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 > (HD) DVD, Blu-ray & (S)VCD > DVD & BD Rebuilder

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 22nd July 2016, 20:26   #24541  |  Link
soneca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdobbs View Post
It uses the environment variable NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS. Currently it maxes out at 4 unless it is manually set higher.
Now I understand why only showed 4way in my old i7 980X when I configured multiprocessing to the value 1.
Above 4 cores only manually.
soneca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2016, 21:01   #24542  |  Link
Ch3vr0n
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,368
@Jdobbs ignore for now. I had a good look at that ini and it seems more than that wasn't working. I deleted the entire ini file and let bdrb set one up from scratch and then added a few "standard" hidden opts. The start of the log alone looks completely different. Output path is now listed, 4-way is listed, however when it came to the splitting phase i saw split.exe being launched but avast kicked in with scanning and it failed due to taking too long to launch. Now it (splitting) won't work. Damned, tried excluding entire bdrb folder. Didn't work. Finally had 4-way launched, but fails to actually start encoding. I see the "splitting" line for a second and then encode fail

Quote:
[07/22/16] BD Rebuilder v0.50.17
[22:08:49] Source: THE_REVENANT
- Input BD size: 42,70 GB
- Approximate total content: [03:43:55.962]
- Target BD size: 22,95 GB
- Windows Version: 6.2 [9200]
- Auto Quality: Good (Very Fast), ABR
- Output folder: D:\Blu-ray\Rebuilds\BDRB\
- Decoding/Frame serving: DirectShow [4-way]
- Audio Settings: AC3=0 DTS=0 HD=1 Kbs=640
[22:08:52] PHASE ONE, Encoding
- [22:08:52] Processing: VID_00191 (1 of 3)
- [22:08:52] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00191]
- [22:08:59] Reencoding video [VID_00191]
- Source Video: MPEG-4 (AVC), 1920x1080
- Rate/Length: 23,976fps, 1*432 frames
- Bitrate: 9*694 Kbs
- [22:08:59] Reencoding: VID_00191, Pass 1 of 1
- [22:09:11] Video Encode complete
- [22:09:11] Processing audio tracks
- Track 4352 (eng): Keeping original audio
- [22:09:11] Multiplexing M2TS
- [22:09:16] Processing: VID_00200 (2 of 3)
- [22:09:16] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00200]
- [22:10:05] Reencoding video [VID_00200]
- Source Video: MPEG-4 (AVC), 1920x1080
- Rate/Length: 23,976fps, 63*408 frames
- Bitrate: 7*452 Kbs
- [22:10:05] Reencoding: VID_00200, Pass 1 of 1
- Encode failed. Aborting.
- BD-Rebuilder v0.50.17
- Windows Version: 6.2 [9200]
- Working Path Free Space: 929,52GB
- AVISYNTH Version: 2.6.0.6, Ok
- LAVFILTERS: Ok
- AnyDVD settings check: Ok.
- X264: Ok
- AFTEN: Ok
- FAAC: Ok
- MP4BOX: Ok
- WAVI: Ok
- TSMUXER: Ok
- FRIMEncode: Ok
- FRIMDecode: Ok
[22:10:06] - Failed video encode, aborted

Last edited by Ch3vr0n; 22nd July 2016 at 21:11.
Ch3vr0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2016, 23:25   #24543  |  Link
MrVideo
Registered User
 
MrVideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdobbs View Post
IMHO anything greater than AC3 @ 640Kbs is a waste of space unless you really, really need more than 5.1 channels.
As you well know, the only way to get 7.1 channels from movies mixed with that number of channels is via DTS-MA HD and Dolby Digital TrueHD. I'll be reconfiguring my setup with a newer 7.1 amp and additional speakers. The only way to hear what I did in the movie theater.

When it comes to shows produced with only 5.1 channels (TV shows), you are spot on.
MrVideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2016, 06:57   #24544  |  Link
Lathe
Registered User
 
Lathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdobbs View Post
Just as a note for reference, I ran "The Revenant" with a CRF of 18. The total video size was 8.5GB. So it doesn't take a lot of bells-and-whistles during the encode to get high-quality into a 25GB target.
WOW! I must admit, I am EXTREMELY surprised! That is one BUSY film with a lot of movement and action. Never would have guessed it...

Well, I guess you do indeed know what the hell you are talking about JD (unique @sshole aside...)
Lathe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd July 2016, 07:00   #24545  |  Link
soneca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 753
I usually keep the HD track only when it is released very well distributed in 7.1, in these cases it is worth keeping this massive track with two extra surround channels because the surroundings really is better. But most of the time keep the core in DTS or Dolby Digital. And when I have to convert HD tracks are always Dolby Digital(640Kbps) that are more efficient(for my hearing) while maintaining the SAME quality compared to DTS(1.5Mbps).
Mixing in DTS performed at 4 decibels above the Dolby Digital standard gives the feeling of "sound better", it confuses many ears.
soneca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 02:34   #24546  |  Link
Lathe
Registered User
 
Lathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Not understanding CRF...

Something that confuses me (well, ONE of the many things that confuse me...) is, as was being discussed by JD before using CRF, there seems to be some relation to the CRF value and OTHER x264 settings, right? In other words, you don't just use CRF in a vacuum, right? I have not used the CRF 1-pass setting very much, but as JD said I was VERY curious as to whether I can get more compressing from a full Blu-ray using a nice, high CRF value like 18 (which was the value he used in showing how 'THE REVENANT' could be compressed to 8.5 Gigs) BUT... and this is what I don't understand, doesn't the whole deal also depend on what PRESETS you are using? I think that I noticed with BDRB that you still choose the setting 'High', 'Good - Fast', etc. AND you also would choose if you are selecting 1-pass and CRF, and also what CRF value to use, right?

I don't understand how those two work together. For example, basically going by what JD was saying, I took a Blu-ray and chose a 1-pass CRF of 18 (as he has suggested doing a number of times for more compression and to show actually how little room is really needed for a Blu-ray movie) BUT, I didn't know how to set the PRESET, so I left it where I normally do which is 'High' (default) and just to be fancy I threw in my usual x264 tweaks (deblocking, B-frame optimization, Trellis, Psch-vis, & qcomp) and the encode took bloody forever, so I'm thinking 'Great! I'm really going to get a nice, tight, file size here as per what JD was saying, right...?' Well, no... After all that bloody time, the resulting file size was like almost IDENTICAL to what the Blu-ray was to start with. I had to laugh... I KNOW I must have done something wrong, but darned if I know what it was...

Any insights on how I'm screwing this up? Because I would frigg'n LOVE to save more space and do what JD is suggesting, but using BDRB, I can't quite figure out how to do it with the CRF 1-pass. Sure, many times I just simply take a Blu-ray, say about 25 Gigs or so and just set the output size for, say, 10 Gigs, and then use the 2-pass setting and the same 'High' setting and tweaks I always do, and, sure, in THAT case it comes out just fine where it looks great and is about 1/2 the size (keeping the HD audio though, which with my sound system I prefer)

So, when JD says just simply to use a CRF of say 18 and 'see' how small the size comes out, I don't understand quite what that means in the context of using BDRB. In my reading, I'm PRETTY sure that, yes, a CRF setting of 18 should pretty much look transparent to the lossless Blu-ray, sure, but I don't seem to be able to get that resulting smaller file size. And also, FWIW, I tried it too with the new x265 'Archive' settings (which we were talking about not too long ago) and darn if the same damn thing happened with that too where I got almost the same file size as a result.

Any suggestions, or smacking me over the head with a 2x4, or whatever it takes would be very much appreciated!
Lathe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 03:40   #24547  |  Link
MrVideo
Registered User
 
MrVideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathe View Post
In my reading, I'm PRETTY sure that, yes, a CRF setting of 18 should pretty much look transparent to the lossless Blu-ray,
FYI, Blu-ray content is not lossless. A lossless movie would not fit on a Blu-ray disc.

I do all of my own x264 encodings. Here is the portion of my script that does the actual work (two passes are actually done):
Code:
x264 --pass 1 --profile high --level $LEVEL --bitrate $BITRATE --ref $REF \
        --deblock 1:-1:-1 --me umh --subme 10 --psy-rd 1.00:0.15 --merange 24 \
        --trellis 2 --deadzone-inter 21 --deadzone-intra 11 --fast-pskip \
        --threads 12 --slices 4 --nr 0 --bframes 3 --b-pyramid strict \
        --b-adapt 2 --b-bias 0 --direct auto --weightp 0 --keyint $KEYINT \
        --min-keyint 1 --scenecut 40 --rc-lookahead 60 --ratetol 1.0 \
        --qcomp 0.60 --qpmin 10 --qpmax 51 --qpstep 4 --cplxblur 20.0 \
        --qblur 0.5 --vbv-maxrate $MAXBITRATE --vbv-bufsize $BUFSIZE \
        --ipratio 1.40 --bluray-compat --open-gop --sar $SAR \
        --qpfile "$WINDIRNAME\\${NAME%.*}_qpfile.txt" \
        --stats "$WIN$WINDIRNAME\\${NAME%.*}.stats" --output NUL \
        "${INPUTFILE}"
I set my own bitrate, I do not use CRF. For 1080p23.976, KEYINT=24. REF=4. SAR=1:1. Whatever the BITRATE is set to, MAXBITRATE and BUFSIZE are set to 2x that value.

I do a lot of 35Mbps MPEG-2 1080i video to H.264 1080p23.976 video. For just viewing, (LEVEL=4.0) the bitrate is 4Mbps. If I am going to put it on a Blu-ray (LEVEL=4.1), then the bitrate will either be 10Mbps or 15Mbps.

I also have 15Mbps H.264 source material, so the bitrate for that is set to 8Mbps. When re-coding video, one should try and keep within the general rule of the recode being no more than 1/2 the source bitrate.

You'll also notice the --qpfile option. That tells the x264 encoder where to start a new I-frame, since that will be a location for a chapter mark (which be on I-frame locations).

YMMV
MrVideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 04:39   #24548  |  Link
Lathe
Registered User
 
Lathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrVideo View Post
FYI, Blu-ray content is not lossless. A lossless movie would not fit on a Blu-ray disc.

I do all of my own x264 encodings. Here is the portion of my script that does the actual work (two passes are actually done):
Code:
x264 --pass 1 --profile high --level $LEVEL --bitrate $BITRATE --ref $REF \
        --deblock 1:-1:-1 --me umh --subme 10 --psy-rd 1.00:0.15 --merange 24 \
        --trellis 2 --deadzone-inter 21 --deadzone-intra 11 --fast-pskip \
        --threads 12 --slices 4 --nr 0 --bframes 3 --b-pyramid strict \
        --b-adapt 2 --b-bias 0 --direct auto --weightp 0 --keyint $KEYINT \
        --min-keyint 1 --scenecut 40 --rc-lookahead 60 --ratetol 1.0 \
        --qcomp 0.60 --qpmin 10 --qpmax 51 --qpstep 4 --cplxblur 20.0 \
        --qblur 0.5 --vbv-maxrate $MAXBITRATE --vbv-bufsize $BUFSIZE \
        --ipratio 1.40 --bluray-compat --open-gop --sar $SAR \
        --qpfile "$WINDIRNAME\\${NAME%.*}_qpfile.txt" \
        --stats "$WIN$WINDIRNAME\\${NAME%.*}.stats" --output NUL \
        "${INPUTFILE}"
I set my own bitrate, I do not use CRF. For 1080p23.976, KEYINT=24. REF=4. SAR=1:1. Whatever the BITRATE is set to, MAXBITRATE and BUFSIZE are set to 2x that value.

I do a lot of 35Mbps MPEG-2 1080i video to H.264 1080p23.976 video. For just viewing, (LEVEL=4.0) the bitrate is 4Mbps. If I am going to put it on a Blu-ray (LEVEL=4.1), then the bitrate will either be 10Mbps or 15Mbps.

I also have 15Mbps H.264 source material, so the bitrate for that is set to 8Mbps. When re-coding video, one should try and keep within the general rule of the recode being no more than 1/2 the source bitrate.

You'll also notice the --qpfile option. That tells the x264 encoder where to start a new I-frame, since that will be a location for a chapter mark (which be on I-frame locations).

YMMV
Thanks kindly Mr. V! subme 10, DAMN I bet that takes quite a while That was one of the reasons that I personally chose to keep BDRB at it's 'High' (actually technically x264 'Medium') settings. Because at the 'Very Slow' setting it bumps it up to subme 9. But, I then include the higher tweaks for some of the other settings like you have done.

I usually use these 'Tweaks' with BDRB and a setting of 'High' (default)

TWEAK_PASS_ONE=--direct auto --qcomp 0.50
TWEAK_PASS_TWO=--ref 4 --deblock -2:-2 --psy-rd 1.00:0.20 --me umh --subme 8 --trellis 2 --direct auto --qcomp 0.50

I only do this though if I feel that a Blu-ray is REALLY getting compressed, like JD's example of 'THE REVENANT' going from over 40 Gigs to a BD-25. That's why I was shocked when Ch3vr0n said that his 'Auto' setting chose the 'Fast' 1-pass ABR setting! When the compression isn't so high and it's only compressing 2 or 3 Gigs, then I only add these 'Tweaks'

TWEAK_PASS_ONE=--qcomp 0.50
TWEAK_PASS_TWO=--deblock -2:-2 --qcomp 0.50

And, that's only because I like the idea of a sharper picture and having a TAD more of the bits moved to static areas. Probably unnecessary as some have said here


Going even to subme 9 bumped up the encoding time a LOT and from what I've read so far for that much more encoding time, you can get more punch out of the Trellis / Psy stuff, like you also have it set (I usually set it just a TAD higher at 1.00:0.2 because from what I've read, it supposedly tweaks that differential between objects / colours, so that it appeals more to the eye)

However... I'm afraid that as very informative and interesting as that is (and I WILL indeed study it to make sure I understand it) it still doesn't answer my puzzlement about presets and CRF - however on some further reading here on Doom9, it appears to make a HUGE difference, I just don't understand the relationship. All I can figure is that JD MUST be either keeping BDRB on 'Automatic' settings (thus almost always 'Fast') or has it set to 'Fast' as well as CRF 18. Otherwise, I don't see how he gets the small size encodes from a full Blu-ray.

Last edited by Lathe; 24th July 2016 at 04:42.
Lathe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 05:17   #24549  |  Link
soneca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 753
I've never used good, better or high quality but the definitions used by JD equivalent to presets(x264) below:
Good = preset faster
Better = preset fast
High Quality = preset medium
Highest = preset slow
Ultra-High = preset slower

I use CRF(unrestricted) to years because i convert to watch in the media player then do not care level or reference frames, I want to increase the quality and improve compression.
Always used the value 18 as a quality reference(which is actually visual quality) but using CRF has no way to estimate the final size, as I mentioned above, there are difficult to compress movies for no apparent reason. I just encode "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" using CRF18/slower and the file was quite large(13.6 Mb/s).
Typically use the preset slower which gives me a good quality / conversion time.
The differences between presets and final size are few, but if you want to save some 10% while maintaining the same visual quality use the veryslow(16 ref frames) which will give a saving in file size and an increase in your energy bill.
I've lost a lot of time testing x264 settings and a long time also came to the conclusion(at least for my use) that the presets are the best choice.
soneca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 06:23   #24550  |  Link
Lathe
Registered User
 
Lathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by soneca View Post
I've never used good, better or high quality but the definitions used by JD equivalent to presets(x264) below:
Good = preset faster
Better = preset fast
High Quality = preset medium
Highest = preset slow
Ultra-High = preset slower

I use CRF(unrestricted) to years because i convert to watch in the media player then do not care level or reference frames, I want to increase the quality and improve compression.
Always used the value 18 as a quality reference(which is actually visual quality) but using CRF has no way to estimate the final size, as I mentioned above, there are difficult to compress movies for no apparent reason. I just encode "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" using CRF18/slower and the file was quite large(13.6 Mb/s).
Typically use the preset slower which gives me a good quality / conversion time.
The differences between presets and final size are few, but if you want to save some 10% while maintaining the same visual quality use the veryslow(16 ref frames) which will give a saving in file size and an increase in your energy bill.
I've lost a lot of time testing x264 settings and a long time also came to the conclusion(at least for my use) that the presets are the best choice.
Thanks Soneca!

I have to keep compatibility with my hardware Blu-ray player, so I can't quite use the official 'Slow' preset, but I use BDRB's 'HIGH' setting (official - Medium) which is fully compliant, and then if I feel a lot of compression is being done, I use the tweaks I mention above, basically bringing a number of the parameters up to a 'Slow' preset.

Heh, I don't think I'd do the overkill of 'Very Slow' - for me, the balance between the official Medium and Slow works really well for most complex or larger Blu-rays. I meant to mention above too that when the Blu-ray only needs to be compressed a few Gigs, not only do I cut back on the 'Tweaks' that I normally use, but I also set the BDRB preset for 'Good' 2-pass. When only a few Gigs are being compressed, it doesn't really seem necessary to use the higher settings.

... still don't understand the relationship between CRF and presets and file size though... But, your comment about 'BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN' shows I guess that it just must be pretty unpredictable. I suppose that without any further understanding of this issue, I'll just at most do 2 pass, high quality setting w/tweaks, 10 Gig encodes when I want to save space...
Lathe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 12:42   #24551  |  Link
gonca
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,213
@Lathe
For comparison try
Preset medium (high Quality)
CRF 18
If you wish to add tweaks add
TWEAK_PASS_ONE= --tune film
TWEAK_PASS_TWO= --tune film

CRF is a "constant quality" value
Presets add the bells and whistles to improve compressibility
At a constant CRF a higher quality preset should improve compressibility

i.e. CRF=18 size (preset medium) should be smaller than (preset faster)

Last edited by gonca; 24th July 2016 at 12:48.
gonca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 12:51   #24552  |  Link
MrVideo
Registered User
 
MrVideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathe View Post
Thanks kindly Mr. V! subme 10, DAMN I bet that takes quite a while
Depends on your definition of "a while." But yes, in the 3-4 hour range. I really do not care, since I have plenty of other things to do. The computer that I do the encodes on does nothing but encodes. I have other computers for other functions.
MrVideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 15:26   #24553  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,973
Quote:
BUT... and this is what I don't understand, doesn't the whole deal also depend on what PRESETS you are using?
Yes and no.

The concept of CRF is that you are encoding at a fixed quality. So, theoretically you will get the same quality for the same CRF regardless of the preset (note the "theoretically", it's not entirely perfect -- but it's very good).

So, while changing the preset shouldn't have a significant effect on the output quality -- it will have an effect on output size. So, by increasing from from "Good (Very Fast)" to "High Quality" you will see the size get smaller. Some people will tell you that the fast settings actually look better, because using bells-and-whistles to get size down can sometimes result in "smoothing". Personally I don't see it unless you're really trying to shrink a lot.

When I did my test on "The Revenant" I used all the standard settings BD-RB uses. Also note that the 8.5GB output size was of the video only. It didn't include audio. If someone who loves HD audio decided to keep an LPCM track (something I would never recommend) -- that size could easily double. Some people also like to keep several languages.

There's another way you can do a test similar to the one I did. You can use "One Pass CRF" (from the Encoder Settings menu). That way you can actually see what CRF would be required to hit a specific target size -- while taking into account your specific audio settings. BD-RB does some predictive passes using samples from the source and determines what CRF is needed to reach that size (using your current settings). Again, it's not perfect and you may get a little undersizing -- but it's pretty good at hitting the target. What you should see is that by changing from "Good (Very Fast)" to "High Quality" the CRF value will be smaller for a given target. Just out of curiosity, I'll run "The Revenant" a couple times and see what I get with each.

[Edit] The "Good (Very Fast)" prediction selected a CRF of 17.00 for a BD-25 encoding.
[Edit] The "High Quality" prediction selected a CRF of 12.85. This is ridiculously low -- and is results in little more than padding to make it hit the target.

In an earlier edit I mentioned a BD-RB imposed a low-end value of 16 -- but that no longer exists. If I remember correctly it was because I got too many complaints of undersizing when it was hitting the minimum. It's easier to simply remove the limit than to explain over-and-over that increasing the size would have resulted in no measurable quality improvement.

[Edit] Just a note for those who aren't familiar with CRF. A lower value results in better quality (less required quantization).
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net

Last edited by jdobbs; 24th July 2016 at 17:26.
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 16:54   #24554  |  Link
MrVideo
Registered User
 
MrVideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdobbs View Post
So, while changing the preset shouldn't have a significant effect on the output quality -- it will have an effect on output size. So, by increasing from from "Good (Very Fast)" to "High Quality" you will see the size get smaller.
Now I'm confused. Shouldn't the higher quality setting actually make the file size larger, as the bitrate should be higher?
MrVideo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 17:08   #24555  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrVideo View Post
Now I'm confused. Shouldn't the higher quality setting actually make the file size larger, as the bitrate should be higher?
It's natural to think of it that way, but not when you are working with a fixed quality level (CRF). The bitrate or alternatively the CRF setting is made independently of preset. In a CRF encode, since the quality remains constant between the two encodes, the extra bells-and-whistles used in the more advanced preset actually lowers the size (overall bitrate) needed to reach the specified quality. That's why people often use the higher quality settings when creating MKV files. That way they get a desired level of quality at the smallest size, and you can fit more movies on a given storage device. It's also the reason H.264 is so much more efficient than MPEG-2, new compression techniques have been added.
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net

Last edited by jdobbs; 24th July 2016 at 18:13.
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 20:10   #24556  |  Link
Lathe
Registered User
 
Lathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdobbs View Post
Yes and no.

The concept of CRF is that you are encoding at a fixed quality. So, theoretically you will get the same quality for the same CRF regardless of the preset (note the "theoretically", it's not entirely perfect -- but it's very good).

So, while changing the preset shouldn't have a significant effect on the output quality -- it will have an effect on output size. So, by increasing from from "Good (Very Fast)" to "High Quality" you will see the size get smaller. Some people will tell you that the fast settings actually look better, because using bells-and-whistles to get size down can sometimes result in "smoothing". Personally I don't see it unless you're really trying to shrink a lot.

When I did my test on "The Revenant" I used all the standard settings BD-RB uses. Also note that the 8.5GB output size was of the video only. It didn't include audio. If someone who loves HD audio decided to keep an LPCM track (something I would never recommend) -- that size could easily double. Some people also like to keep several languages.

There's another way you can do a test similar to the one I did. You can use "One Pass CRF" (from the Encoder Settings menu). That way you can actually see what CRF would be required to hit a specific target size -- while taking into account your specific audio settings. BD-RB does some predictive passes using samples from the source and determines what CRF is needed to reach that size (using your current settings). Again, it's not perfect and you may get a little undersizing -- but it's pretty good at hitting the target. What you should see is that by changing from "Good (Very Fast)" to "High Quality" the CRF value will be smaller for a given target. Just out of curiosity, I'll run "The Revenant" a couple times and see what I get with each.

[Edit] The "Good (Very Fast)" prediction selected a CRF of 17.00 for a BD-25 encoding.
[Edit] The "High Quality" prediction selected a CRF of 12.85. This is ridiculously low -- and is results in little more than padding to make it hit the target.

In an earlier edit I mentioned a BD-RB imposed a low-end value of 16 -- but that no longer exists. If I remember correctly it was because I got too many complaints of undersizing when it was hitting the minimum. It's easier to simply remove the limit than to explain over-and-over that increasing the size would have resulted in no measurable quality improvement.

[Edit] Just a note for those who aren't familiar with CRF. A lower value results in better quality (less required quantization).
Thanks JD! I appreciate you taking the time to explain. That is basically what I THOUGHT was going on. I wonder then, why the hell when I tried to do a Blu-ray with the 'High' (default) setting and a CRF 1-pass of 18 I got almost the same size as the original Blu-ray...??? It also happened when I was testing out the x265 'Archive' feature we were talking about a while ago. Why are the file sizes coming out so big...??? And in both cases the encode took a LONG time.

BTW Mr. V... If you are using subme 10 and it is ONLY taking 3-4 hours...??! WOW! You must have a quantum / tachyon computer my friend!

Thanks though!
Lathe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 20:11   #24557  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lathe View Post
Thanks JD! I appreciate you taking the time to explain. That is basically what I THOUGHT was going on. I wonder then, why the hell when I tried to do a Blu-ray with the 'High' (default) setting and a CRF 1-pass of 18 I got almost the same size as the original Blu-ray...??? It also happened when I was testing out the x265 'Archive' feature we were talking about a while ago. Why are the file sizes coming out so big...??? And in both cases the encode took a LONG time.

BTW Mr. V... If you are using subme 10 and it is ONLY taking 3-4 hours...??! WOW! You must have a quantum / tachyon computer my friend!

Thanks though!
A lot can depend on the source (length and how compressible it it). It's also possible that your settings are affecting it. Look in the BD-RB folder for LASTCMD.TXT after the encode and post it. I'd like to see what is actually being used for the encode. Am I to assume you have forced the CRF to 18 with FIXED_CRF, or are you talking about ALTERNATE output?
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net

Last edited by jdobbs; 24th July 2016 at 20:17.
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 20:14   #24558  |  Link
Lathe
Registered User
 
Lathe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdobbs View Post
Look in the BD-RB folder for LASTCMD.TXT after the encode. I'd like to see what is actually being used for the encode.
Yeah, I think I should give it another try, it's been a while.

See, what you are saying about BDRB using a pretty dang high CRF (17) at the 'Fast' setting, sounds VERY good to me! So, if I can bloody well figure out actually how to DO this properly, then I will just use CRF 18 and see if I can get the Blu-ray file sizes down somewhat to save the RAPIDLY disappearing space on my many HDDs!

I'll try again and then post that file you mentioned...

Oh, and Gonca, thanks kindly for the suggestion too. That is pretty much what I'm shooting for, I think...

***EDIT

Also too JD... I do include the 'tweaks' that I mentioned. But, isn't the bloody POINT that when you do use these 'bells & whistles', that it helps the file size to be compressed BETTER...?

Last edited by Lathe; 24th July 2016 at 20:17.
Lathe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 20:29   #24559  |  Link
Ch3vr0n
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,368
@Jdobbs any further info into my "splitting" issue. Split instantly aborts, inspect checks out. If i disable splitting, encode proceeds.
Ch3vr0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2016, 20:40   #24560  |  Link
jdobbs
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch3vr0n View Post
@Jdobbs any further info into my "splitting" issue. Split instantly aborts, inspect checks out. If i disable splitting, encode proceeds.
It's gotta' be your antivirus. The splitter is a fairly simple piece of software. I just broke it out from BD-RB so it can run concurrently with other processes.
__________________
Help with development of new apps: Donations.
Website: www.jdobbs.net
jdobbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:16.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.