Should I even bother with encoding this file?

[mew1033]

I just got the Lord of The Rings Extended Edition Trilogy pack on bluray and now I'm all excited to add it to my media library. I've ripped the mkv's with makemkv, keeping the video and lossless audio. My question is, should I even bother with transcoding the files? Here is my reasoning for the question.

When I rip DVDs, they start out in some terribly inefficient codec (Mpeg2), so I convert them to H.264. I copy over the original audio as it doesn't take THAT much space and I have the equipment to decode it. I usually get my DVDs down to about a quarter of the original size. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Anyway, it's a pretty good conversion.

For blurays, I'm starting to see something a little confusing. When I run a MediaInfo scan on a bluray rip fresh out of MakeMKV, I get one of two different codecs. Either the video is encoded in VC-1, in which case it will compress by more than half. Great! That's totally acceptable. Or, it's encoded in AVC. Wait. Hold on. Isn't AVC the exact same thing as H.264? ??

Hence my question. If the rip is already in H.264, is there any way to get it into a smaller file size without any perceptible drop in quality? Similar to what I do with DVD rips?

Thanks for your genius help!

[Baldrick]

Yep. AVC=H264.

And yes, you can shrink it a lot with very good quality. I usually shrink it to around 8GB for a >2 main hour movie. I use VidCoder or Ripbot264.

BUT reconverting to 1920x1080 H264 takes time....so it might not be worth it if you have the HDD space.

[mew1033]

Yep. AVC=H264.

And yes, you can shrink it a lot with very good quality. I usually shrink it to around 8GB for a >2 main hour movie. I use VidCoder or Ripbot264.

BUT reconverting to 1920x1080 H264 takes time....so it might not be worth it if you have the HDD space.

Okay, so the codecs are the same, but I can still compress them down while maintaining quality. Awesome! That means I was right, AND I don't have to change my methodology.

One more question. You mentioned VidCoder and Ripbot264. Is there any advantage (in end result) over using one of them vs. Handbrake? Do either of those programs handle subtitles very well? I'm working on becoming an expert at subtitle-fu when it comes to video encoding. I think I finally got it down, but if there's an easy way to handle forced foreign language subs in one of those programs, I'd love to hear it.

Here is the Handbrake preset I use for blurays: http://goo.gl/8wJcu I always check the audio settings (passthrough everything), and I do the subtitles by hand (Usually first track is the English track, then second track is a Foreign Audio Scan. I typically know if there is foreign audio or not, but this helps just in case).

Thanks for the quick reply!

[Baldrick]

I just extract the subtitle tracks(english/swedish) and haven't tried with any forced subs...

Vidcoder is based on handbrake so you should get similar result.

[mew1033]

Sounds good.
What do you think of my handbrake preset? Would you suggest I change anything?

Thanks again for your help!

[Cornucopia]

Okay, so the codecs are the same, but I can still compress them down while maintaining quality. Awesome! That means I was right, AND I don't have to change my methodology. ...

Just wanted to remind you that what you just said is NEVER true with lossy codecs. If you are re-compressing them to a lossy codec (even the SAME one, even to HIGHER settings) you are ALWAYS losing quality! How much depends on the settings, your perception, and the complexity of the title. There is no free lunch.

Scott

[mew1033]

Okay, so the codecs are the same, but I can still compress them down while maintaining quality. Awesome! That means I was right, AND I don't have to change my methodology. ...

Just wanted to remind you that what you just said is NEVER true with lossy codecs. If you are re-compressing them to a lossy codec (even the SAME one, even to HIGHER settings) you are ALWAYS losing quality! How much depends on the settings, your perception, and the complexity of the title. There is no free lunch.

Scott

I know. And as great as H. 264 is, it's still a lossy codec, right?
I guess I just meant that I can maintain a high level of quality. It might not stay the exact same, but it'll still be quite high. The difference would probably be imperceptible.

If not that's not the case though, maybe there's a better process? Do you have any suggestions?

Thanks for your input!

[Cornucopia]

Lossy-Yes.
Quite High-Probably.
Imperceptible-?Probably?
Better process-Not really, without going through AVISynth-scripted cleanup & resize, and optimized x.264 CLI encoding, you're doing it about right.

Scott

[KBeee]

You also have to consider the whole chain.
BluRay -> re-encode -> 32 inch (uncalibrated) LCD (from 3 metres) = No Problem
BluRay -> re-encode -> Professionally calibrated 84 inch LCD (from 3 metres) = Problems
All depending on what you consider "good quality" of course.

[mew1033]

You also have to consider the whole chain.
BluRay -> re-encode -> 32 inch (uncalibrated) LCD (from 3 metres) = No Problem
BluRay -> re-encode -> Professionally calibrated 84 inch LCD (from 3 metres) = Problems
All depending on what you consider "good quality" of course.

This is very true. I guess I wanted something that is as future proof as possible. But now that I think about it, it's really not that big a deal. I'm not going to be getting rid of any of my DVDs or Blurays any time soon (maybe just packing them away), so if and when I get a better TV, I can reevaluate the quality. For now, it looks great.

[hello_hello]

You also have to consider the whole chain.
BluRay -> re-encode -> 32 inch (uncalibrated) LCD (from 3 metres) = No Problem
BluRay -> re-encode -> Professionally calibrated 84 inch LCD (from 3 metres) = Problems
All depending on what you consider "good quality" of course.

I'd have to disagree. It of course depends on the quality at which you re-encode but it's possible for an encode to be virtually indistinguishable from the source at a high enough quality.

Not to mention the fact it assumes the original video coming off the disc looks fabulous to begin with, which is often not the case. Often they have 1080p worth of noise but not 1080p worth of picture detail. I've encoded several 1080p videos while applying a noise filter then resizing down to 720p and personally I think the encoded version looks better.

If in doubt I run the original video on my TV (51" Plasma sitting a few feet from my desk) then use a basic AVISynth script to open it again while applying any filtering and resizing etc I think might be appropriate. I sync the two up running maximised on the TV and switch between them. Of course that doesn't take any encoding quality loss into account, but at least you know what you're starting with.

Resizing aside though, CRF 18 gives you fairly transparent quality while watching the video playing, especially if you use one of the slower x264 speed presets (coming to HandBrake users in a future version, I hear). If you want to get really fussy you can pause the encoded version and the original on identical frames and look for differences and you'll probably see them. At CRF 16 with the right x264 tuning with a slower x264 speed preset, I've compared encoded video to the original, and it "can" look pixel for pixel the same, but the file sizes usually stop most people (including myself) from getting that carried away.