Login at Kodi Home

Towndrunk · 2012-08-23, 05:48

I've been ripping my movies for a while, and have recently been talked into changing my format due to a possible change in media player. I have been watching videos and reading a bit here and there, and wanted to see what the most common format used by people here is.

I started ripping the full dvd, and had the audio/video folders. I then converted to a single .iso file in preparation for a possible change in media player. The thing is that a DVD takes up about 4-6G, and Blu-ray movies take up way to much space. I see that a lot of people have .mp4 files, or .mov files. I was watching a video this afternoon and saw someone with a 1080 .mov file that was only 174Mb.

I'm just curious if I am wasting space, or if there is a better way of copying my movies to my NAS to be played with XBMC. I would appreciate any advice. Thanks.

thrak76 · (This post was last modified: 2012-08-23, 06:14 by thrak76.)

.MOV and .mp4 are just containers for the encoded video contained within. In my collection, I now use the .mkv container exclusively for video. I encode the videos using the H.264 codec using a few different presets contained in Handbrake, and Ripbot264.

The quality that I prefer varies from source to source. Animated titles can have the quality presets reduced a little, and the file size shrinks nicely - for instance, I have a Blu-ray rip of Wall-E that comes in at under 3GB, and that's with an HD audio stream.
Live action films tend to hammer the compression algorithms a bit more, and I tend to bump the quality up a tad too. Aspect ratio also makes a difference in size too. 16:9 content will generally be a larger file size than 2.35:1 content (provided the black letterbox area is cropped out). For instance - Underworld Awakening (2.40:1), with an HD audio stream is a bit more than 4GB, while Scott Pilgrim (16:9) clocks in about double the file size!

The quality you want is subjective, and can also depend on the screen you choose to view them on. You can get away with less quality on a smaller screen. On my 46" TV, I use the preset of 21 + or - 1 on the quality slider (or dropdown menu). File size can be further reduced by not using HD audio streams, omitting subtitles, and lowering the quality.

I know some people ask why bother to encode when hard drive sizes keep increasing? Well, if I can't perceive a difference in quality after ripping/encoding, then why not do it, and then have more space for the next video? I have a 15TB media server (with about 9TB of usable space after backups and duplication), and I still would rather encode and save the space.

Towndrunk · 2012-08-23, 06:39

How long does this process take to rip a DVD/Blu-ray? I rip the main movie only on all of my movies since I can do without all the menus and extra features. I typically rip them at 100% quality too. I can usually rip a DVD in about 10-15 minutes while a Blu-ray can take up to about 50 minutes. I only have 6TB of storage, but I'm looking to expand. If I can get the same quality while saving space I'm all for trying something new. Especially if I could rip my Blu-ray disks and have them take up less than 5-6G.

thrak76 · (This post was last modified: 2012-08-23, 06:48 by thrak76.)

Well ripping is almost entirely at the mercy of your optical drive... encoding on the other hand takes quite a bit more time - and is entirely at the mercy of your CPU. I can encode a DVD in less than half the runtime of the title. A blu-ray however takes a lot more time! I've got it down to around 1.5x the runtime on a good day, and more often it takes a bit less than double the runtime. So, I usually queue things up to run while I'm asleep.
You won't get your methods down until you do it a few times, and see what works for you. You may end up redoing some as well, just to see what the differences are between quality settings.

Towndrunk · 2012-08-23, 13:26

Do you mind if I ask what your process is, or what software you use. I typically do all of my ripping on Corei5 with 12G RAM. I'm not sure as to the speeds of my DVD or Blu-ray drives on the PC though. I use a one stop application with DVD Fab. The only setting I typically change is to make sure that it is the full movie only at 100%, and that I keep only the English Audio and Subtitle tracks. The process is the same with DVD or Blu-ray, I just choose which I'm doing, but the process is the same after that.

I would like to save space if possible, especially when it comes to HD content.

thrak76 · 2012-08-23, 20:05

Sure.

For DVDs I always use Handbrake (it's free). It will rip and encode at the same time. If I want to queue up a large amount of DVDs at once - like a TV series - i'll rip them first to the HD with AnyDVD HD (a decrypter like DVDfab). Handbrake has useful presets, and I tend to use their "High Profile" preset. You can passthru AC3 and DTS soundtracks (or downmix), and include any/all subtitles as well.

For BDs (and before that HDDVDs), i use a few programs, depending on the source material. I like to demux the discs first with AnotherEAC3toGUI. This will allow me to pick exactly which title/audio stream/subtitle combination i want. This also converts the subtitle from .sup to .sub/idx if you want. The demux process also rips the discs. Then I'll encode only the video stream with either Handbrake or Ripbot264. Both can queue up batches, but Handbrake gives you a lot more control over your encodes.

The reason I separate out the video stream is because Handbrake can't passthru TrueHD audio, and Ripbot can't passthru any HD audio. Also, neither program can mux PGS subtitles back into the container. So after my video stream is encoded, I'll bring all the pieces back together (video stream, audio stream(s), subtitles, chapters) with MKVmerge.

The process sounds long and convoluted! I work all these steps in batches, so it's not an all day process or anything - but it was time-consuming at first while I found my process. It would be much easier if I didn't want the HD audio streams/subtitles. I'd just use Handbrake for everything, and be able to passthru DTS-HD streams (but not TrueHD) or downmix to AC3/DTS/flac, not worry about subtitles, and just download an .srt file later.

Phew! Any questions? Smile

romwarrior · (This post was last modified: 2012-08-23, 20:31 by romwarrior.)

Is all this effort really worth the time to save some GB's? I mean, with drives at about $.05/GB and only getting cheaper, going from 30 GB to 6GB saves you maybe $1.20. Time is money. Not to mention any possible sacrifices in quality with reencoding.

I'm not knocking anything at all, just wondering if the ends really do justify the means?

thrak76 · 2012-08-23, 20:44

(2012-08-23, 20:30)romwarrior Wrote: Is all this effort really worth the time to save some GB's? I mean, with drives at about $.05/GB and only getting cheaper, going from 30 GB to 6GB saves you maybe $1.20. Time is money. Not to mention any possible sacrifices in quality with reencoding.

I'm not knocking anything at all, just wondering if the ends really do justify the means?

(2012-08-23, 06:13)thrak76 Wrote: I know some people ask why bother to encode when hard drive sizes keep increasing? Well, if I can't perceive a difference in quality after ripping/encoding, then why not do it, and then have more space for the next video? I have a 15TB media server (with about 9TB of usable space after backups and duplication), and I still would rather encode and save the space.

Yeah, this was already covered...

romwarrior · 2012-08-23, 21:05

Got it. If you feel it's worth it then all is good. I was just trying to quantify what the savings might be.

Towndrunk · 2012-08-23, 22:26

I was wondering if the process was worth it myself. I was mainly looking for a way to reduce the size of a Blu-ray rip. Right now I can rip a DVD in about 10 minutes at 100% and it will be about 4-6G. If I do a Blu-ray, the size isn't worth the quality I gain. I thought there was a way to get a HD video without the huge size associated with ripping a Blu-ray the way I I'm doing it now.

The only time I rip a Blu-ray is for movie night at our "outdoor theater" in our backyard. I delete it from my laptop after we watch it. Is there another process to try? I am going to try using Pavtube Blu-ray converter tonight instead of DVDfab and see if it makes a difference.

thrak76 · 2012-08-24, 00:00

You can try MakeMKV, and strip out everything except the main movie, one audio stream/one subtitle, and get some size savings without any encoding. DVDfab does this as well. Only way for significant size reduction is to encode.

Towndrunk · 2012-08-24, 04:42

I just did a test with Pavtube. I chose the H.264 HD .mov option on a Blu-ray I have, "This Means War". It took 3 hours to rip the movie, and it ended up being 6.73G. I think I can live with that. It is a long process, but only required about 3-5 minutes of my time. The computer did all the work after that. I think that compared to the 25G from DVDFab, to 6-7 from Pavtube, it is a big enough difference for me to start ripping some of my Blu-ray disks now. Thanks for the help guys. I do appreciate it.

thrak76 · 2012-08-24, 05:47

I hadn't seen/used pavtube before. Did you pay for a license, or just a trial period? Do you have a supporting nvidia CUDA card, or AMD app acceleration card? 3 hours is a real decent encode time.

Towndrunk · 2012-08-24, 13:16

That was just using the onboard graphics that is integrated with the motherboard. It's an ATI Radeon HD 3200 Graphics. The Pavtube I got from a friend. I don't believe it was a trial period, but I didn't have to licence it either.

The only thing is that I need to mess with the settings a little more to see about getting subtitles and multiple audio tracks.

thrak76 · 2012-08-24, 20:14

Good deal. Check the website for pavtube, as it talks about being able to take advantage of CUDA and App acceleration (if you have a compatible graphics card). If you only have the integrated chip, then that is still a respectable time. Next try to encode something large and complicated - like Avatar, or The Hurt Locker... then see what kind of times you get.