Best format to rip DVD to?

[westrock2000]

265 takes forever, I'm generally fine with 264 contained in MKV for actual DVDs that haven't been released in Blu-Ray(only 18 years since Seinfeld's been taken off the air...) but if I'm sourcing my actual BD I just use MakeMKV, it's so fast and easy and it doesn't really seem worth all the time and effort to save a few GBs.

If your software supports Intel QuickSync, it can do H264 super fast. It can do a bluray encode in about 30 minutes, a DVD in like 5-7....and I'm having a hard time telling the difference in picture quality between Intel QuickSync and traditional "CPU encoding".

Handbrake supports it...and allows for good quality.

According to this press release 6th gen (Skylake) processors and newer support H265 encode/decode natively. But I, personally, don't know if any ripping software supports it yet.

 

[defaultluser]

If your software supports Intel QuickSync, it can do H264 super fast. It can do a bluray encode in about 30 minutes, a DVD in like 5-7....and I'm having a hard time telling the difference in picture quality between Intel QuickSync and traditional "CPU encoding".

Handbrake supports it...and allows for good quality.

According to this press release 6th gen (Skylake) processors and newer support H265 encode/decode natively. But I, personally, don't know if any ripping software supports it yet.

Yeah, it produces the same quality level as software-encode in very little time, but it takes a higher bitrates to do that versus the software encoder.

You'd have to do some testing to quantify it for yourself, but I've heard it could be as high as 50%.

 

[westrock2000]

Yeah, it produces the same quality level as software-encode in very little time, but it takes a higher bitrates to do that versus the software encoder.

You'd have to do some testing to quantify it for yourself, but I've heard it could be as high as 50%.

Youre probably right. When it first came out I noticed a lot of noise in the image quality, but I don't see it anymore with current encoders. Again this is at Q18. But when I do recodes for portable devices I do 700kb/s, CPU encoding, slow preset, 2 pass and the quality is acceptable for small screens. I don't trust quick sync for that application.

 

[FnordMan]

You guys are using 23 for your media library?

I was happy with the file size using 18 and wondered if I was giving up any quality.

How big is average bluray (live action, modern movie....no film grain)?

I use 19 for h.264 and 23 for h.265, the guides i've seen said those are supposed to be roughly equivalent. Though i've really only been doing standard def DVDs in h.265 so far. I tend to just rip a bunch and kick them off before bed. They're all done by the time I get back from work.

Yeah, it produces the same quality level as software-encode in very little time, but it takes a higher bitrates to do that versus the software encoder.

You'd have to do some testing to quantify it for yourself, but I've heard it could be as high as 50%.

I did a bunch of testing a while back using an atom chip (N3700). For similar quality settings QuickSync stuff ended up about 20% larger.

 

[Snowdog]

I use 19 for h.264 and 23 for h.265, the guides i've seen said those are supposed to be roughly equivalent. Though i've really only been doing standard def DVDs in h.265 so far. I tend to just rip a bunch and kick them off before bed. They're all done by the time I get back from work.

If anything, you have those CRF settings backwards.

x265 looks worse than x264 at the same quality factor, so you need to use a lower rate factor number (higher quality) on H.265 to compensate. Though it is probably not as bad as 19 vs 23.

I am not going to waste a lot of time on more comparisons, but I was not impressed enough with x265 to keep using it. The encoder just doesn't have the long years of tweaking behind it, like x264 does. I think it is too soon to switch.

 

[defaultluser]

Unfortunately not everyone is as bothered by the blurring as we are. They look at the lower quality render and say "hey no visible blocking" and assume it's just as good.

 

[westrock2000]

That's a little below the belt on assumptions. It could easily be the difference of someone who watches TV on a 42" television versus an 80" television.