i like to backup/convert my dvds on to my whs server so i dont have to keep switching dvds. then i got an idea....since my bluray collection is starting to grow why not convert them to reasonable sized backups. since bluray movies are usually 1080p i would like to rip/convert my backups to 720p and if possible to .mkv i have seen some "scene" releases and their rips are quite clear. but how do i go about reducing to 720 while maintaining reasonable file size.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
ripping/backuping bluray
- Thread starter antok86
- Start date
Ripbot264 is very easy to use, but transcoding HD video is slow even on a fast quad core.
There are ways to rip the main movie video plus only the necessary audio track to make somewhat smaller backups. The process is fast, but you will use a lot of disc space in exchange for perfect quality.
There are ways to rip the main movie video plus only the necessary audio track to make somewhat smaller backups. The process is fast, but you will use a lot of disc space in exchange for perfect quality.
You can set a target max file size with Ripbot264. But 4.5gb is a bit small, even for 720p, the 720p rips I've done have come out usually in the 7-8gb range. Still a substantial space savings (and will fit on a DVD9)
It is a slow process and varies from movie to movie. I think people with an i7 are taking 5-7 hours per movie to encode? (after ripping) But you can use Ripbot to queue multiple encodes and can set it to run when you go to sleep/work/etc (the only downer is you can't pause... though it does run as a background process and the computer is perfectly usable while encoding [though I have not tried gaming])
It is a slow process and varies from movie to movie. I think people with an i7 are taking 5-7 hours per movie to encode? (after ripping) But you can use Ripbot to queue multiple encodes and can set it to run when you go to sleep/work/etc (the only downer is you can't pause... though it does run as a background process and the computer is perfectly usable while encoding [though I have not tried gaming])
If I might ask, why pay for a BD Disc only to view it with degraded quality? A 5 GB compressed stream will be very lossy and indistinguishable from a DVD at 480i resolution.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
I rip with MakeMKV.
I don't shrink/transcode my videos, but whenever these threads come up a lot of people reccomend Handbrake.
I don't shrink/transcode my videos, but whenever these threads come up a lot of people reccomend Handbrake.
Snowknight26
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 8, 2005
- Messages
- 4,435
All that does is remux content, something the OP said he didn't want to do.
That's not true at all.... it will certainly be lossy when compared to the original content but it will still be superior to a DVD. Saying it will be "indistinguishable" is inaccurate.
I agree that 5gb is too small of a target and would be a bit wasteful, but it still would provide superior visual quality compared to a DVD.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
?
He can rip with MakeMKV and then shrink with Handbrake, fufilling both his needs.
How do you come to that conclusion? DVD's and BD discs are typically created by processing/compressing a 4K (or higher) master source. The DVD stream is compressed to fit on a 8.5GB disc, while the BD stream is compressed to fit on a 50GB disc. The average size of the main feature on a DVD disc typically ranges from 4 to 6 GB in my experience, which is the target size the original poster specified that he wanted. Why would a 5GB target mastered by compressing a BD source using freeware/amateur encoding software be visually superior to a 5GB target mastered by compressing a 4K or higher source using professional video encoding software?
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
I've seen plenty of Blu-ray or even HD DVD "rips" to MKV (using x264 to get 'em there) that fit into a DVD5 format and they look fantastic. I mean, given the bitrates chosen to get a typical sub-2-hour movie down that is. If we're talking about a 2.5 or 3+ hour movie that's gonna suffer because of the decreased bitrate to fit onto a DVD5, but the rips I've seen and acquired look damned fine to me, and yes they're 720p as the end result.
I've seen a few decent 1080p rips (should call them down-conversions I suppose) that could fit on a DVD9 but for whatever reason the people creating them don't seem to realize this and so they aim for 9GB or larger... I mean really, can't shave off another rough gig to make it fit on a DVD9? Idiots... picture quality isn't going to suffer that much at that point, if noticeable at all.
There are some situations where hardware might simply not be capable of 1080p or even 720p content, but can handle 480p just fine, so another down-conversion to that format is fine, and it should look slightly better than the original DVD content in many respects. But realistically these things always suffer as the source material is already lossy to start with...
I've seen a few decent 1080p rips (should call them down-conversions I suppose) that could fit on a DVD9 but for whatever reason the people creating them don't seem to realize this and so they aim for 9GB or larger... I mean really, can't shave off another rough gig to make it fit on a DVD9? Idiots... picture quality isn't going to suffer that much at that point, if noticeable at all.
There are some situations where hardware might simply not be capable of 1080p or even 720p content, but can handle 480p just fine, so another down-conversion to that format is fine, and it should look slightly better than the original DVD content in many respects. But realistically these things always suffer as the source material is already lossy to start with...
Because DVDs are constrained to inferior MPEG2 video coding, which is far less efficient than modern codecs like H.264/AVC. In addition, the Blu-ray's video stream is remarkably high quality -- it's not as good as the raw 2K/4K transfer, but it's pretty damn good. Pushing it through an extra stage of compression is not going to have a catastrophic impact on video quality.
5GB wouldn't be my target size for a good 720p Blu-ray rip (in fact I wouldn't really have a target size), but it would be superior to practically any raw DVD rip. Not that I would rip anything to 720p, of course.
This.
Using your (aubsxc) logic, then there would be no reason why a standard DVD can ALSO be encoded using H.264 and come out even smaller while still being (virtually) indistinguishable from the original DVD.
Excellent point. I hadn't thought about the efficiency of the new codecs. So how much compression could I apply to the BD source and still leave the perceived picture quality on a large display (like a 60-inch screen at 10ft viewing distance) virtually unchanged (i.e. compressed stream vs, BD source). Would a 25GB BD feature fit on a DVD-9 disc with just the DTS core track (no PCM)? I understand that there are a lot of variables here, including processing effort, codec, software etc, but I'm just looking for a ballpark estimate here.....
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
The only way to know for sure is do a test encode down to some size just under the max of a DVD9 and see for yourself, seriously. You're making it sound like the Blu-ray source isn't compressed itself.
I get what you're saying, but the only way to know is do it yourself and see with your own eyes (and your own equipment) how it looks.
I get what you're saying, but the only way to know is do it yourself and see with your own eyes (and your own equipment) how it looks.
Transparently? Probably not. In my experience, transparency happens at around 10-11mbps. On a very good display, that's going to go up a bit. Call it 12.5-13mbps, depending on the content. Especially grainy, high-contrast video will require more. Only an exceptionally short movie made to fit onto a DVD9 is going to be transparent on a very good display, and only if you use the greatest caution when recoding.
A well-recoded 10mbps 1080p stream is going to look really damn good, though. There may be some visual anomalies, but most likely nothing distracting. Good enough to earn the "archive quality" moniker in my book.
With a HTPC connected to the TV, yes.