What is the best/easiest way to convert ripped movies keeping best quality?

[Emanef]

I can see from the numerous posts I've searched through that this is not a new topic, but I'll be specific in what I am asking and hopefully I won't irrirate too many people by asking....! Here goes....!

I have loads of dvd's, and I'd like to convert my favourites (probably around 300/400) to a smaller format to store on my NAS drive so that I can access them from all over the house.

These are the issues I have and need to work out:

I have an Iamm NTD36HD media player, that plays most formats but not hi-def or H264. However, I've ordered a Popcorn Hour which does, and it may be that I get a second to replace the Iamm if I get on with it.

Therefore, I need to decide whether I should go straight to H264 and not have access on the Iamm (I could use my Xbox 360 for wartching those files for now if needby), or should I stick with Xvid, which I can play on everything (including the Asus EeePC I've ordered! Woo hoo!)?

Xvid or H264?
I've been using Auto GK for Xvid for ages, and am pretty familiar with it. It's generally good, but one thing I find annoying is not being able to lock the resolution and have multipass. Setting to a percentage gives a fixed resolution, but it's only single pass and generally a larger file.

I'd rather lock the resolution because I'm watching them on a 42" TV (or 32" in the bedroom), and once the resolution gets reduced the media player is having to upscale, and it's clearly not as good a picture as the correct resolution.

I know H264 is the 'super new high compression format', but;
- does it really give much better quality video with higher compression?
- Is there any decent programs that can convert quickly and are fairly each to use (and batch files)?

Theoretically, what size would an H264 file be to an Xvid of the same movie at the same quality (I realise they're all different, but if you take any movie and convert into both and compare)?

Xvid
If I stick with XVid (and probably AutoGK), what is the best way to convert keeping the resolution and giving best quality? ie, as near to that as the orginal DVD/mpeg source?

H264
If I go down this route, what are the best programs to use? Not as in the most effective but you need a science degree to use (!), but that is fairly straight forward to use and gives good results quickly?

Also, can anyone recommend a good guide to getting settings for DVD quality, and that explains what difference the bit rates makes?

Apologies again for asking what has been asked god knows how many times, but if anyone can take the time to give me some good advice hopefully I can stop posting these stupid questions (and maybe it may help someone else in a similar position!)

Cheers guys (and gals where applicable!)

[jagabo]

h.264 does give better quality at low bitrates. But it will take 4 times longer to encode.

Test your DVD player and Popcorn Hour: keep the frame size 720x576 (or 720x480 for NTSC sources) and encode at constant quality with the DAR flags set to the proper DAR. That way you'll lose no resolution. But not all players support DAR flags properly.

For Xvid I usually use Single Pass, Target Quantizer mode with a Quantizer of 3. That is a little lower quality than the source but I find it an acceptable compromise of quality vs file size. When I use x264 (not very often) I usually use a fixed quantizer of ~22.

For easier seeking I usually set the keyframe interval to smaller values. 100 for xvid, 50 for h.264.

[redwudz]

I've been using FairUse Wizard for H.264 conversions. Easy to use and fairly quick (For H.264 ) with a quad core computer from ripped DVD files.

[Emanef]

I've not tried Fairuse, simply because when I installed it I realised I had to rip to ISO, which I hadn't done so didn't bother continuing with it, but I may give it a go over the weekend.

Jagabo, thanks for that. What software do you use that lets you choose those settings?

[jagabo]

When I rip a DVD I use DVD Decryptor in IFO mode to rip the main title (or for TV series, each episode) as a single VOB. I then use DGIndex to index the VOB, AviSynth to frameserve (and do any processing), and VirtualDub to do the compression to XVID AVI. That last step is where you set up all the Xvid controls. I don't encode to h.264 that much but I've used VirtualDub (plus x264vfw), AviDemux, and x264.

[Emanef]

I'm giving Staxrip and Fairuse Wizard a whirl....

I'm trying H264 at the moment, just to try to compare file sizes and conversion times. My PC is a Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.6ghz, so not shit hot) with 2 GB. I also have a laptop with a 2.6 Core 2 Duo Penryn (6mb cache) and 3 GB memory, although I prefer to leave the desktop doing the converting (I'm looking to upgrade to an E6700 2.6ghz Core 2 Duo when I see one on Ebay for a reasonable price, which should give it more grunt).

Firstly, is there any way to keep the full resolution in Fairuse? It lists all the resolution options, but none are full size (they tend to be from 720x384 downwards).

Second; Staxrip seems to be a lot more flexible, but that means there's loads of options that confuse me! What are the best settings to use for keeping full resolution and pretty much full quality (ie similar quality to the original DVD)? I'd rather have one setting that I use for all movies, so coding to a set filesize is not neccessarily ideal (as I have no way of knowing what the best filesize for each is unless there is a calculation based on running time mulitplied by X mb per minute (ie, 8 mb per minute of video, x 60 would mean 480mb for an hour, that sort of thing).

Does anyone know of a comparison chart that lists comparable bit rates and file sizes for the different codecs (like on the DVD 'What is it?' page on here)?

I'm new to H264 but once I understand the basic settings, differences, etc I should be ok.

I tried a set of Terminator 2 last night using Staxrip, and ended up with an Xvid of 2423mb (720x576, 219kbps) compared to the 1659mb with AutoGK (smaller resolution, 624x272, 448kbps). I also did an .mkv conversion and ended up with a 1331mb file with a res of 720x576.

What sort of settings, for example, would a movie downloaded from iTunes store or similar be?

[jagabo]

file size = bitrate * running time

This is universal to all codecs. The question is what quality you will get at a certain bitrate with different codecs. That will depend on the frame size, frame rate, and nature of the video. Here are a few examples:

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic349367.html#1837447

Both are 720x480. One is 1 kbps, the other 67000 kbps. Both were made using Xvid in constant quality (target quantizer) mode. Both look nearly identical to the source video. DVD sources won't be at either extreme but the "right" bitrate will vary. I don't care about the exact file size so I usually use constant quality encoding, as noted earlier.

Although my Divx/DVD player supports DAR flags, and I usually use an HTPC to view files anyway, I usually resize to square pixels resolutions for greater compatability. Typically 704x400 for 16:9 material, 640x480 for 4:3. With Xvid at Target Quantizer = 3 I usually get files between 800 and 1500 MB. If you use h.264 encoding you can probably get that down to around 2/3 to 3/4 that size with the same general quality.

[Emanef]

Ah, ok.

Right, an update....
I'm struggling to get a decent H264 file. I've done a couple but playback is unpredictable (sometimes it plays, sometimes it freezes, etc). Plus it's generally taken about 6/7 hours to convert. For now I'm going to go back to Xvid and concentrate on that. I'd rather be doing them to H264 but it takes too long, plus Xvid is pretty much compatible everywhere.

Fairuse Wizard - I actually like this as it's easy to set up for both H264 and Xvid, but unfortunately it won't let me force to full resolution so that's not good for what I need.

Staxrip - I'm liking this one as I can set the resolution, both for H264 and Xvid, but unfortuantely there doesn't seem to be an English manual for it and I don't know what all the settings mean!

Handbrake - I couldn't complete a H264 encoding as it kept freezing. I'm trying it with an XVid at the moment on my other PC.

I'm also now trying the method you said you use; DGIndex to index the VOB, AviSynth to frameserve, and VirtualDub to do the compression to XVID AVI. That's actually pretty straightforward when you work out how to do it. I'm running that at the moment to see what result I get.

A couple of questions on things you've said Jagabo.... why do you only use 1 pass and not 2 pass? And why constant quality? Would a 2 pass not give similar results with a smaller file size?

Also, should I use the latest versions of Avisynth and VirtuaDub for xvid?

[jagabo]

A couple of questions on things you've said Jagabo.... why do you only use 1 pass and not 2 pass? And why constant quality? Would a 2 pass not give similar results with a smaller file size?

With 2-pass encoding you pick the bitrate (and hence the file size) but you don't know what the quality will be. In single pass target quantizer mode you pick the quantizer (and hence the quality) but you don't know what the file size will be (and it takes half the time to encode since it only requires one pass). When the file sizes match the quality is pretty even between the two methods.

2-pass does have an advantage when you are shooting for very low bitrates. Target quantizer mode is a mathematically constant quality mode. 2-pass VBR adjusts a little better for "visual" quality.

Try this: encode a movie in single pass target quantizer mode with a quantizer of 3. Note the final file size (average bitrate). Now encode using 2-pass VBR mode with the same average bitrate. Compare the two results.

Also, should I use the latest versions of Avisynth and VirtuaDub for xvid?

It's not absolutely necessary to have the latest versions.

[Emanef]

Ah, ok, I'm with you. So I just need to do a few comparisons on the quantiser settings to see what I'm happy with.

One last question, more on the AVC side of things (and then I'll try a few more tests and leave you alone for a while!).... I've read that X264 is the better codec to use, but neither Staxrip nor Handbrake seem to let me specify X264, only H264 with either an mp4, mkv or avi wrapper. Also, does Virtualdub not do AVC?

[Midzuki]

H264 is the compression "method";
X264 is the encoding application.

As for VirtualDub, there exists a Video-For-Windows version of X264,
created by DeathTheSheep. Keep in mind that the AVI container
does not support the so-called advanced features of H264.

[jagabo]

Ah, ok, I'm with you. So I just need to do a few comparisons on the quantiser settings to see what I'm happy with.

Exactly. With Xvid here's what I find: At a quantizer of 2 the frames are nearly identical to the source even if you look at enlarged still frames. At 3 you will see a little macroblocking if you view enlarged still frames but you won't notice at normal playback speed. At 4 you may notice a little macroblocking at normal playback speed if you watch closely.

One last question, more on the AVC side of things (and then I'll try a few more tests and leave you alone for a while!).... I've read that X264 is the better codec to use, but neither Staxrip nor Handbrake seem to let me specify X264, only H264 with either an mp4, mkv or avi wrapper. Also, does Virtualdub not do AVC?

You can use x264vfw to add h.264 encoding to VirtualDub. But the AVI container is not well suited to h.264 video. It can be done though. And quality will be similar to any other h.264 encoder/container. If you want to play with h.264 encoding you will be better off with AviDemux. It's a lot like VirtualDub but supports many more output containers like MP4, MKV, OGM, etc.

[Emanef]

I've tried a couple at H264 (with Staxrip) using a quantizer of 18, mkv container. I did The Ststaion Agent (around 1.5 hours run time) and got a file of 1500, which seems quite large. VideoLan seems to struggle playing back; it plays and I can forward for about 20 mins, but any further and it just freezes. That took abut three hours, as I had it on single pass fast setting. I'm going to try at a quanitzer of 23, see if that makes much different to the size/quality.

I've also tried a couple of Xvids using the method you use (frameserving to Virtuldub), but for some reason I cannot get any audio. I'm using Lame as the audio output for Vdub. Any suggestions? Cheers

[FulciLives]

XVID4PSP is a nice encoder for MKV or MP4 using H.264/x264

It can also make files that are compatible with the XBOX 360 or PS3 which is nice because they make great media players (if your computer isn't near the TV and mine sure ain't close).

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[jagabo]

I've tried a couple at H264 (with Staxrip) using a quantizer of 18, mkv container... got a file of 1500, which seems quite large.

18 is considered near lossless, hence the large file size. 22 or so is a better compromise of quality and file size.

I've also tried a couple of Xvids using the method you use (frameserving to Virtuldub), but for some reason I cannot get any audio. I'm using Lame as the audio output for Vdub. Any suggestions? Cheers

MPEG2Source() does not include audio. DGIndex should have created a separate audio file (usually AC3). I import that into VirtualDub and leave it as-is. If you want to convert to MP3 be sure your AC3 decoder is set to downmix to stereo.

VirtualDub has a problem importing some AC3 files. I use VirtualDubMod when that happens.

You can also specify an audio source within your AviSynth script:

video=Mpeg2Source("file.dga")
audio=WavSource("file.wav")
AudioDub(video, audio)

[Emanef]

OK. Well with Xvid I am finding that a quantiser of 3 gives good results and reasonable file sizes. I'm going to try a couple more variations on that but I think that's the xvid settings decided for me.

Not quite so sure with X264 though. The file sizes are better but playback is patchy. I'm wondering if that's because I'm using too high quality settings. Does a pc find it harder to play back a H264 file that is large (ie with less compression but higher bit rate) or smaller (more compression but less bit rate and data to deal with)?

I'm going to try a few X264 conversions with quantisers of 22-25 to see what the results are.

I may have a look at that Xvid4PSP when I get the chance, but I'm finding Staxrip my favoured choice at the moment.

[jagabo]

In general h.264 video does take more horsepower than Xvid. Both to compress and to decompress. I could see where a 1.4 GHz Tbird might not be sufficient for full D1 video.

If you want to squeeze a little more quality out of Xvid (x264 too) turn off B-VOP. B-frames are encoded at lower quality than I and P frames (even in target quantizer mode). The idea being that it's ok for a some frames to be encoded with lower quality because a higher quality I or P frame will come along and clean up the image in a frame or two. File size will go up about 50 percent without B frames though. This also makes decoding easier and gets rid of the packed bitstream problem that can occur with some set-top players.

[Emanef]

Eek! Need to change my profile! Not had that for a while! Core 2 Duo E6300 in my desktop and 2.6ghz Penryn in my laptop!

I'll give that a go though, anything to squeeze out a little more quality. I've got a couple of conversions going on at home (I'm at work at the mo) so I'll check them when I get home. I'm basically doing a load of the same movie to be able to compare side by side, and then will narrow down those and try a few other movies.

[Midzuki]

In general h.264 video does take more horsepower than Xvid. Both to compress and to decompress. I could see where a 1.4 GHz Tbird might not be sufficient for full D1 video.

The player/media splitter/codec used may make a difference too. Believe it or not,
a 1.5GHz Pentium IV can playback H264 @ 1024x576 @ 25fps without a problem.
720p and 1080p are monsters of a worse type, of course.

[Emanef]

Computer details updated!

I'm after the best compromise of minimum file size and maximum quality, so I don't think I'll bother with turning of B frames (not yet anyway). I've used Shrink DVD to create four 30 minute files of dvd rips so that it's quicker to convert at different settings to compare.

Midzuki.... no chance an Asus EeePC 901 with an Intel Atom 1.6 will play back H264 is there?!

[Emanef]

Right, I've done a few conversions at Xvid and H264 at different settings, so I'll post my results shortly.

For H264.... which wrapper is best? MP4 or MKV? Is there much difference between them? Is one more supported than the other?

[poisondeathray]

For H264.... which wrapper is best? MP4 or MKV? Is there much difference between them? Is one more supported than the other?

I personally think .mkv is better because it supports basically everything - all video and audio codecs. Not all devices (such as portable players) support .mkv, however.

.mp4 has compatibility issues with AC3 audio, but more portable players support this container. So if you wanted 5.1 audio, you'd have to convert to 5.1 AAC. Also, when you have h.264 it has to be encoded with specific (limited) parameters to be compatible with most portable players - not a big issue if you have a modern PC.

If you are finding h.264 playback suffering because of your pc specs, coreavc is known to use much fewer CPU cycles and can allow playback of some files otherwise unplayable on lower end pc's. (Unfortunately, not free)

[Emanef]

I don't really play back movies on my laptop or PC. I usually use my media player, but as it's connected to a 42" plasma (the media player upscales and gives a very good picture) I want a good quality conversion.

My media player won't play H264 files as it's not powerful enough, but I've got a Popcorn Hour on the way which will, and if I get on with it I'll get a second to replace the current player.

XVid is better for me as it's more supported, but H264 does give better quality for less space.

5.1 isn't an issue for me, I'm happy with stereo, so have been using mp3 for xvid and aac for H264.

I may try CoreAVC, although my PC's should be powerful enough for H264.

[jagabo]

CoreAvc Pro may be a little more efficient on a single core system but it's main benefit is it's multithreaded. So you can squeeze more out of it on dual (or more) core systems.

[Emanef]

Bugger! Just trying to test my test conversions on my Xbox 360.... it sees the XVids but not the H264 files! I know MKV isn't supported, but I thought mp4 is!

[poisondeathray]

Same thing applies with playback - the xbox360 profile is limited
http://blogs.msdn.com/xboxteam/archive/2007/11/30/december-2007-video-playback-faq.aspx

AVC Level 4.1 or lower, Keep 3 or less reference frames, Max 3 B-frames, no B-pyramids, only 2 channel AAC for audio. Keep bitrate <10Mbps, but max bitrate spikes have been known to screw up playback when using VBR

[Emanef]

Ah, ok. I burned them to a DVDRW to test; two played (two at Staxrip's HQ Slow CRF 22 setting (one with a quantiser of 20, one with 22), but the two with a quantiser of 18 wouldn't play, said not compatible. They don't want you playing files of higher quality on it unless you buy it from them then, eh!

"Keep 3 or less reference frames, Max 3 B-frames, no B-pyramids"

What do each of these actually mean, in plain English?! Most of the glossaries I've found have been pretty complicated!

[Emanef]

Right, I'm getting there....!

Few more questions.... X264 - what's the difference between Quality and Quantiser settings?

Iv'e done a few test conversions on two movies, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas and 30 Days of Night. I did one XVid at constant quality, quantiser 3, and two x264; both at StaxRip's HQ Slow CRF 22 setting, but one with quality set to 20, the other with quantiser set to 20.

I did both movies at each of the same settings, and it's the last two that I'm having interesting results with.

30 Days of Night were:
Xvid - 1,079,980kb
X264 Quality 20 - 1,078,534
X264 Quantiser 20 - 1,063,210kb

I also did X264 quality 22 - 738,749 & Quality 18 - 1,622,826.
All the X264 were at HQ Slow CRF 22 setting.

This seems to indicate similar in the Quality and Quantiser settings, which seems to bear out what I read (that Quality is slightly better but they do similar quality)

However, my Fear & Loathing (this time at Single Pass, good setting) filesizes were quite different:
X264 Quality 20 - 1,077,646
X264 Quantiser - 1,555,194

This is quite a difference from the 30 Days of Night tests! Is there a logical explanation to that? I appreciate all movies are different, but wouldn't there be similar size differences between similar types of encoding?

So I guess, I'm ultimately asking, should I use Quality or Quantiser?!

Cheers for all the help so far, btw guys, it's been a real help having informed advice! :thumbs:

I'm impatiently waiting for my Popcour Hour to arrive so I can test them properly on a big screen to properly compare the difference, as it's all on PC screens at the moment, so it's hard to tell what quality I will finally need! At least if I can familiarise myself with the different settings it'll make it easier when I can test properly!

[jagabo]

http://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?p=1607

[Emanef]

Cheers Jagabo. That's actually really helpful.

So basically, as I understand it, there's no reason to use two-pass unless I want to maximise the quality and minimise the file size at the same time, but that would mean the time consuming task of a single pass to get the best bitrate, and then a two-pass to squeeze the most in. That's not what I want (or can be arsed!) to do.....! I have far too many to convert!

So... in a similar way to an average bit rate MP3 encode (where you set the ave, min and max), with CRF it aims to give an ave target quality but increasing/reducing quality when needed within its parameters, compared to CQP, which would be like a fix bit rate MP3, giving a constant quality, but not benefit from increasing or reducing when needed. *

So the HQ Slow CRF setting probably seems best for me.

On my tests, a quality setting of 20 seems to give a similar file size to an Xvid of constant with a quantiser of 3, 18 gives around 33% higher, and 22 around 33% smaller. I will wait until the Popcorn gets here and I can compare before I decide, but it'll be then down to (I'm hoping!) whether the 22 gives similar results to the Xvid and I'm happy with that, or the 20 gives better quality for a similar size to the Xvid.

I'm finding that an average 100 min movie takes about an hour to convert to Xvid, and about 2-2.5 to do an X264. Not as bad as I previously thought it might be, plus if I can hunt down a cheap E6700 CPU that'll increase my CPU from 1.8 to 2.6 and double the L2 cache!

I see light at the end of the tunnel! Just hope it's not an express train.....!


* I only compare with MP3 as I've plenty of experience of converting and editing audio so it's easier for me to equate to! Audio is easier as it doesn't have all the different frames, etc!