Question on really good conversion and compression.

[EmbraceNext]

I found a really beautiful version of the Avengers that is in MP4 format at 2.2GB. When I look at the details of the file, the specs don't look too good. But when I play it, the picture is absolutely gorgeous.



So I wanted to see if I could convert my blu-ray of the Avengers to look that good. I backed it up to my hard drive. Then used a couple of tools for the conversion. DVD Fab, AVCWare and MediaCoder. They ALL look horrible.

What am I missing? I looked at some of the How To guides and didn't find anything that helped (there are a lot there so I may have missed it).

If someone knows of a better conversion program (CUDA support would be nice) or a check list of settings that I need to check, then that would be great. I am now using some of the shorter videos on the DVD like gag reels to test with so the conversion goes much faster. If you need me to post any screenshots or videos then let me know and I will do so. I would really like to finally do this right.

Thanks,
Mark

[transporterfan]

Did you see this guide? If you use DVDFab to rip to a folder you wont need AnyDVD.
If you use MakeMKV you can pick and choose the video, audio and sub tracks you want to keep.
BD Rebuilder can compress a blue-ray.

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/296167-How-to-backup-and-convert-Blu-ray-to-MP4-HD-or-MKV-HD

[EmbraceNext]

Tried BD ReBuilder. Custom target size doesn't work. I want it to be 2.2GB. I will try the guide you linked next.

[yoda313]

Tried BD ReBuilder. Custom target size doesn't work. I want it to be 2.2GB. I will try the guide you linked next.

Ripbot can do a target bitrate. The total bitrate there is 2100 something.

However please note its stereo in the screen shot you posted. If you want 5.1 you'll either have to reduce the video bitrate a bit or live with a slightly larger file size upon output. Also use ac3 rather than dts to save space on a 5.1 track. Eac3to is the tool to do that.

I would also probably recommend resizing to 720p if you are going to use that low of a bitrate for high def material. Others may suggest otherwise however.

Edit - also why are you specifically looking to get a file size of just over 2gb? Is there a special reason? I would seriously want more bitrate than that for a high paced action movie like avengers.

Is this destined for a tablet with a small screen? If so than I could understand a bit more wanting to lower the file size a bit. However if its android chances are it has a micro sd slot and you can just buy a larger micro sd card to use a higher bitrate on your video file. Or if you are using this at home stream it using your wifi router and a program like tversity to stream any file size.

[EmbraceNext]

I am fine with changing the audio to 2 channels.

The reason I am targeting that 2.2gb size is because I want to replicate that video that I downloaded. I want to know how that person made such a gorgeous conversion from a ~30GB 1080p video to a 2.2GB MP4 video.

I was playing the BluRay on one monitor (each monitor is 24" 1920x1200) and the MP4 on the other. I could barely tell the difference in the quality of the video. So its more of a "I want to do that too." than something I have to do.

I just used Ripbot264 and it was closer but you can see major artifacts when a scene changes and movements.

[theewizard]

the DL may have an avg bitrate of 2100
BUT have a much higher bitrate (5000?) in the action scenes and a lower bitrate (1500?) in the static scenes
try using bitrate viewer on the DL file, look for the highs and lows

your going to need a two or three pass conversion to maximize quality using that file size, for HD frame defintion

[NTSC Refugee]

The reason I am targeting that 2.2gb size is because I want to replicate that video that I downloaded. I want to know how that person made such a gorgeous conversion from a ~30GB 1080p video to a 2.2GB MP4 video.

That 23fps frame rate is one clue to me at least. I've been getting great quality 1080p59.94 H.264 video at 5000kbps (VBR, 2x max) using VideoReDo TVSuite. A little simple math tells me that sending 24/60 frames per second (the 1.001 factors out) should reduce the bit rate by a similar ratio, or 40% of 5000kbps, which is ~2000kbps. I'm not doing anything fancy, just deinterlacing the 1080i29.97 ATSC video source, 2-pass encoding and using Qpel motion estimation.

I was playing the BluRay on one monitor (each monitor is 24" 1920x1200) and the MP4 on the other. I could barely tell the difference in the quality of the video.

Although they're no doubt great PC monitors, they may not be large enough to expose the finest details that can only be seen on larger screens. No doubt your computer is also doing some background "sweetening" to the video to make it play at a typical refresh rate of 60Hz. (60Hz is equivalent to a 60 fps progressive frame rate.) Look at it on a 40" or larger full-HD monitor and it might look like crap.

One thing that becomes obvious is that the high bit rate of BluRay titles appears to be wasted on only a single video stream. A highly trained eye will be able to see the difference with the right equipment. But I'd bet that a lot of people would be hard pressed to see the difference between an original bluRay disc and a copy shrunk to fit a standard DVD, while still using AVCHD encoding.

[EmbraceNext]

Can you explain to me how a monitor that has a resolution of 1920x1200 plays 720p at best?
Here is a link to the monitor: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-2676

I will take a look at the VideoReDo suite and see how that works for me. Still would love to know what was used on this video I have. Anyway to find out?

[Hoser Rob]

I don't think the reason that 720p was brought up was to suggest that your monitor can't handle it. What he meant was that you'll probably get better results in that file size if you downsample to that resolution.

BTW that list of specs doesn't actually tell you that much. If you really want to see the specs install mediainfo and open the file within it. If you go to text view it'll tell you what encoding parameters were uses unless the encoder blocks that sort of thing. That happens sometimes. I suspect whoever makes those encoders don't want users to find out the software they're charging for actually uses a free open source encoder underneath their pretty wrapper ...

Anyway, try that, get an encoder that allows you to enter all those settings, and see what happens. Unfortunately the right settings for one video will often not totally apply to another. But it's a start.

[NTSC Refugee]

Can you explain to me how a monitor that has a resolution of 1920x1200 plays 720p at best?

D'OH! My bad, I was thinking of a 1600x1200 monitor that I still have laying around, and how I should get rid of it. You are correct, your 1920x1200 monitor will play 1080p video. Sorry for posting while distracted.

Still would love to know what was used on this video I have. Anyway to find out?

You could look at the metadata and see if the software left behind any self-promotions like "Made by XYZ Program". Anything other than that is above my pay grade.

[EmbraceNext]

Thank you very much. I will post the mediainfo when I get home. See if I am missing anything. I got a little closer with Ripbot264. That app seems pretty fast. Does it support cuda? I didn't see it in my brief skimming of the product page on videohelp.com.

[EmbraceNext]

First off I want to say thank you for all the help this community has given me so far. I hope to be able to contribute when I learn more.

Here is the mediainfo for the Avengers.mp4


I will play around with more settings and such to see how things go.

[poisondeathray]

It's impossible to retain the grain and details in the original source at that bitrate - Probably this file doesn't look very good (The fine details are probably missing)

You need to apply denoise and temporal smoothing filters in order to obtain higher compression ratios .

[EmbraceNext]

Is there a piece of software that I could export the encode settings from mediainfo to and have it encode the files exactly the same?

[jagabo]

x264 was the encoder. The Encoding Settings line tells you what settings were used. The video may have been run through a noise reduction filter too. Noise is the enemy of compression. Forget CUDA if you want quality.

[poisondeathray]

Is there a piece of software that I could export the encode settings from mediainfo to and have it encode the files exactly the same?

https://www.videohelp.com/tools/Mis2x264

But if this is as good as you say it is, it 100% not possible with encoding settings alone . It must be filtered

[EmbraceNext]

It's impossible to retain the grain and details in the original source at that bitrate - Probably this file doesn't look very good (The fine details are probably missing)

You need to apply denoise and temporal smoothing filters in order to obtain higher compression ratios .

Here are 2 screenshots. I think you are right. I didn't get up close and really look when i did a side by side video. Here is a paused screen and you can definitely tell.

[jagabo]

All the small, low contrast, details are gone and the levels are screwed up.

[EmbraceNext]

//EDIT- sorry I understand what you mean. Read it wrong.

Top is MP4, Bottom is BluRay.

[NTSC Refugee]

Here are 2 screenshots. I think you are right. I didn't get up close and really look when i did a side by side video. Here is a paused screen and you can definitely tell. (graphics removed to save space)

Well...I can see a big difference in brightness, but not so much in image detail. Yes something is different, but not necessarily quality. If that was a radiograph, I'd still see what I was looking for. I might want to tweak the settings to see it more to my liking, but that's it.

Back in my analog days, it was SOP to use proc amps to adjust the various parameters to preserve (or restore) the picture quality while staying within the confines of the NTSC broadcast format. No doubt similar corrections need to be made in the digital domain. I don't envision the people who make their living doing HD post production revealing all their secrets so that you can do it at home though.

When I was a video pro, the cost of the hardware kept the masses out. Today it's the technical know-how. It goes beyond knowing the best command lines. It requires looking at the displayed image and saying "I think it looks better this way". That's highly subjective thinking that's not easy to teach or learn.

[theewizard]

i can see a lot of difference in the detail , between the two images
if i was doing a lab anylasis of the tesseract , i would want the bottom original disc image

however as a movie to be viewed , the center of the tesseract is only on the screen for a few seconds
and i am more intetested in the actors and the action scenes

'viewer' quality is so subjective
i have that movie in DVD,
now i need to do a screen shot and compare your shots to mine

my personal opinion is when you reduce BD by a factor of ten,
you have removed so much detail and compressed it so much, you might have a better viewing experience watching the dvd release

i can't understand compressing a BD to where quality is less than DVD

frame size alone is nothing , if it is not populated with sufficient digital data

[deadrats]

It's impossible to retain the grain and details in the original source at that bitrate - Probably this file doesn't look very good (The fine details are probably missing)

You need to apply denoise and temporal smoothing filters in order to obtain higher compression ratios .

you're not kidding, i happen to own The Avengers blu-ray and the main movie is just over 30gb with an average bit rate of 24mbs and a max bit rate of 32mbs. after reading the OP's post i decided to give it a shot myself using xmedia recode with x264 settings cranked all the way up.

even with x264 maxed out the difference between the commercial BD and the 2gb encode is like night and day, either the OP has never bothered to look at the legit Avengers blu-ray or it's time to go get his cataracts operated on.

[NTSC Refugee]

'viewer' quality is so subjective

Absolutely! And different viewers appreciate different things.

I for example watch mostly content that was shot at 60fps, and to me, degrading that to 24fps "to get a 'film look'" is utter lunacy. I notice those temporal distortions, and don't like them. Id's much rather watch a football game at a reduced resolution (720p vs. 1080i) in order to resolve a moving image better.

i can't understand compressing a BD to where quality is less than DVD

frame size alone is nothing , if it is not populated with sufficient digital data

I don't understand why you'd think that anyone is downscaling or otherwise messing with the resolution of HD video to get higher compression ratios! I know that DVCAM PRO HD scales down slightly (still nowhere near SD), but that's not what we're talking about here. What would give you the idea that lossy compression means conversion to some sub-SD standard?

The fact of the matter is that the H.264 codec does an excellent job of maintaining good HD quality at low bit rates. And it does it without downsampling. Yes, it really works.

[theewizard]

i said nothing about down scaling, i know the mp4 and his rip are the same hd frame size

i said frame size is nothing IF the digital data 'for detail' is not available

you compress 30g to 2.2g , you loose a lot of detail, you loose sharpness

at this much compression,the dvd will look better than the rip, large frame size does not make up for loss of data

[NTSC Refugee]

I have the actual quote in my post. If you want to clarify, great. But I stand by what I said about what you said before. I'm not buying the claim that lossy compression leaves "less than DVD" resolution. It doesn't. If you meant something different I'm all ears.

[theewizard]

not sure if your addressing ME or the OP

i never said a thing about great

i never said you can't use some compression

i do think you can compress BD and still retain quality above DVD, but i'm thinking in the 8-10gb range

not 2.2gb range

even with x264, 2.2gb is a finite amount and it cannot contain the same quality as 8gb much less 30gb

the loss ratio of compressing a dvd to 2.2gb with x264 will be much less than compressing a BD to 2.2gb with x264
the total amt of data is the same yet the compression much greater and spread across a larger display frame

it is unreasonable to think compressing to that small a size will produce the same results as a retail DVD issue

will retail DVD match retail BD... NO or BD would not exist, thinking you can compress 30gb to 2.2gb and look better than retail double layer DVD release (which most movies now are) is what i'm talking about

[manono]

not sure if your addressing ME or the OP

Hehe, I was wondering too. I think he was addressing a claim that was never made.

I'm not buying the claim that lossy compression leaves "less than DVD" resolution.

Who are you quoting? theewizard said "quality is less than DVD". And he's right, of course, if referring to a movie like The Avengers.

'Quality', not 'resolution'.

[NTSC Refugee]

Who are you quoting? theewizard said "quality is less than DVD".

I don't mean to be rude, but the quotation marks are used to make a direct quote. If that's unheard of here, I apologize. It's pretty standard for people who write in the English language.

And he's right, of course, if referring to a movie like The Avengers.

'Quality', not 'resolution'.

It also says "DVD", and the last time I checked, DVD movies are in standard definition, not HD. If I've overlooked something please explain it to me. Precisely how can the "quality" become (and I quote) "less than" the 720x480 (or 720x576 for PAL) maximum resolution of DVD video? That is what was written after all. Theewizard did clarify that he/she was speaking specifically about (Part 3 Book B) "retail DVD issue".

[poisondeathray]

Who are you quoting? theewizard said "quality is less than DVD".

I don't mean to be rude, but the quotation marks are used to make a direct quote. If that's unheard of here, I apologize. It's pretty standard for people who write in the English language.

It is a direct quote. You even quoted it yourself...

And he's right, of course, if referring to a movie like The Avengers.

'Quality', not 'resolution'.

It also says "DVD", and the last time I checked, DVD movies are in standard definition, not HD. If I've overlooked something please explain it to me. Precisely how can the "quality" become (and I quote) "less than" the 720x480 (or 720x576 for PAL) maximum resolution of DVD video? That is what was written after all. Theewizard did clarify that he/she was speaking specifically about (Part 3 Book B) "retail DVD issue".

Yes, but resolution does not equal quality . It certainly is a factor contributing to "quality", but only one of many


theewizard didn't say anything about resolution, at least in the literal sense w*h or number of pixels - But he implies "effective resolution" .

Again, he said quality , not resolution. They aren't the same thing

If I take a DVD source and resize it to 1920x1080, does it make it "HD" ? The resolution is now "full HD". In the literal sense, yes, because of the dimensions are HD. But the quality of the content, the effective resolution is still SD .

So if you take the same BD source, and encode it at 2Mb/s, will it look better at 1920x1080 or 1280x720 ? What if you used 1Mb/s ? or 0.5 Mb/s? When using low bitrates relative to content complexity , there will be a transition point on the compression curve where using reduced dimensions will give you better quality overall than at the original full resolution (I'm using "resolution" in the sense of dimensions w*h). The encoder will struggle to distribute bits everywhere, but cannot , and you're left with lower quality overall

[NTSC Refugee]

It is a direct quote. You even quoted it yourself...

Yes it is. Thank you.

Yes, but resolution does not equal quality

Of course it doesn't equal quality, it affects quality. That much is plain and obvious.

Seriously, you guys need to learn to quit picking nits.

Again, he said quality , not resolution. They aren't the same thing

By the same token, weasel words are not the basis of a sound argument.