Using Handbreak. Lossless conversion takes 24+ hours.

[SyncroScales]

Hi.

I ripped the disc folders from some DVD's I have. I used Handbreak to convert the files into MKV. I tried different formats and eventually tried the uncompressed lossless file to see how much of a difference it would make. I'll list the options I checked below. But the conversion took about 26 hours.

I have an AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor 3.4GHz processor, NVIDIA GeForce GT 430 1GB GPU, RAM: 3582 MB (4GB).

The conversion took 26h 12 min and 6 seconds.

I think these were the options I chose: H264, Anamorphic None 8, Detelecine Default, Deinterlace Bob, 29.97fps, Optimise Placebo, (Should have been Audio CBR Placebo MP3-320) but it was changed to Audio: MP3 128kbps (for some reason it didn't stay a CBR Placebo audio option).

I think the final file was 17.2 GB. It did look a little nicer than some of the smaller exports I tried before.

The DVD was only 640x80 or 720x480. It was not HD material. Should it take this long? What is needed to speed conversions of Placebo/Uncompressed formats? GPU or CPU? It seems a stronger CPU.

Also I had tried the VP8 option, I think this is what Google uses with webm files (I wanted to see if I could make webm files). But my attempts never worked, is it just Handbrake or did I do something wrong with VP8 options?

[Baldrick]

Why use lossless?


You can put the dvd directly in a mkv with makemkv without reconversion.

[SyncroScales]

I just wanted to try the option and see what the final output would be compared to 10%, 25%, 50% quality.

I tried MakeMKV. I think it has potential. But I had trouble with detelecine and deinterlace. MakeMKV was not doing it right. Handbrake handled the conversions well.

[jagabo]

Placebo is your problem. There's not much point going with anything slower than the superfast or veryfast presets if your using lossless mode. Since it's lossless they all deliver exactly the same picture quality. The difference is in the file size. Placebo will only get you about 5 percent more compression than superfast.

Here's an example. I encoded 1000 frames of a Blu-ray HD source (mixed light, dark, still, motion shots) at crf=0 and different presets.

preset     size (MB)
-------------------
ultrafast    643
superfast    537
veryfast     534
faster       530
fast         524
medium       519
slow         518
slower       516
veryslow     516
placebo      516

Of course, different video will compress more or less but that gives you an idea what to expect. Less than 5 percent difference in file size between superfast and placebo. Less than 1 percent difference between medium and placebo. Encoding with placebo can take 100 times longer than encoding with ultrafast.

[Krispy Kritter]

I just wanted to try the option and see what the final output would be compared to 10%, 25%, 50% quality.

I tried MakeMKV. I think it has potential. But I had trouble with detelecine and deinterlace. MakeMKV was not doing it right. Handbrake handled the conversions well.

The main purpose of MakeMKV is to place the disc content into an MKV container untouched (ie: it isn't converted). It may or may not have that ability, I've never used it that way. For conversions, there are better tools.

[usually_quiet]

I just wanted to try the option and see what the final output would be compared to 10%, 25%, 50% quality.

I tried MakeMKV. I think it has potential. But I had trouble with detelecine and deinterlace. MakeMKV was not doing it right. Handbrake handled the conversions well.

The main purpose of MakeMKV is to place the disc content into an MKV container untouched (ie: it isn't converted). It may or may not have that ability, I've never used it that way. For conversions, there are better tools.

I just took a look at the latest MakeMKV. You are correct that SyncroScales shouldn't expect it to detelecine, deinterlace, or convert. It is only designed to decrypt the disc (if necessary) and repackage the original audio and video from the disc in an MKV container, or stream them.