though your opinion of hardware players seems to be stuck there. Having said that, my other half owns a three year old Bluray player which happily plays all my encodes, albeit only via a disc.
The Bluray specs may not have changed since 2007 but that doesn't mean a modern Bluray player is limited to those specifications. In 2007 it was probably impossible to find a Bluray player which could play MKV/MP4 files via USB. These days it's hard to even find a TV which doesn't. My Bluray player will happily read and play the contents of a 2TB, NTFS USB hard drive, so you're correct about one thing, it's not 2007 any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen View Post
Also, 2.5GB is about the size you can compress a DVD version of a movie without loosing quality.
If you don't see any difference between the 25GB original and 2.5GB encode, you need either a better TV or better glasses.
If your argument regarding quality is going to remain simply one of file size then it's not worth trying to discuss it with you, but I'll expand on what I said earlier so you can ignore the facts again. I encode everything at 720p, generally using a CRF value of 20 and x264's default settings. Aside from resizing I generally encode "as-is"... no filters at all. The size of my average encode is probably around 2.5 to 3GB. So far the largest has been 4.8GB. I don't control the file size, I just set the quality. If an encode comes out at 2.5GB it's because that's the size it needs to be. Currently I'm encoding a movie at 720p using CRF 19 and it looks like the file size will end up around 3.5GB.
If you want to explain to me how my encoding process is robbing me of quality I'm more than willing to listen, but anything else is just noise.

Last edited by hello_hello; 2nd January 2012 at 08:27.
hello_hello is offline  
Old 2nd January 2012, 11:05   #14  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by six13 View Post
I just thought if someone is making a ISO of a Blue ray and then puting it on a blank Blue ray they have a pretty expensive back up, and it would pay to be very cautious with your original blue ray so you don't need to them back up.
The very first DVD-R cost at least twice as much as the very first BD-R (same shop, but the inflation was not yet calculated - with inflation probably at least 3x more), and the very first CD-R cost some 6x more (probably 10-12x more with inflation).
Those prices definitively urged for MP3/Divx backups, even if those were not playable anywhere else than on a PC.

Today the things got a lot improved, there are portables that play most of "former-PC-only" formats, there are standalones that do the same thing, there are NMTs, SAT, mediaplayers that can play them, practically there is no gear sold today that cannot play at least AVI/MKV, even if with several restrictions.

However, as long as a not so new movie (I don't watch a movie merely because it's new - the next month it will be already old, and since this was its only merit I think that I paid 30€ for nothing) costs about twice the price of a good BDR in jewel case (8-9-10€ vs. some 4-5€) and as long as a backup with reencoding may take an entire night on my laptop (which has an ATI that doesn't provide HW acceleration for SW) I would rather buy a new original, unless it's infected with unskippable trailers and commercials (very rare in Europe). Alternatively, I would rip it to my HDD and transfer the reedited BD (main movie only, I hate the menus anyway) to the HDD of my NMT.

A pure BD-rip with a few editing steps (select main movie, select off the unneeded audio tracks and subtitles) takes some 30 minutes upto one hour. I still think that the alternative of a NMT with internal HDD (like Popcorn Hour, Dune HD max WD TV live etc) is kinderproof, dog- and catproof (for those those cats scratched and/or dog bate the discs ) and idiotensicher and still can hold some 20-30 maybe more movies depending on its capacity (I hope people packing 1000 movies on a 1TB HDD are young enough to live to see them all ).

Concerning the size issue: I did once a reencoding of one of my BBC Life blu-rays to the size of a DVDRDL and compared them side by side in my BDplayer (all improvements OFF) and in my PCH-200. There was a difference, even if one needed a side-by-side comparizon to notice it. Since I paid a premium price for the BD (namely I paid for the quality) a reencoding to DVD5/9 is a no-go since then. I never did a BD50->BD25 conversion though ...
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline  
Old 2nd January 2012, 16:19   #15  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
Today the things got a lot improved, there are portables that play most of "former-PC-only" formats, there are standalones that do the same thing, there are NMTs, SAT, mediaplayers that can play them, practically there is no gear sold today that cannot play at least AVI/MKV, even if with several restrictions.
Toto..... it seems we're not in Kansas any more....

Only a week or so ago we were all huddled around a computer monitor in order to watch video using PC-only formats, and/or risking having to re-encode our video every time we replaced a standalone device.

A lot must have happened over Xmas.
hello_hello is offline  
Old 2nd January 2012, 16:58   #16  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
... we were all huddled around a computer monitor in order to watch video using PC-only formats, and/or risking having to re-encode our video every time we replaced a standalone device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
... practically there is no gear sold today that cannot play at least AVI/MKV, even if with several restrictions.
Those restrictions cause a particular media file to be played exclusively on a PC - there are people that do not care about anything else than playback on PC and therefore they use settings/presets compatible with PC codecs only.

But one needs to make an effort to read my messages as a whole, not to cherry pick unrelated statements ...
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline  
Old 2nd January 2012, 18:48   #17  |  Link
diogen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
I'm not missing the point at all.
So, you can take a BD movie and encode it into ~3GB and not see a difference between those two on a 720 set.

Good for you.

Now, go read the 264 forums. You might learn something.

Take care.

Diogen.
diogen is offline  
Old 2nd January 2012, 22:35   #18  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen View Post
So, you can take a BD movie and encode it into ~3GB and not see a difference between those two on a 720 set.
Good for you.
Actually, it's a 51", 1080p TV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diogen View Post
Now, go read the 264 forums. You might learn something.
Diogen.
Such as?? You'll have to be a little more specific to be taken seriously, although I guess it's my only option, given apparently I'm not going to learn anything from you.
Would you like me to post some before and after screen shots so you can point out all the quality differences I'm not seeing? I can do that later if you like.

For the record, if I can see a difference it's generally due to the upscaler used when playing the 720p encode. If I use a Bilinear upscaler there's sometimes a very minor lack of sharpness compared to the original 1080p video, but it's generally only something I can see when pausing on identical frames and switching between them. While the video is playing and at a normal viewing distance I'd seriously struggle to see any difference. If I use a Bicubic resizer, even when pausing the video on identical frames for comparison I'd have to use my imagination to pick differences.
Of course my experimenting was done using a PC. I'm yet to do the same thing using a standalone device because I prefer the computer and it's a lot harder to "A/B" video using a standalone player, and if I do it I want to make sure if there's a difference I'm seeing it because there is one and not because I've come to a predetermined conclusion. I've been planning to try it using two identical players so I can switch between 1080p and 720p by changing the TV input but haven't got around to it yet.

So yes, using a PC I've done a fair bit of experimenting with encoding and playback in order to determine whether there's a perceivable quality drop. I don't need a meaningless link from someone who obviously hasn't to tell me what I can see and what I can't.

Last edited by hello_hello; 2nd January 2012 at 23:36.
hello_hello is offline  
Old 2nd January 2012, 23:05   #19  |  Link
hello_hello
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
Those restrictions cause a particular media file to be played exclusively on a PC - there are people that do not care about anything else than playback on PC and therefore they use settings/presets compatible with PC codecs only.

But one needs to make an effort to read my messages as a whole, not to cherry pick unrelated statements ...
While I'd agree one needs to make an effort to read your messages as a whole, which part of your statement did I cherry pick? My quote of your post included the part which you then re-quoted yourself and highlighted in red while accusing me of cherry picking. Unbelievable!

Yes we all know some players have certain restrictions, and I didn't argue with it because it's obviously true, yet irrelevant to my point. Let me clarify things for you....

"Today the things got a lot improved, there are portables that play most of "former-PC-only" formats"

I was referring to the same "former" PC only formats which you now admit many standalone devices can play, while only a week or so ago you were pontificating about industry standard formats and the likelihood of being huddled around a PC monitor if you used anything else.

Last edited by Guest; 3rd January 2012 at 02:22. Reason: removed ad hominems
hello_hello is offline  
Old 3rd January 2012, 07:49   #20  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,765
I don't wanna get (again) into such a debate, but I felt the need to explain some things to people that oscillates between alternatives.

One: that "digital copying" is not that what is advertised (a sort of COPY/PASTE ), but it will incur quality losses, that are more or less visible, depending on the gear, eyes and brain used. Quality is personal, so the expectations. Quality comes at a price. One can squeeze a BD50 onto a DVD5 with "minimal" loss of perceived quality, but this is only because the pros behind BD did their job properly. With the exception of a few enthusiastics (the same in various thematic fora) few other people are able to obtain similar quality when doing their own recordings - recompressing their masterwork with the same ratio (or final bitrate) will certainly show these limits.
Two: the ability to play non standardised media files was a bonus, a marketing strategy that aimed at gaining a bigger market share, a bonus. Why would be needed for a TV to access youtube.com? Or for a SAT-receiver to play AVIs? Or a Holden Commodore to be able to fly?
Corolar 1: there are many examples but I will stop at one that is more familiar to me: a HDTV-SAT-Receiver that is able to play MP3 and other few multimedia files. The manufactureres' web page is full of complains about eg its inability to play VBR MP3 and several FW revisions have been made available to solve this burning issue, however one of the SAT main functions, the EPG, which was faulty from day 1, is still unsolved, because of all that "demands", and it will never be, now that the product has been replaced.
Corolar 2: The craze of the early nineties to convert audio CDs into MP3s, partly due to lack of space, partly due to lack of a recording medium, made the music stores to offer only MP3 for a long time (now there are several songs available as FLAC as well, but it's a tiny minority). To this end contributed also the lack of space on mobile players (memory was expensive then, it is today, too) which dropped the support for WAV or other lossless formats, and last but not least, the ABx tests that allegedly equivalated an 128kbps MP3 with the original CD (few years ago the limit was set to 192, now it's 320 which is the maximum MP3 allows).

I wonder how many people will still consider converting a commercial movie to MKV/H.264 if the studios will distribute it as a DivX-encoded one, and not as the usual DVD/BD one? You know, following the early claims that DivX/700MB is perceptual equal to the original DVD/4.7GB ... They already started this, see the Digital copy initiative or the various legal movie download stores....
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.