Reducing size of BluRay rips

[aye]

Wondering if anyone can advise on this - Currently in the process of putting all my DVD and BluRay rips in the cloud (OneDrive) for streaming. OneDrive has a 10GB file limit, and a few of my rips are 10-14GB. They are currently MP4 as I used Shana Encoder to demux from MKV.

What the best way to get these rips down to around 9GB in size so I can upload, but still keeping the quality?

Cheers

[Kerry56]

Compressing will always reduce visual quality to some extent, but if done well, you might not notice it at all in playback.

Work from the original videos (unencrypted) and use VidCoder to make MP4 files. Most people use it with constant quality encoding, but if you need a specific size it is possible to set this in VidCoder. Start with the High Profile preset, look at Settings-->Video tab and change from Constant Quality to Target Size, in this case 9000MB. For better accuracy in size output, do a two pass encode. This will take more time. Also put a check mark in the circle for Constant Framerate.

[aye]

Compressing will always reduce visual quality to some extent, but if done well, you might not notice it at all in playback.

Work from the original videos (unencrypted) and use VidCoder to make MP4 files. Most people use it with constant quality encoding, but if you need a specific size it is possible to set this in VidCoder. Start with the High Profile preset, look at Settings-->Video tab and change from Constant Quality to Target Size, in this case 9000MB. For better accuracy in size output, do a two pass encode. This will take more time. Also put a check mark in the circle for Constant Framerate.

Thanks, will give it a shot

[stax76]

Hello aye,

how I would encode for local or cloud storage is:

• absolutely never use a resize filter
• hardly any other filter then source filter
• Use x264 and MKV instead of x265 and MP4
• for grainy HD sources always use crf 24
• for clean HD sources always use crf 23
• for DVD sources always use crf 22

I'm the author of StaxRip which tries to automate and simplify the process as much as possible. Other tools use a different approach like MeGUI mostly about performing everything manually and Hybrid offering many options right in front. It's always good if you use a application you can get support for, I know only StaxRip and Hybrid having a support thread here, I'm sure there are more.

[aye]

Hello aye,

how I would encode for local or cloud storage is:

• absolutely never use a resize filter
• hardly any other filter then source filter
• Use x264 and MKV instead of x265 and MP4
• for grainy HD sources always use crf 24
• for clean HD sources always use crf 23
• for DVD sources always use crf 22

I'm the author of StaxRip which tries to automate and simplify the process as much as possible. Other tools use a different approach like MeGUI mostly about performing everything manually and Hybrid offering many options right in front. It's always good if you use a application you can get support for, I know only StaxRip and Hybrid having a support thread here, I'm sure there are more.

Thanks for the info

[Cornucopia]

I would think that going from ~23-40GB (aka ~<25:1 compression) to 9GB (aka ~60:1 compression+1 more generation) is going to be noticeable, even if not unacceptable.

Scott

[Kerry56]

I would think that going from ~23-40GB (aka ~<25:1 compression) to 9GB (aka ~60:1 compression+1 more generation) is going to be noticeable, even if not unacceptable.

Scott

Well I did say "might not notice". Everyone has different thresholds of visual quality that makes them realize the copy is degraded. And using Blu-ray source down to 9gb, you might have to do direct comparisons between the original and the copy to find the problem areas in playback. X264 does pretty well at this type of compression/re-encoding.

[hello_hello]

Hello aye,

how I would encode for local or cloud storage is:

• absolutely never use a resize filter
• hardly any other filter then source filter
• Use x264 and MKV instead of x265 and MP4
• for grainy HD sources always use crf 24
• for clean HD sources always use crf 23
• for DVD sources always use crf 22

Personally, I do something very much like the above, only completely the opposite.

If I've got to choose between decreasing the quality too much (increasing the CRF value) and lowering the resolution a bit..... well I'd rather watch a compression artefact free 720p encode than a 1080p encode with compression artefacts. Even resizing to 900p if it helps reduce the file size a little (1600x900 etc), but quite often you can go down to 720p with very little noticeable loss of picture detail when viewing the video up close, and none when viewing it at a more normal viewing distance, even on a larger than average TV. I just use whatever resolution I can without seeing loss of detail. I could show you examples where you could almost get away with 540p.
For DVD video I always resize to square pixels to avoid anamorphic playback hassles which means something like 1024x576 for PAL and 854x480 for NTSC 16:9 DVDs, although for PAL I often resize to 960x540 as there's virtually no noticeable difference in quality and it helps keep the file sizes down a little.

I almost always apply filtering, unless a source is particularly clean. Removing noise will help reduce the bitrate, and the only thing worse than compression artefacts from overly compressed video is compression artefacts from overly compressed noise. Getting the filtering right for each video can add to the work involved, and decent filtering can slow encoding down considerably, but I think it's usually worth it.

Resized to 720, no filtering.


Resized to 720p, QTGMC in progressive mode to remove noise with a little LSFMod sharpening.


How high a CRF value you use depends on personal preference. I mostly tend to stick to CRF18 for 720p or lower resolutions and CRF20 for higher than 720p, but I encode each video on it's "merits' so to speak. ie whatever noise filtering, resizing or CRF value etc might be best for the video I'm encoding now, then something else for the next one.

I would think that going from ~23-40GB (aka ~<25:1 compression) to 9GB (aka ~60:1 compression+1 more generation) is going to be noticeable, even if not unacceptable.

Much of the 23-40GB Bluray video I've seen were mpeg2, so given h264 encoding is more efficient, compression to 9GB mightn't be noticeable.

[Kerry56]

Much of the 23-40GB Bluray video I've seen were mpeg2, so given h264 encoding is more efficient, compression to 9GB mightn't be noticeable.

Really? That's extraordinary. The percentage of Blu-ray titles using Mpeg-2 is down to 5.6%. H264 is used in 76.8% of all Blu-ray titles.

[hello_hello]

Much of the 23-40GB Bluray video I've seen were mpeg2, so given h264 encoding is more efficient, compression to 9GB mightn't be noticeable.

Really? That's extraordinary. The percentage of Blu-ray titles using Mpeg-2 is down to 5.6%. H264 is used in 76.8% of all Blu-ray titles.

Maybe you're right. I haven't really though about it much. Maybe they're mostly h264 these days using very high bitrates that aren't going to take a noticeable quality hit after being encoded by x264 at sensible CRF values.

[newpball]

Really? That's extraordinary. The percentage of Blu-ray titles using Mpeg-2 is down to 5.6%. H264 is used in 76.8% of all Blu-ray titles.

Good news!

[LMotlow]

Much of the 23-40GB Bluray video I've seen were mpeg2, so given h264 encoding is more efficient, compression to 9GB mightn't be noticeable.

Really? That's extraordinary. The percentage of Blu-ray titles using Mpeg-2 is down to 5.6%. H264 is used in 76.8% of all Blu-ray titles.

I didn't know anyone was keeping count. That's a shame. MPEG looks so much cleaner and makes less noise with interlaced and telecined video. h264 and especially VC-1 have such a denuded, "processed" look. But most people don't see a difference, so I guess cheaper/quicker/WTF-cares is the way for producers to go. It's a shame how the marketplace makes everything look more tacky.