BD Rebuilder Beta - Bug Reports Only

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by glood1

hi all

i don' t understand difference beteween crf and abr option if my choice encoding option is very slow and my target is bd 25

i want better quality

thanks for answers

CRF is a constant quality encode (almost, actually constant rate factor) while ABR uses bitrate averaging.

CRF will generally deliver better quality, but its sizing many not be completely accurate (there's a chance you may oversize). BD-RB tries to predict the output size by doing sample CRF encodes, but there is a limit to how well you can predict size with samples. ABR will do a single pass and will average the bitrate, resulting in correct sizing, but with lower quaility at a given bitrate. Two pass will deliver the best quality along with accuracy but it is slower (because of the extra pass). Two pass is the default if you don't select either of the one-pass options.

If you set the quality settings to "Automatic", the quality along with pass selection will be changed automatically based upon what BD-RB believes to be optimal for the specific input length (in minutes) and target size.

[glood1]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

CRF is a constant quality (almost, actually constant rate factor) encode while ABR uses bitrate averaging.

CRF will generally deliver better quality, but its sizing many not be completely accurate (there's a chance you may oversize). Two pass will deliver the best quality along with accuracy but it is slower (because of the extra pass). Two pass is the default if you don't select either of the one-pass options.

If you set the quality settings to "Automatic", the quality along with pass selection will be changed automatically based upon what BD-RB believes to be optimal for the specific input length (in minutes) and target size.

great thanks i understand
ok but if crf and abr are not selected (it s possible)
encoding slow mode is enable, what happen's.
it s crf or abr ?

i must secleted slow mode and CRF >> it s the better result for maximum quality
for source 40 gb and target 25 gb

[SoniG]

I still have field order issues. I tested 2 different BD with the 0.33.05 version, field order on AVC footages seems to be well detected (Dumbo, 480i 29.97 tff encoded as tff), but mpeg2 footages seems to be wrong (Batman Begins, 480i 29.97 tff encoded as bff) and give me jerky playback. Didn't tested VC-1 footages yet.

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by SoniG

I still have field order issues. I tested 2 different BD with the 0.33.05 version, field order on AVC footages seems to be well detected (Dumbo, 480i 29.97 tff encoded as tff), but mpeg2 footages seems to be wrong (Batman Begins, 480i 29.97 tff encoded as bff) and give me jerky playback. Didn't tested VC-1 footages yet.

Are you positive? I just checked the code, and it seems to look at the M2TS MPEG-2 flags correctly. I sent you a PM.

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by glood1

great thanks i understand
ok but if crf and abr are not selected (it s possible)
encoding slow mode is enable, what happen's.
it s crf or abr ?

i must secleted slow mode and CRF >> it s the better result for maximum quality
for source 40 gb and target 25 gb

It's neither. It is two-pass encoding. Two pass is the best selection for quality. Go back and re-read my previous post.

Also, this is a bug reporting thread. If you want to ask questions like this, open a new thread... only bug reports should be here.

[Race Guy]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

Why not something like:

"Good (Very Fast)" = X264 setting "--superfast"
"Better (Fast)" = X264 setting "--faster"
"High Quality (Default)" = X264 setting "--medium"
"Highest (Slow)" = X264 setting "--slow"

That would have larger gaps in speed between settings.

Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Dark, but I recall you saying somewhere here that there's no "quality" difference between doing a 1 pass vs a 2 pass encode at the same quality setting.

The only diff was the final output was closer to target size. First pass is the "educated guess" on size, second pass uses that size result to dial in the size of the second pass.

If that's so, how does x264 pick the bitrate? Is it ABR?

[SoniG]

Originally Posted by Race Guy

Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Dark, but I recall you saying somewhere here that there's no "quality" difference between doing a 1 pass vs a 2 pass encode at the same quality setting.

The only diff was the final output was closer to target size. First pass is the "educated guess" on size, second pass uses that size result to dial in the size of the second pass.

If that's so, how does x264 pick the bitrate? Is it ABR?

Not totally true. 2 pass allow a better bitrate prediction but most of all, it allows to impove image quality in balancing low bitrate/vectors on simple images and high bitrate/vectors on complexe images.

[jdobbs]

I have updated the first post of this thread with a new release of BD-RB (v0.33.06). The changes for this release are:

- Fixed an error in which field order could be detected
  incorrectly on MPEG-2 interlaced sources.
- Updated the audio AVS so that sample rates and sample
  sizes that are not compatible with AFTEN AC3 output are
  converted before being sent to the encoder.  This fixes
  some issues that cause audio encoding failures.
- Added two hidden settings related to secondary video
  encoding.  SECONDARY_USE_QUALITY=1 tells BD-RB to use
  the same quality settings for secondaries as is used
  for primary video.  SECONDARY_CRF=n sets a CRF value to
  be used for secondary video.  Be careful... any bitrate
  you use for secondaries is stolen directly from the
  primary video.
- Changed the x264 profiles used with the "Good" and
  "Better" quality selections in order to allow for more
  discrete differences.  The "Good" quality selection now
  uses the x264 "--superfast" profile and the "Better"
  selection uses "--faster".
- Tweaked the "Automatic" quality selections to adjust for
  the changes in profiles.  Also added greater distinction
  in quality selection for different input video sizes.
- Updated the included version of X264.EXE to the
  latest release (r1563).
- Other minor corrections and cosmetic fixes.

[colinhunt]

Something rather peculiar popped up when I inadvertently tried to process BD-RB's output with BluRip. I meant to process the original file, but pointed BluRip to BD-RB's output by accident. I used BD-RB v0.33.05 to make a movie-only BD25 backup, with quality set for Highest.

Here's what BluRip's Demux log says of the .m2ts output by BD-RB:

[24.4.2010 19:23:36]M2TS, 1 video track, 1 audio track, 1:40:46, 24p
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] 1: Chapters, 12 chapters
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] 2: h264/AVC, 1080p23.999 (16:9)
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] 3: DTS Master Audio, French, 5.1 channels, 24 bits, 96khz
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] (core: DTS-ES-96/24, 5.1 channels, 24 bits, 1509kbps, 96khz)
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] v02 The video bitstream is encoded in a non-standard framerate.
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] v02 The video bitstream framerate field doesn't seem to match the timestamps.

And here's what BluRip says of the original file:

[24.4.2010 20:37:07] M2TS, 1 video track, 1 audio track, 1:40:46, 24p
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] 1: Chapters, 12 chapters
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] 2: h264/AVC, 1080p24 (16:9)
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] 3: DTS Master Audio, French, 5.1 channels, 24 bits, 96khz
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] (core: DTS-ES-96/24, 5.1 channels, 24 bits, 1509kbps, 96khz)
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] v02 The video framerate is correct, but rather unusual.

I was attempting to add English subtitles to a BD25 backup of a French movie, and noticed that while the subs were synced fine at the beginning of the movie, they were several seconds off by the end. This difference in framerate might be the explanation.

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by colinhunt

Something rather peculiar popped up when I inadvertently tried to process BD-RB's output with BluRip. I meant to process the original file, but pointed BluRip to BD-RB's output by accident. I used BD-RB v0.33.05 to make a movie-only BD25 backup, with quality set for Highest.

Here's what BluRip's Demux log says of the .m2ts output by BD-RB:

[24.4.2010 19:23:36]M2TS, 1 video track, 1 audio track, 1:40:46, 24p
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] 1: Chapters, 12 chapters
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] 2: h264/AVC, 1080p23.999 (16:9)
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] 3: DTS Master Audio, French, 5.1 channels, 24 bits, 96khz
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] (core: DTS-ES-96/24, 5.1 channels, 24 bits, 1509kbps, 96khz)
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] v02 The video bitstream is encoded in a non-standard framerate.
[24.4.2010 19:23:36] v02 The video bitstream framerate field doesn't seem to match the timestamps.

And here's what BluRip says of the original file:

[24.4.2010 20:37:07] M2TS, 1 video track, 1 audio track, 1:40:46, 24p
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] 1: Chapters, 12 chapters
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] 2: h264/AVC, 1080p24 (16:9)
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] 3: DTS Master Audio, French, 5.1 channels, 24 bits, 96khz
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] (core: DTS-ES-96/24, 5.1 channels, 24 bits, 1509kbps, 96khz)
[24.4.2010 20:37:08] v02 The video framerate is correct, but rather unusual.

I was attempting to add English subtitles to a BD25 backup of a French movie, and noticed that while the subs were synced fine at the beginning of the movie, they were several seconds off by the end. This difference in framerate might be the explanation.

Did you do anything else between the two processes? BD Rebuilder never sets the framerate to 23.999. Either the demuxer is wrong or somehow an incorrectly encoded stream with that framerate was fed into BD Rebuilder.

I'd suggest you use TSMUXER to check the framerate on the original source and the BD Rebuilder output.

It could be that is what X264 produced. But, with that said, with that setting you would be off by 250ms in a 2 hour movie. You wouldn't be able to see that in your subtitles.

[deank]

These 'logs' look exactly the same as eac3to's. I'd say BluRip uses eac3to and that's what you see...

[colinhunt]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

Did you do anything else between the two processes?

Nope, nothing.

It could be that is what X264 produced. But, with that said, with that setting you would be off by 250ms in a 2 hour movie. You wouldn't be able to see that in your subtitles.

Ah, indeed. Yet for some reason subs drift out of sync during the movie.

I'd suggest you use TSMUXER to check the framerate on the original source and the BD Rebuilder output.

tsMuxeR reports 24 for both.

Originally Posted by deank

These 'logs' look exactly the same as eac3to's. I'd say BluRip uses eac3to and that's what you see...

That is correct.

update: I fed both files to Mediainfo in Advanced mode. Here's the relevant info from the original file:

General
Duration                         : 6046739.911333
Duration                         : 1h 40mn 46s 740ms
Duration                         : 01:40:46.740

Video
Codec profile                    : High@L4.1
Codec settings                   : CABAC / 4 Ref Frames
Duration                         : 6046000
Duration                         : 1h 40mn 46s 0ms
Duration                         : 01:40:46.000
Frame rate                       : 24.000 fps
Frame count                      : 145104

And here's the info from BD-RB's output:

General
Duration                         : 6046004.333333
Duration                         : 1h 40mn 46s 4ms
Duration                         : 01:40:46.004

Video
Codec profile                    : High@L4.1
Codec settings                   : CABAC / 3 Ref Frames
Duration                         : 6045958
Duration                         : 1h 40mn 45s 958ms
Duration                         : 01:40:45.958
Frame rate                       : 24.000 fps
Frame count                      : 145103

update: RipBot also says BD-RB output is 23.999fps. Furthermore, I encoded the original m2ts into 640w/24fps mkv and opened it in SubtitleEdit 2.90 for Visual Sync. The subtitle file I have syncs perfectly to the mkv without any adjustments. I'll encode the BD-RB output into lores mkv to see how the subs sync in SubtitleEdit.

update: Subtitles sync perfectly to a lores 24fps mkv created from BD-RB output. I guess the problem has to lie with tsmuxer which I use to inject subtitles and create BD output.

[ggab_]

Any idea why Burn Current Disc under the File menu would be greyed out? ImgBurn is installed. I have to drag the files over manually and it burns OK. Back when I first installed this program I used this option, not sure why it changed?

It was this way with 0.33.04 and is still that way with 0.33.05.

[SoniG]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

I have updated the first post of this thread with a new release of BD-RB (v0.33.06). The changes for this release are:......

What a reactivity! Not even had time to push the Backup button!
Fields issue fixed!

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by ggab_

Any idea why Burn Current Disc under the File menu would be greyed out? ImgBurn is installed. I have to drag the files over manually and it burns OK. Back when I first installed this program I used this option, not sure why it changed?

It was this way with 0.33.04 and is still that way with 0.33.05.

If you haven't done a backup yet, it would be greyed out because there is no "current disc". BD Rebuilder looks at this registry entry:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ImgBurn\InstallDirectory

to find ImgBurn's path and determine if it has been installed. I just checked it, and it's working correctly for me. You may want to try reinstalling ImgBurn.

[ggab_]

Originally Posted by jdobbs

If you haven't done a backup yet, it would be greyed out because there is no "current disc". BD Rebuilder looks at this registry entry:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ImgBurn\InstallDirectory

to find ImgBurn's path and determine if it has been installed. I just checked it, and it's working correctly for me. You may want to try reinstalling ImgBurn.

I'm definitely doing it after a backup is done and before I close out BD Rebuilder. My HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ImgBurn\InstallDirectory key says C:\Program Files (x86)\ImgBurn

[8ternity]

Originally Posted by Sharc

From the first post in this thread:

... In order to make this beta version work, you have to first install some other packages. I recommend you use the versions linked below, as sometimes new version changes can cause unexpected issues. Here's what you need to do: ....

You are free to do what you want with your PC, but it has been said a trillion times by jdobbs in this thread that people should not complain if they run into issues when using other versions.

@Sharc
c.c. to Jdobbs:

I know the rules... i've read it. Im asking that question for that point:

i use ripbot264 latest version for bugs and now the ripbot program forced to detect an newer version of ffdshow than yours, and i can't start the program if i don't have an newer version. I need to install / uninstall all the times i need to use one or the other program.

If i see that i have an issue with BD Rebuilder, i unstall newer version, reboot, install back the rev. 3326, and restart a blank new project.

I like both softwares for differents uses

Thanks you!!

[9020V]

Is anyone having trouble playing BDR-25 backups on PS3? They've been working fine up until a few weeks ago, I've noticed the last few I've done don't play properly on PS3 (full disc mode).

Surrogates would not play at all. It just went into a blank screen on the PS3 and I could not go to top menu or fast forward. Info said title 50 with 0:00:00 time.

I then tried Star Trek. At first it seemed like it was going to work. The starship appeared like on the disc-open sequence, but then it froze. On subsequent attempts, it blanked screen just like surrogates.

The Informat! plays all the trailers ok, but it blank screens when it gets to the main title (again, info says that it has 0:00:00 time and none of the menu buttons work).

All of the discs work fine in the PC with powerdvd and I tried a movie-only backup of surrogates and it played fine in the PS3.

Rips were done with DVDFAB. I tried re-ripping the burned disc with anydvd and disabling bd-live, but it didn't make a difference (I don't even know if it is a bd-live disc).

Anyone have any clue as to what the problem is? Is it some sort of copy protection that the PS3's latest firmware is preventing it from playing these discs? Oh, and I also tried them on multiple media types including verbatim BD-R 25 and same thing.

[jdobbs]

Originally Posted by ggab_

I'm definitely doing it after a backup is done and before I close out BD Rebuilder. My HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\ImgBurn\InstallDirectory key says C:\Program Files (x86)\ImgBurn

Look in that directory, if there is a file called imgburn.exe -- then BD-RB should enable itself.

[Shuttle99]

jdobbs question? I just did a movie only with 33.05 to bd9 I used automatic qualtiy setting and it choose to do it 1 pass and took about 6 hours I just installed 33.06 and going to try the same movie again with automatic qualtiy setting but this time it choose to do it with 2 pass I don't really care which one it chooses. I see you made changes to the new version on quality settings so I'm sure thats why it wants to do it a 2 pass but my question is does a 2 pass conversion always produce a better conversion compared to a 1 pass whether you can truely notice a differance or not the conversion is always better with a 2 pass?