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. |
3rd September 2014, 23:19 | #1581 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 577
|
Quote:
Thank you very much for your help in advance! |
|
4th September 2014, 01:45 | #1582 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,973
|
Quote:
The "*" markings in the streams list are based on a very short scan of the beginning of the file... the true nature of the disc is known only after the full MPEG-2 scan that happens during processing. |
|
6th September 2014, 19:25 | #1584 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,997
|
Suggestion for 1-pass crf prediction mode:
- Generate and keep the --stats file of the --crf pass. - If the file becomes oversized: Run --pass 2 automatically with the stats from pass 1 and the target bitrate. Oversizing (or heavy undersizing) using BD-RBs prediction mode is seldom, but it happens maybe in 1 of 10...20 cases. I tried above method. It seems to work very well without any noticeable quality loss due to the bitrate correction for pass 2. I think it's more reliable than repeating the encode with an educated guess for a new --crf. |
6th September 2014, 22:19 | #1585 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,973
|
Quote:
|
|
25th September 2014, 01:58 | #1586 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Within the main Source.
Posts: 895
|
I'm testing with the movie "Say Anything" (1989)..and I'm noticing that with IVTC_SELECTION=1 & SD_PROGRESSIVE=1 set, some of the interlaced extras; Trailers and TV Spots; aren't being rerendered correct because SD_PROGRESSIVE=1 is still set even though IVTC_SELECTION=1 is set but isn't chosen with Right Click. Would you be willing to join IVTC_SELECTION=1 & SD_PROGRESSIVE=1 together? Or, perhaps, make a new option? The 2 options function well for the Deleted/Extended Scenes. I've noticed this for some other BDs as well, like Footloose. Thanks.
I'm using 49.01.
__________________
Life is not a journey to the grave; but rather to skid out broadside, thoroughly used, torn and warn and loudly proclaim; WOW; What a ride!!! Soon, I'm going to do it AGAiN in different skin!! Last edited by AmigaFuture; 25th September 2014 at 04:39. |
10th October 2014, 23:03 | #1587 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 190
|
Quote:
Last edited by Lowpro; 11th October 2014 at 19:49. |
|
12th October 2014, 04:23 | #1589 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 558
|
Quote:
The former is already present as a hidden option, the later I would like to see as well. |
|
12th October 2014, 05:18 | #1590 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,973
|
I could do that... but there's all kinds of caveats when you allow that kind of thing. A couple that come immediately to mind: 1. Output size can't be guaranteed -- because the parts deselected might violate the size by themselves, or may not leave enough space for what's left. 2. Quality of those actually reencoded can't be guaranteed -- because they get the limited space left over after the deselected parts use their space.
|
12th October 2014, 18:30 | #1591 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 83
|
OK, this is going to be a little lengthy but it should help to understand some of the reasons for this request.
BD Rebuilder is a GREAT program but I FEEL (note that I'm stating my opinion) that it lacks in certain areas when one tries to use CRF values on bonus content and 2-pass on main titles. This would occur in areas such as: 1. Seamless Branching 2. Series discs 3. Films that have bonus content larger than the main title. This is rare but has occurred before. In all of the above scenarios, BD Rebuilder just can't do these films properly and causes the user to do hours of manual encoding and BDedit manipulation or just accept it and possibly get sub par results on the main title with doing 2-pass on entire disc. I'm by no means a programmer but would LOVE to have this option enabled for the above reasons listed. That is what I meant. It would be great to mark certain VID's so that they don't get encoded and just processed through as if we had the FORCE_NOENCODE=0 enabled only on those VID's. Quote:
Regarding the scenarios below, many of them would be bigger than a BD25 so the option FORCE_ENCODE=1 would be enabled BUT should be overwritten/ignored when BD Rebuilder comes across a VID flagged with No Encode. Here are some scenarios that might make this option useful: 1. Somebody wants to do a full backup of a disc and use CRF values ONLY on the extras. This would allow the user to leave the main title untouched to reduce the overall size of the disc but still have the original video quality of the movie while having the extras reduced. When doing this the user would have their output setup as a BD50 but the FORCE_ENCODE=1 would be enabled for the extras to be encoded but not the main title since it was marked with the No Encode option. This would be useful for users that have a Server, HTPC, etc. and playback their material on programs such as XBMC to help conserve space while still having the original picture quality of the main film with the entire disc still intact. This would mean that the disc would most likely be bigger than a BD25 but much smaller than the original BD50 which can be quite useful for all the new titles coming out that seem to contain all 1080p video which can take up quite a big of space. By using CRF values on the extras of those titles I've seen reductions of 80% on those videos while still being quite presentable. This could save the user several GB's or even TB's of data. 2. This would work on all series and seamless branching titles. First, mark the main title/s with no encode and perform a CRF encode on all other VID's. This would, most likely, result in an output bigger than a BD25 disc, in which, the user would have their output setup as a BD50 but the FORCE_ENCODE=1 enabled for the extras to be encoded but not the main title since they were marked with No Encode. This first step shouldn't take too long to perform. Second, take the output of the first step and change BD Rebuilder to output a size of a BD25. Then, mark all the already encoded extras from the first part to No Encode and just encode the main title/s using 2-pass down to a BD25 for your final output. This would allow the highest quality available for the main title/s while still giving the extras a presentable quality. A user could use your wonderful batch processing feature to do many titles at once to help simplify the process. 3. I'm sure there are other scenarios but this is all that I can think of at the moment. As stated before, I know that I and I'd imagine others would greatly appreciate an implementation of a feature such as this. I'm currently doing some series discs at the moment and would be able to test it out if you like. As always, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME! |
|
12th October 2014, 18:43 | #1592 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,973
|
Quote:
With that said, I'll look at it. |
|
12th October 2014, 19:08 | #1593 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,997
|
Personally, I would prefer a method where the user can mark in the Stream Tab which files are to be classified as extras. These are then encoded with the user specified CRF (this feature is already available now). The feature is likely to remain untouched if Quick_CRF is set large enough, say 30. Otherwise it might get recoded fast with slight size reduction and no real quality loss.
But this is only my view, of course. |
12th October 2014, 19:16 | #1594 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 558
|
The reason I like the idea is I've found discs that are BD50, but once you strip excessive amounts of lossless non-English audio tracks, trailers, etc., the discs are just a little bit over BD25 sized.
My preference in those cases is to keep the movie untouched, but only re-encoded the extras with whatever it takes to fit it in the space left over. Less encoding is needed, perfect quality for the main title, less for the bits that aren't as important. Last edited by DoctorM; 12th October 2014 at 19:18. |
12th October 2014, 19:54 | #1596 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 83
|
Thank you very much!
Quote:
Last edited by Audiophile1178; 12th October 2014 at 20:00. |
|
12th October 2014, 20:02 | #1597 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 558
|
Quote:
How badly they got compressed when you manually tweaked it was on you, but it was useful. |
|
12th October 2014, 20:36 | #1598 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,997
|
Quote:
One may of course delegate the responsibility of the tweaks to the user. In practice however if a BD-RB encode turns out to be poor the question or complaint will likely end up on the author's desk, I am afraid Anyway, there are options, but the decision is with jdobbs. |
|
12th October 2014, 22:11 | #1599 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,973
|
Quote:
|
|
13th October 2014, 01:48 | #1600 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,100
|
Quote:
I too would like to 'Third' the suggestion about keeping the main title untouched and allowing BDRB to encode all the rest |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|