Is a MKV from MakeMKV considered a Remux?

[LaserBones]

I'm trying to name my files correctly as I encode them and I'm not encoding DVDs unless they need to be deinterlaced.

From my understanding a Remux is essentially 1) the original disk in muxed into a new container or 2) a file that has had subs, additional audio, etc. muxed into the file.

Is this correct? If so would an MKV file made with MakeMKV be considered a Remux?

[ron spencer]

Remuxing is generally considered changing the "container" of the video/audio/subs without changing any of the individual video/audio/subtitle assets. So yes the MKV file from MakeMKV is a remux.

[flashandpan007]

unless they need to be deinterlaced.

Even if the video is interlaced, in my opionion it is better to leave it just like it is and let the player do the deinterlacing while playing. If you wish I can send you a file which is interlaced, but most if not almost all software deinterlace filters will produce garbage (I do not know one single one I tried), but if I use the hardware deinterlacer of my GPU while playing, it is perfect. It does everything for it automatically, no need to do extensive testing.

So only remuxing the DVD to mkv file is necessary, no encoding waste (time, ...), it is faster and if there will be better deinterlacers be available, who knows, then you can apply the best of the new ones on on your still interlaced video during playback.

[LaserBones]

Thank for the advice. I hadn't thought about it like that I'm using QTGMC. You prefer your hardware deinterlacer to QTGMC? I use Plex to play my media.

[Ennio]

Normally I let my player or tv take care of de-interlacing. As stated earlier, it often is better to leave it as-is. Pre-playback, software de-interlacing for me forcibly comes into play when I need to slow-down certain sped-up (24fps based) PAL music material to native speed (4% speed-change for music is awfully much and can completely devastate groove & rhythm and tonal experience).

As for the "remux phrase" itself, it's how you want to look at it. It's subject to consideration indeed, as ron spencer stated.
In my view, the word remux would not only be used when "keeping original source streams and mux into another container". This would be a possibility, though.
Suppose you import a mkv into mkvtoolnix, drop a source-subtitle and add another one, mux to mkv again. I would call that a remux.
Or, if one tries to resolve an issue by muxing a sourcefile only with added/other muxing-settings, I would call that a remux too.
So again, IMO it's about how you (want to) look at it.
Of course a (re-)muxing process natively, has nothing to do with re-encoding, de-interlacing, etc...

[jagabo]

Re-multiplexing is the process of taking the compressed (or not) audio and video (and possibly other streams) out of one file and putting them into another (the container may be the same type or not) without decompressing and re-compressing them. So no quality is lost. It's like taking a cake out of one box and putting it into another box. The cake is still the same cake, just the box is different.

It's called "multiplexing" because audio and video data are interleaved. I.e., the data within the file consists of a little video followed by a little audio, followed by a little more video and a little more audio, etc. This might be done frame by frame (one frame of video, one frame of audio, another frame of video another frame of audio, etc.) or by some other grouping (e.g. two frames of video, two frames of audio, two frames of video, two frames of audio, etc.). This is done so that the corresponding video and audio are close together within the file making it easier to play and less strenuous on the drive -- rather than say, putting all the video at the start of the file and all the audio at the end of the file (appending rather than interleaving) which would require the drive seeking back and forth over long distances to get successive video and audio frames.