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 > Video Encoding > High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10th June 2015, 15:51   #1  |  Link
Blinky7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Bluray to HEVC

Hello guys,
I have aproximately 250 bluray ISOs in hard disks (or course ripped from my DISC collection). They amount to about 11tb worth of data so my 3 x 4tb hard drives are full.

Recently I had some tough luck economically, so I can't afford to keep buying hard disks to store my backups in, and I am thinking of ways to archive this collection without a lot of cost and loss in quality.

At first I was thinking of converting to BD25 and burning in BD25 discs, however this stil requires a lot of money for the burner and the blanks, and since I have a powerful machine, I am currently thinking of converting the whole collection to HEVC seeing as it is more efficient, to save space and keep using the same disks.

What I want to ask you about, is if you can recommend a program for the task, and also if there is any standard in HEVC already established that I should follow, to make sure the files are playable in tomorows TVs/machines that support H.265... ( I remember, with divx and avc a simple profile change could result in unplayability).

Furthermore, as the resulting files wont be stored in media but in hard disks, what is a good suggestion for the decrease in size to achieve about the same quality as the original? (for a example if in a 42gb bluray the movie alone is 33gb, for what size should I opt for in the HEVC encoder to achieve almost the same quality? (I know in every encode there is loss of quality no matter what thats why I say ALMOST the same), maybe a 70% ratio, so 23gb in this example?)
Blinky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2015, 16:01   #2  |  Link
Sharc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,820
Why not try BD-Rebuilder? You have the choice between x264 or x265 (H.265). For future compliance & standards reasons I would still prefer to go with x264. You can for example compress your ISO rips to BD5 (4.7GB) or BD9 (7.4 GB) size in good.....very good quality.
Sharc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2015, 16:10   #3  |  Link
Blinky7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharc View Post
Why not try BD-Rebuilder? You have the choice between x264 or x265 (H.265). For future compliance & standards reasons I would still prefer to go with x264. You can for example compress your ISO rips to BD5 (4.7GB) or BD9 (7.4 GB) size in good.....very good quality.
I didn't know bdrebuilder supports h.265....if so, I will try it out!

However, I have a 1080p projector and 120" screen and I am a quality junky, so those BD5/9 are unacceptable. That's the same reason, I can't help not using H.265 if it offers that much better quality/size ratio.

After all, accepting the quality junky I am, I am OK using file sizes in excess of 10gb per movie (or 20gb if needed) as long as I get the required quality. After all, it is still much lower than the 39gb which is the average size per ISO in my collection, so even using 20gb per movie will practically double my hard disk space! If I can do that practically not sacrificing any quality, that is what I am looking for!
Blinky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2015, 16:20   #4  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,566
By the time x265 becomes worthwhile over x264 veryslow, it is very, very slow. Expect a day or two of encoding per Blu-ray on slow presets, so start with the largest and work your way down. Since you're big on quality, consider using SMDegrain; it'll run slower but increase the quality/efficiency without being very noticeable.
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2015, 16:26   #5  |  Link
smegolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 42
Ripping to ISO is very inefficient (which for many people is fine if they have storage to spare).

Better to rip to MKV (eg using MakeMKV), discard special features, disc extra audio tracks etc.

Ripped this way, 250 Blurays won't take 11TB, they probably will only take 5-6TB.... unless by some coincidence every disc you own is a high-bitrate BD-50.
smegolas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2015, 16:28   #6  |  Link
stax76
Registered User
 
stax76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: On thin ice
Posts: 6,712
You should be aware however not really many people are really using HEVC, the reason is it don't yet delivers the quality it's supposed to deliver, here is the most recent poll:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...highlight=2015

There is a video comparison tool built into StaxRip making it really easy for anybody to compare codec and AviSynth settings:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...51#post1716551

It can be downloaded here:

https://github.com/stax76/staxrip

There is a somehow outdated comparison thread, unfortunately nobody posted recently an update there:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=170986
stax76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2015, 16:54   #7  |  Link
Blinky7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Based on your replies, I am thinking of a two-step transition.
Maybe I should first convert all the Blurays to lossless MKV stripping them off the extra audio/video files, keeping only the main movie, the English HD audio, and all subtitles (as they dont take space).
This way I should be able to keep the quality to 100% while saving about 30% space and the loss of menus and extra features is something that would be lost anyway in the next step of encoding to HEVC.

So with step1 I should regain about 30% disk space back, while avoiding loss of quality due to encoding, and this should buy me some time to re-visit the HEVC encoding in the future, maybe when it is more mature and there is a standard I can base my encodings on so that they are playable in any device.

If you aggree that this is the best route for the time being, what program do you suggest for the task? MakeMKV or any other is better?
Blinky7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2015, 17:06   #8  |  Link
smegolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blinky7 View Post
If you aggree that this is the best route for the time being, what program do you suggest for the task? MakeMKV or any other is better?
I would use MakeMKV since that's what it's designed to do.

Save each new MKV file to a different HDD than the source ISO. This will maximise the speed.

If the only HD audio track is PCM (which is the case with a small % of discs) then consider converting to FLAC, which MakeMKV can do on the fly.
smegolas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th June 2015, 18:18   #9  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blinky7 View Post
Hello guys,
I have aproximately 250 bluray ISOs in hard disks (or course ripped from my DISC collection). They amount to about 11tb worth of data so my 3 x 4tb hard drives are full.

Recently I had some tough luck economically, so I can't afford to keep buying hard disks to store my backups in, and I am thinking of ways to archive this collection without a lot of cost and loss in quality.

At first I was thinking of converting to BD25 and burning in BD25 discs, however this stil requires a lot of money for the burner and the blanks, and since I have a powerful machine, I am currently thinking of converting the whole collection to HEVC seeing as it is more efficient, to save space and keep using the same disks.

What I want to ask you about, is if you can recommend a program for the task, and also if there is any standard in HEVC already established that I should follow, to make sure the files are playable in tomorows TVs/machines that support H.265... ( I remember, with divx and avc a simple profile change could result in unplayability).

Furthermore, as the resulting files wont be stored in media but in hard disks, what is a good suggestion for the decrease in size to achieve about the same quality as the original? (for a example if in a 42gb bluray the movie alone is 33gb, for what size should I opt for in the HEVC encoder to achieve almost the same quality? (I know in every encode there is loss of quality no matter what thats why I say ALMOST the same), maybe a 70% ratio, so 23gb in this example?)
You should check first whether this codec/format is supported by your player/s, then encode 250+ files .
Unless very important, I would do myself (and I am doing it) is, as suggested, to drop all useless menus and extras. I also drop any other language than the original one (be it Swahili ) and at least one subtitle track in one of the languages I know. I am not interested in anything the director or the actors have to say, if the movie cannot tell this by itself it is not worth having, let alone archiving. The only extras I keep are some Disney games and/or tests (Audio-video).
I do not reencode (except in winter, when it's cold ) neither the video nor the audio. Storage is so cheap nowadays that spending months to reencode files to save 10% is a waste of time.
Besides, you already own the discs, so reripping them according to the needs shouldn't be any trouble.

Nevertheless, what the **underground** community does is to resize the FullHD to 720p (sometimes with removing the mattes), and this does save a lot of space at a small visual impair. This also has the advantage of being playable on small-display portable things like tablets or smart-phones.
__________________
Born in the USB (not USA)
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th June 2015, 17:40   #10  |  Link
pieter3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Santa Clara CA
Posts: 118
If you are using Plex to play this stuff, the clients do not support HEVC yet. Instead the server does on-the-fly H.264 transcode, which is absolute garbage quality-wise. If you're just using VLC on a new-ish system then you should be fine playback wise.
pieter3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2015, 00:09   #11  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxyshadis View Post
By the time x265 becomes worthwhile over x264 veryslow, it is very, very slow. Expect a day or two of encoding per Blu-ray on slow presets, so start with the largest and work your way down. Since you're big on quality, consider using SMDegrain; it'll run slower but increase the quality/efficiency without being very noticeable.
x265 has gotten a lot faster post 1.7, particularly if you think of it as "what speed do I get substantially better encoding efficiency than x264 at the same speed."

x265--preset medium --limit-refs 3 should be faster for 1080p (at least on an AVX2 system) than x264 --preset veryslow and look better.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2015, 01:29   #12  |  Link
jkauff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Akron, OH
Posts: 478
Any re-encoding is going to affect playback quality. Maybe you can see the difference on your system, maybe not, but why take the gamble?

I do what others have suggested. Rip the main movie with MakeMKV, and save to a single .mkv file including only the audio tracks and subtitles you need. You have all the extras on the original discs, and I haven't found many worth backing up. You'll preserve the original video quality and save a ton of space on your drives. Also, the process takes minutes per title, not hours like re-encoding.
jkauff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2015, 05:59   #13  |  Link
Sharc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkauff View Post
Any re-encoding is going to affect playback quality. Maybe you can see the difference on your system, maybe not, but why take the gamble?

I do what others have suggested. Rip the main movie with MakeMKV, and save to a single .mkv file including only the audio tracks and subtitles you need. You have all the extras on the original discs, and I haven't found many worth backing up. You'll preserve the original video quality and save a ton of space on your drives. Also, the process takes minutes per title, not hours like re-encoding.
How about 3D sources and player/playback compatibility?
Sharc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2015, 14:14   #14  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
x265 has gotten a lot faster post 1.7, particularly if you think of it as "what speed do I get substantially better encoding efficiency than x264 at the same speed."

x265--preset medium --limit-refs 3 should be faster for 1080p (at least on an AVX2 system) than x264 --preset veryslow and look better.
Testing has shown that on some movies, slower profiles help noticeably. I really, really hope limit-refs is soon extended to slower profiles, because it helps enormously.

Gopu fixed the analysis load problems, so it'd time to get back to serious qp comparisons.

P.S.: Fixedsys? I don't even have that.
foxyshadis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th June 2015, 21:00   #15  |  Link
smegolas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
x265 has gotten a lot faster post 1.7, particularly if you think of it as "what speed do I get substantially better encoding efficiency than x264 at the same speed."
Except he wants to get very high quality, almost the same as the source BD. In these scenarios x265 does not offer a worthwhile bitrate saving over x264 in my experience. Sometimes it looks worse even at the same bitrate.
smegolas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th June 2015, 17:46   #16  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by smegolas View Post
Except he wants to get very high quality, almost the same as the source BD. In these scenarios x265 does not offer a worthwhile bitrate saving over x264 in my experience. Sometimes it looks worse even at the same bitrate.
I'm not sure how true that is anymore. The addition of --qg-strength has helped quite a bit.

Of course, any recompression is lossy. Best quality and fastest processing will always come with repacking, which should be the preferred solution if sizes can go small enough.

Has anyone looked into lossless recompression of H.264? I suspect there's a theoretical way to take a 4-slice encode and combine into a single slice for CABAC. That could save a few percent from the typical Blu-ray.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th June 2015, 18:41   #17  |  Link
Selur
Registered User
 
Selur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 6,240
'qg-strength' ?=? 'aq-strength', or did I miss something?
__________________
Hybrid here in the forum, homepage
Notice: Since email notifications do not work here any more, it might take me quite some time to notice a reply to a thread,..
Selur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th June 2015, 20:42   #18  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selur View Post
'qg-strength' ?=? 'aq-strength', or did I miss something?
Doh. I meant --qg-size. Fine grain adaptive quantization.
Quote:
--qg-size <64|32|16>
Enable adaptive quantization for sub-CTUs. This parameter specifies the minimum CU size at which QP can be adjusted, ie. Quantization Group size. Allowed range of values are 64, 32, 16 provided this falls within the inclusive range [maxCUSize, minCUSize]. Experimental. Default: same as maxCUSize
I've been having good success lately with the combination of:

--qg-size 32 --aq-mode 2 --aq-strength 2.0

Although I've mainly be doing 10-bit lately, and nothing from Blu-ray rips or other interframe compressed sources.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2015, 18:11   #19  |  Link
Morte66
Flying Skull
 
Morte66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 397
A bit late to the party, but for what it's worth...

I'd just weed out material and remux to mkv, using MkvMergeGUI. Mount the ISO, open it in explorer, find the biggest .m2ts file in \BDMV\Stream, drag and drop that to MkvMergeGUI and uncheck any audio streams you don't want.

I wouldn't re-encode unless you want to do AviSynth work on the video (e.g. grain removal), and need to store the result. But good Avisynth processing makes video encoders look fast...
Morte66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd June 2015, 18:26   #20  |  Link
stax76
Registered User
 
stax76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: On thin ice
Posts: 6,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morte66 View Post
A bit late to the party, but for what it's worth...

I'd just weed out material and remux to mkv, using MkvMergeGUI. Mount the ISO, open it in explorer, find the biggest .m2ts file in \BDMV\Stream, drag and drop that to MkvMergeGUI and uncheck any audio streams you don't want.

I wouldn't re-encode unless you want to do AviSynth work on the video (e.g. grain removal), and need to store the result. But good Avisynth processing makes video encoders look fast...
Do you get the languages set this way? Why not use MakeMKV instead?
stax76 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 17:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.