RipBot264 v1.18.3 - Simple and easy to use GUI -> IPOD . PSP . CONSOLES . BLURAY

[Pauly Dunne]

Originally Posted by Tlen

Hi,

i found this thread and this program searching for distributed x264 encoding.

So i'm going to try this (finger crossed)!

I've seen there is only a 2 pass mode.

Could you add a 3 pass mode?

I know most people think that even 2 pass its just useless,

but comparing thoroughly entirely many films in my collection

I've found that a third pass gives that little improvement (seen as better line, geometry, grain preservation)

that in a "Archival" scenario is wanted, no matter what.

So a 3 pass mode could be added?

Thank you very much

Welcome to the forum..

So if you've just "found" RipBot264, what were you using before that could do 3 pass encodes ???

Surely certain filtering would do the job just as well, and probably faster than a 3 pass.

[Tlen]

Hi,

yes i just "found" it, because up till now i've done the job manually with a cmd script and calculating the bitrate with pen and paper.

With ripbot i could do calculations faster AND at the same time do parallel encoding.

And no, obiously no filtering can do a job of better preserving the original source.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by Tlen

Hi,

yes i just "found" it, because up till now i've done the job manually with a cmd script and calculating the bitrate with pen and paper.

With ripbot i could do calculations faster AND at the same time do parallel encoding.

And no, obiously no filtering can do a job of better preserving the original source.

May I ask you why you aim for certain bitrate/size? Are you going to put your videos on CD/DVD?

[Tlen]

Yes, i like to have a standard size for my collection, even if i put them on hard disk.

About DVD9 for every film (fhd) and some more for 3 hour films.

With 3 pass, and settings to max slowness (not placebo) and some tweaking, i find that size gives almost perfect reproduction of the source.

Moreover, in the past i did test with "quality" encoding and automatic bitrate.

I wasn't impressed by the results. I obtained a bigger file and lesser quality.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Why not use constant quality mode instead? x264 will automatically decide how mamy bits is required for particular movie. Using n-pass mode is only useful If you have fixed space. Every movie is different (duration and complexity) so using the same size limit is quite illogical for me.

[Tlen]

I understand that can seem counter-intuitive.

But with the multipass and fixed size the encoder can take out the best out of each (different) source.

Multipass gives the encoder the opportunity to analyse more times the same frames to take the best decisions.

Quality encoding can't be multipass so the analysis of the encoder is limited.

Indeed initially i was confident that quality encoding could do a good job (as you say),

but different tests proved me the opposite (compared to a tweaked multipass).

In a way, seems that leaving every decision to the encoder gives a sub par result comparing to manually tweaking (and mpass).

And this fact makes sense.

It's like comparing a stock car with factory settings, with the same tuned-nos-modded-stock car.

Obviously there's no match.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Btw. Have you tried x265 instead of x264. According to my tests you can expect better quality at default medium preset than x264 using veryslow. If you also add MDegrain2 filter then you can get even extra up to 1.8x size reduction in constant quality mode.

[Tlen]

Yes, i tried x265 too.

x265 (at last at the current stage), suffer from a loss of details, comparing to the (almost same presets) of x264 and same final size.

And this can appear counter-intuitive too ("What? a more modern encoder gives worst results at the same bitrate of an older one?")

This because x265 has been created to go where x264 can't.

That is, lower bitrate with acceptable quality. You will never be able to encode a UHD on a BD with x264 with the same quality as x265.

The downsize of it (up till now) is that you can't obtain the same quality of x264 at lower resolutions (and higher bitrates).

The aim of x265 is "good quality" on lower bitrates.

So if you want "Archival Quality" on higher bitrates x264 is a better choice.

Regarding the MDegrain2 (and filters in general), if you want to remain faithful to the original (as i want), filters are just a no-go.

If you want to obtain a smaller file at the cost of fidelity, yes you can use every filter you want.

But in this case there's no sense to make a multipass. A quality encoding (as you say) is sufficient.

Archival quality (my aim) is to obtain the most faithful reproduction of the original at an acceptable encoded final size.

[Pauly Dunne]

Originally Posted by Tlen

Yes, i tried x265 too.

x265 (at last at the current stage), suffer from a loss of details, comparing to the (almost same presets) of x264 and same final size.

And this can appear counter-intuitive too ("What? a more modern encoder gives worst results at the same bitrate of an older one?")

This because x265 has been created to go where x264 can't.

That is, lower bitrate with acceptable quality. You will never be able to encode a UHD on a BD with x264 with the same quality as x265.

The downsize of it (up till now) is that you can't obtain the same quality of x264 at lower resolutions (and higher bitrates).

The aim of x265 is "good quality" on lower bitrates.

So if you want "Archival Quality" on higher bitrates x264 is a better choice.

Regarding the MDegrain2 (and filters in general), if you want to remain faithful to the original (as i want), filters are just a no-go.

If you want to obtain a smaller file at the cost of fidelity, yes you can use every filter you want.

But in this case there's no sense to make a multipass. A quality encoding (as you say) is sufficient.

Archival quality (my aim) is to obtain the most faithful reproduction of the original at an acceptable encoded final size.

You have some very unusual expectations & requirements for your encoding, and I doubt that RB (or anything for that matter) will do what you want it to do.

Most of us like to clean up movies with an acceptable file size, and with old grainy, noisey movies, once they are filtered & cleaned they look SO much better than original.

Others like to increase bitrate (me) as they don't care what the file size is.

If you want to keep the original "quality" why don't you just copy them, as is.

What is your preferred file type ? (mkv, mp4, etc), or do you need them to be the correct size & format to burn to disc ??

I would suggest loading the files into MKVToolNix, remove the irrelevant tracks, and just produce an "original" quality mkv.

It just seems that you are spending a LOT of time, for no real result.

[Tlen]

You have some very unusual expectations & requirements for your encoding

I think instead i have a clear and legitimate goal (and actually reached if i can say it).

I doubt that RB (or anything for that matter) will do what you want it to do.

I'm already obtaining what i want.

I just asked to add to the program the option to make the 3rd pass (the second is already present). Simple as that.

and with old grainy, noisey movies, once they are filtered & cleaned they look SO much better than original.

That is your opinion.

In my opinion, you are destroying both atmosphere and details removing grain. Grain IS detail if you didn't think about that.

If you want to keep the original "quality" why don't you just copy them, as is.

That was my initial idea, but with an average of 30 gig per film, i would not have sufficient space.

9 Gig for film with almost perfect quality it's a good compromise for Archival Quality.

But here we are derailing on phylosophical and personal taste.

It just seems that you are spending a LOT of time, for no real result.

I'm spending my time with the result i want.

BTW. I repeat, just asked to add the option for third pass.

Could @Atak_Snajpera please add that?

That's all.

Thank you.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Grain IS detail if you didn't think about that.

Grain/noise is just an artefact covering details in picture. I prefer to stabilize those random dancing pixels with MDegrain2 than forcing an encoder to preserve them at any cost.

[Pauly Dunne]

Originally Posted by Tlen

I think instead i have a clear and legitimate goal (and actually reached if i can say it).



I'm already obtaining what i want.

I just asked to add to the program the option to make the 3rd pass (the second is already present). Simple as that.



That is your opinion.

In my opinion, you are destroying both atmosphere and details removing grain. Grain IS detail if you didn't think about that.


That was my initial idea, but with an average of 30 gig per film, i would not have sufficient space.

9 Gig for film with almost perfect quality it's a good compromise for Archival Quality.

But here we are derailing on phylosophical and personal taste.


I'm spending my time with the result i want.

BTW. I repeat, just asked to add the option for third pass.

Could @Atak_Snajpera please add that?

That's all.

Thank you.

Of course we are all entitled to our own opinions, and ways of doing things to our individual likings.

May I ask what the main formats & resolutions of your collection ??

'Cause if you think 9 gig is plenty, then you clearly not working with 4K, or even 1080p resolutions.

3 pass's on a 4K movie would take a considerable amount of time.

And unfortunately for you, I have no control whatsoever, with what gets added or changed in RipBot 264.

And from what I've read, Atak has his views on your situation, as well.

So I guess we'll just have to see if something is added.

[Tlen]

@Atak_Snajpera
On old films, grain / noise is integral part of the picture because a strip film is made of... circle grains wich can deteriorate becoming themselves "just grain".

So removing grain and noise you are removing part of the picture too.

Moreover, It's taken for granted that every denoiser by default remove valid part of the picture (altough small when well tuned) as part of standard false positive.

But this argument is part of the neverending debate "to denoise or not denoise".

I want just to point you at the fact that in case of too pushed denoising you end up in (unfortunately) common situations of plastic-look and devastated source like Predator Hunter Edition or Terminator 2.

In those case, they said "Wow look at how beutiful it is with all this ugly grain gone".

What a pity that all users with a minimum of experience badly complain with that, asking for disk replacement or refund.

There are plenty of forums with complaints about DNR (Bluray forum to say one)

@Pauly Dunne
Sorry, i had to be more precise.
All my collection is 1080p. And 9 gig for a 1080p (with accurately tuned multi pass) it's just... right. Not too big, not too small.

[Atak_Snajpera]

On old films, grain / noise is integral part of the picture because a strip film is made of... circle grains wich can deteriorate becoming themselves "just grain".

But grain != details still... By adding noise/grain you are not increasing details in frame. If you have old movie with grain then details are already destroyed (covered).

I want just point you at the fact that in case of too pushed denoising you end up in (unfortunately) common situations of plastic-look and devastated source like Predator Hunter Edition or Terminator 2.

In those case, they said "Wow look at how beutiful it is with all this ugly grain gone".

That's why I only use Mdegrain filter instead of KNLMeansCL. It is slow but instead of bluring whole frame it stabilizes noise (lower randomness in frames = better compressibility). Unfortunately I do not have access to my main PC right now but I will try later to post some examples how good results you can obtain without getting that "photoshopped" look on skin.

[Tlen]

You can have a point on stabilizing temporal noise, that hypotetically could cause not much damage,
but i prefer watching a film quite "imperfect" as seen on theater.
Removing temporal noise, gives the film a "static" appearance which i find a little strange.
But again it's a matter of taste.

Speaking about damage, i want to post one of big damage, Predator.



Look at the water in the Hunter edition.
It's just made of... ceramic or gel... or alien something.

And that's a perfect example of how grain / noise, DEFINES a content.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by Tlen

You can have a point on stabilizing temporal noise, that hypotetically could cause not much damage,
but i prefer watching a film quite "imperfect" as seen on theater.
Removing temporal noise, gives the film a "static" appearance which i find a little strange.
But again it's a matter of taste.

Speaking about damage, i want to post one of big damage, Predator.



Look at the water in the Hunter edition.
It's just made of... ceramic or gel... or alien something.

yeah that looks ugly indeed. This is typical when you use simple spatial denoiser.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgLtIzrnedc

MDegrain (Temporal Denoiser) won't give you that blurry mess.

[Tlen]

MDegrain (Temporal Denoiser) won't give you that blurry mess.

Yes, i know temporal denoisers, and as i've said they can do much less harm.

But it's a matter of preference (top respect for other opinions).

For me, over the time, unfiltered films seem to me more "natural".

That is to say that in the past i did my good amount of testing with filters

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by Tlen

Yes, i know temporal denoisers, and as i've said they can do much less harm.

But it's a matter of preference (top respect for other opinions).

BTW. Those predator frames look like lazy upscale from SD resolution instead of proper transfer from film.

[Tlen]

Mmm, to me seems not.

Other screenshots seem to show details

https://caps-a-holic.com/c_list.php?c=4788

Not a perfect transfer (the original one), but i've seen worse.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Originally Posted by Tlen

Mmm, to me seems not.

Other screenshots seem to show details

https://caps-a-holic.com/c_list.php?c=4788

Not a perfect transfer (the original one), but i've seen worse.

Very thick grain looks suspicious... I do not see high resolution at all in all those screenshots. Everything seems too blurry in comparison to other movies from that time period.

Aliens looks much better
https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&...=48602&i=4&l=0