VideoHelp Forum

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Consider supporting us by disable your adblocker or try DVDFab Passkey and copy Blu-ray and DVDs! :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Asia
    Search Comp PM
    I've tried 2 approaches in getting mkv file from a single source: A bdmv file sent to me of an old Japanese movie.
    MakeMkv: I got a 26 gb mkv file, 1920x1080, with very high specs (media info).
    DvdFab: I got a much smaller mkv file, 15 gb, 1920x820 with much lower specs.
    The DvdFab produced the movie ONLY without the black horizontal frames which appear when I play it on a large 65" OLED screen.
    I fully understand that the screen shows these 2 black frames because of the different ratio. (1:2.32 vs 1:1.78)
    Assuming that I don't care about those black lines, I'd like to know whether there is REALLY a difference in picture quality or the mediainfo specs just reflect the difference in ratio?
    Following are the mediainfo specs:
    _____________________________
    Video
    ID : 1
    ID in the original source medium : 4113 (0x1011)
    Format : AVC
    Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
    Format profile : High@L4.1
    Format settings : CABAC / 4 Ref Frames
    Format settings, CABAC : Yes
    Format settings, RefFrames : 4 frames
    Codec ID : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
    Duration : 1 h 35 min
    Bit rate mode : Variable
    Bit rate : 35.0 Mb/s
    Maximum bit rate : 37.0 Mb/s
    Width : 1 920 pixels
    Height : 1 080 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 16:9
    Frame rate mode : Constant
    Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : Progressive
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.703
    Stream size : 23.4 GiB (96%)
    Language : English
    Default : No
    Forced : No
    Color range : Limited
    Color primaries : BT.709
    Transfer characteristics : BT.709
    Matrix coefficients : BT.709
    Original source medium : Blu-ray
    ______________________________________
    Video
    ID : 1
    Format : AVC
    Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
    Format profile : High@L4.1
    Format settings : CABAC / 2 Ref Frames
    Format settings, CABAC : Yes
    Format settings, RefFrames : 2 frames
    Codec ID : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC
    Duration : 1 h 35 min
    Nominal bit rate : 18.9 Mb/s
    Width : 1 920 pixels
    Height : 820 pixels
    Display aspect ratio : 2.35:1
    Frame rate mode : Constant
    Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
    Color space : YUV
    Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
    Bit depth : 8 bits
    Scan type : Progressive
    Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.500
    Writing library : x264 core 142
    Default : Yes
    Forced : No
    Color range : Limited
    Color primaries : BT.709
    Transfer characteristics : BT.709
    Matrix coefficients : BT.709
    Original source medium : Blu-ray
    Quote Quote  
  2. Please rephrase your question as currently it may be not clear - how you define quality - this is very important!!!
    Quote Quote  
  3. Assuming that I don't care about those black lines, I'd like to know whether there is REALLY a difference in picture quality or the mediainfo specs just reflect the difference in ratio?

    There should be a noticeable difference in quality, in favor of the bigger file of course. Black bars and aspect ratio are something else entirely and have no impact on quality or file size.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Asia
    Search Comp PM
    Thank you.
    Could others reaffirm this answer?
    I ask because the smaller file reflects much less area than the larger one
    Quote Quote  
  5. You can only compare quality by watching the 2 movies looking for faults in one or the other..
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Dvdfab is re-encoding the video, while makemkv is not. Thus, you have 1 more generation of lossy encoding with the former.
    It may not be noticeable, to you, but it will have more artifacts than the original (which is what makemkv is using).

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  7. Cornucopia's answer is correct.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Asia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Dvdfab is re-encoding the video, while makemkv is not. Thus, you have 1 more generation of lossy encoding with the former.
    It may not be noticeable, to you, but it will have more artifacts than the original (which is what makemkv is using).

    Scott
    Thank you & jagabo.
    This seems a more practical method than "watching & comparing" the 2 files (unless, of course, one is Superman's brother...)
    Cornucopia, You seem quite decisive concerning the DvdFab's re-encoding. I'll act accordingly, unless someone else has something to add.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Asia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Please rephrase your question as currently it may be not clear - how you define quality - this is very important!!!
    I define "quality" as being as close to the source as possible, assuming the source has no technical faults.
    Most of the material I use is Criterion BluRays.
    I don't have their re-mastering equipment & knowledge. So this definition is sufficient to my standards, at least.
    Quote Quote  
  10. If you use MakeMkv, then you are just extracting the original video and audio and putting it in a MKV container..No encoding .. So it is lossless


    if you use any app to do a recode it will be a lossy encode because information is lost during the encoding process..


    The reason why ithe recode had a smaller area is because it was resized and encoded to a certain template.. which usually tells the video dimensiosn, amount of compressions used and filters added which mighr make a difference in PIX quality. Someone usually sets the template on what his preference is SIZE WISE , QUALITY WISE or TIME TO ENCODE wise... The possibilities depend on the encoder..








    Quote Quote  
  11. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Please rephrase your question as currently it may be not clear - how you define quality - this is very important!!!

    What? I can't hear you.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Asia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    please rephrase your question as currently it may be not clear - how you define quality - this is very important!!!

    what? I can't hear you.
    lol
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by nidany View Post
    I define "quality" as being as close to the source as possible, assuming the source has no technical faults.
    Most of the material I use is Criterion BluRays.
    I don't have their re-mastering equipment & knowledge. So this definition is sufficient to my standards, at least.
    Then once again my question how you will verify if outcome of your processing is "as being as close to the source as possible, assuming the source has no technical faults" ?
    You may ask: Why he asking for such weird things like your quality definition? My answer is: Because your definition of quality may be different than mine.
    If you are interested in same (source) quality then just copy existing elementary video stream (and associated audio + other data).

    Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post

    What? I can't hear you.
    Otorhinolaryngology - get well quickly!
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Asia
    Search Comp PM
    Thank you all for your enlightening comments.
    They were very convincing & well reasoned.
    One more question:
    After I get the mkv file (from makemkv), I use mkvtoolnix in order to filter out the the subtitles , queer languages audio tracks and chapters.
    I certainly instruct it "no extra compression".
    If I understand correctly, this only means creating a new mkv envelope, without tampering with the video & audio files inside.
    Am I right?
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by nidany View Post
    If I understand correctly, this only means creating a new mkv envelope, without tampering with the video & audio files inside.
    Am I right?
    Yes. MakeMKV takes the video and audio streams out of the source container and puts them in an MKV container without otherwise changing them.

    Whether you notice the difference between the original and a re-encoded version made with DVDFab (or any other program) depends on the settings used and how closely you look.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Asia
    Search Comp PM
    Hi there, Pandy
    You write: You may ask: Why he asking for such weird things like your quality definition? My answer is: Because your definition of quality may be different than mine.
    If you are interested in same (source) quality then just copy existing elementary video stream (and associated audio + other data).

    Despite being a mathematician, I'm quite perplexed by your answer.
    Let's assume that we have a remote island on which there's some male population plus a single female.
    Now we make a poll among the members of this male population:
    Who is the fairest lady on the island?
    Certainly she wins!!! (Although she might be a lame, one eyed moron).
    If you dig me, please re-read your reply to the basic facts I've attempted to present above: Either I'm wrong in believing there's only one acceptable source, ("criterion" BluRay) or there's another woman in a remote cave, unseen by poor me, but you know her exact location ("just copy existing elementary video stream (and associated audio + other data").
    That leaves us 2 alternatives:
    Either you tell me where to find that elusive "elementary video stream"...
    Or tell me whether you've enjoyed Nersterov's brilliant essay "On the definition of definition" which can be read in the following link:
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S0147688210020061
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Asia
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by nidany View Post
    If I understand correctly, this only means creating a new mkv envelope, without tampering with the video & audio files inside.
    Am I right?
    Yes. MakeMKV takes the video and audio streams out of the source container and puts them in an MKV container without otherwise changing them.

    Whether you notice the difference between the original and a re-encoded version made with DVDFab (or any other program) depends on the settings used and how closely you look.
    Thank you for the info. It corresponds with what other sources claim.
    As for noticing the difference, I've tried comparing the 2 videos after hearing the opinions of most people in this thread and I can safely claim: on a 65" LG OLED screen the difference is quite dramatic. (As suggested by Peter Sagan in this thread).
    Again, you and the others here helped me a lot in having reached what I believe to be the right answer to the question I've raised.
    Last edited by nidany; 18th Jun 2018 at 08:15.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by nidany View Post
    Despite being a mathematician, I'm quite perplexed by your answer.
    We don't need assume anything - as you are mathematician then it should be not a problem to say that concept of quality is highly subjective idea unless we use objective ways to define and measure quality. From this moment i can only express my personal opinion and hope it will be not highly criticised by others in this thread.

    As we (engineers/scientist) are unable to create objective human perception (audio/video etc) model or proposed models can't be fully verified on objective way (many reasons may prevent objective verification) then we are unable to create some objective quality definition that cover highly subjective human perception and as such there is no objective way to measure subjective quality.

    If you are pursuing quality identical with your source then only copy (bitexact) should be important to you so as i understand you are not interested in any video signal processing that will imply lossy decoding and after processing lossy encoding.

    But if you are not interested in perfect copy of your source then area of choices began to be extremely wide but highly subjective - some people say that for them quality is OK where it is not OK for me but something that it is OK for me may have too low quality for someone else.
    That's why quality is very tricky term and before discussing methods to achieve particular quality perhaps it is good to agree what quality means.
    Whenever term quality is used especially high quality it is good to agree on some common things - some objective merits may be useful but can't be considered rock solid definition (for example high bitrate may suggest expected quality as high but we can't generalise and use high bitrate as synonym of high quality).

    Originally Posted by nidany View Post
    you tell me where to find that elusive "elementary video stream"...
    Elementary stream is embedded (encapsulated) within container - many Elementary Streams is (can be) encapsulated within container and seen as unity.
    If you copying your source (bitexact copy) you copying elementary streams (all or only selected) to new container (same or different type).
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Asia
    Search Comp PM
    Hi Pandy,
    I really can't understand why you prefer to ignore what I've written above:
    "I define "quality" as being as close to the source as possible, assuming the source has no technical faults."
    I know my English isn't perfect but still...
    You can consider yourself fortunate for not being one of my students in the university - not because we don't agree, but due to the fact that you prefer to listen to yourself.
    I really hope that it's only a problem of a language barrier...
    Anyway, thank you for explaining that mkv is a "capsule" containing other files.
    As a last attempt to explain my definition of quality, let us look at the following short sentences which relate to the REAL BluRay I was talking about:
    1. The great Japanese director Akira Kurosawa made the masterpiece Sanjuro
    2. Criterion films took the raw material and re-mastered it
    3. Criterion have the resources & equipment to do it
    4. Criterion do not attempt to change anything in the original movie (as far as technically possible)
    5. I have the Criterion BluRay "Sanjuro"
    6. I want to watch the movie on my LG screen
    7. I am far from being a genius like Kurosawa
    8. That is why I want to keep as close to his original movie
    9. As a logical conclusion, I want my mkv to be as close to the Criterion BluRay as possible.
    QED
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by nidany View Post
    Assuming that I don't care about those black lines, I'd like to know whether there is REALLY a difference in picture quality or the mediainfo specs just reflect the difference in ratio?
    Originally Posted by nidany View Post
    9. As a logical conclusion, I want my mkv to be as close to the Criterion BluRay as possible.
    QED
    Why do you keep babbling, using silly big fonts and also criticizing one of our most respected members? Peter Sagan and then Cornucopia gave you all the answers you need early in this thread. If quality is what you want, then either the original Blu-Ray or a video made from it using MakeMKV are the best quality ways to view the film. Any reencoding to lossy codecs degrades the film. It's not hard to understand.

    Whan you say silly things like, "I define "quality" as being as close to the source as possible, assuming the source has no technical faults.", then you open the door to Pandy's questions and statements, but how can there be any other answer except for "Watch the Blu-Ray, or the output from MakeMKV if you want to waste some time creating it"? You never mentioned final file size or any other factors other than quality being considerations.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by nidany View Post
    Hi Pandy,
    I really can't understand why you prefer to ignore what I've written above:
    "I define "quality" as being as close to the source as possible, assuming the source has no technical faults."
    I know my English isn't perfect but still...
    Well - i love Kurosawa films and English is also not my native language (it is self learned as a way to gain knowledge of electronics so it is perfectly imperfect) and i've finished my tech university decades ago...but this not changing anything from my previous statement's.

    As i said before - hope it is clear - if you are pursuing closest quality to source then you are interested in bit exact copy of your source and this is where discussion ends - no lossy decoding, no lossy encoding - it is like copy files on computer (hope that copy is not difficult concept for mathematician).
    Proper word to describe operation of copying elementary streams from one container to different one is called multiplexing (re-multplexing, trans-multiplexing).
    And this ends our discussion.
    Quote Quote  
  22. From what I see, I would suspect that DVDFab is re-encoding something. MakeMKV will simply do passthrough, it doesn't re-encode anything. You can get the same result with DVDFab by setting it up for MKV Passthrough on the Ripper option.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads