Dvd Rebuilder technical
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
9. October 2008 @ 15:08 |
Link to this message
|
This is mainly for CREAKY. But all replies welcome.
I would think that ALL dvd compression softwares use a paticular universal line of code? Bare with me. Very green/New to software/computer programming. What does Rebuilder do that shrink cant? I would think that the dvd format is only sooo flexible before it becomes incompatible with even standalones. Obviously computers merely need be taught how to perform tasks. Dvd players only support so many formats. [img]img362.imageshack.us/img362/6228/bowingbeforegodhc6.gif[/img]
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Peshtigo
Senior Member
|
9. October 2008 @ 22:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7: This is mainly for CREAKY. But all replies welcome.
I would think that ALL dvd compression softwares use a paticular universal line of code? Bare with me. Very green/New to software/computer programming. What does Rebuilder do that shrink cant? I would think that the dvd format is only sooo flexible before it becomes incompatible with even standalones. Obviously computers merely need be taught how to perform tasks. Dvd players only support so many formats. [img]img362.imageshack.us/img362/6228/bowingbeforegodhc6.gif[/img]
I believe it's transcoder vs. encoder. See the glossary.
|
Moderator
1 product review
|
9. October 2008 @ 23:31 |
Link to this message
|
DVD Shrink/Recode/DVD2One are transcoders, which means it works with your existing files moving the bits and peices around to make the best picture that it can with what it has to work with. It's all about the I, P, and B's. :)
Here is a good FAQ about transcoding ~ http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?&threadid=63587
Originally posted by mr bass: Picture Types
When choosing residual data, it is important to consider that there are three types of picture in an MPEG stream. They are called I, P and B-pictures. A typical DVD video contains pictures in the following sequence:
I-B-B-P-B-B-P-B-B-P-B-B-P-B-B-I-B-B-P-B-B.... and so on.
I pictures
These contain residual data only. There are no motion vectors, so they do not depend on (or "reference") any previously decoded pictures. Essentially, they are like standalone JPEG images. They occur at a rate of 1 in every 15 pictures (also they occur at the point of a scene change).
P pictures
These contain both motion vectors and residual data. The motion vectors always reference the previously decoded I or P picture. This is important, because it means that any error resulting from compression of the previous I or P picture will also be visible in this picture, and furthermore, if an additional error is introduced by compression of this picture, then the error will accumulate and artifacts will become more noticable. Note the accumulated error will also be visible in the next picture which references this picture, so things can get out of hand rather quickly. P-pictures occur 1 in every 3 pictures.
B pictures
Like P pictures, these also contain both motion vectors and residual data. The motion vectors always reference the last two decoded I or P pictures (data from two pictures is averaged). The important characteristic of b-pictures is, no picture will ever reference this b-picture (only I or P pictures are referenced), which means that any error introduced by compression of this picture will just be a one-off occurrence, visible in this picture, but not accumulated or carried forward into any other. Note also that B-pictures form the vast majority, occuring 2 in every 3 pictures.
If you are still following this, then you'll probably have figured out that when choosing residual data to compress, it makes sense to first select the data in b-pictures. This is because (a) they form the bulk of all pictures, and (b) any artifacts introduced by this compression will not be visible in any other picture.
This is what DVD Shrink does. If the resulting video size after compressing all b-pictures is still too large, then it will try to distribute the remaining compression over the remaining I and P pictures, and this is when artifacts start to become really noticable, because errors introduced into I and P pictures will be visible and compounded in all following pictures (until the next I-picture). Note that at low compression ratios, DVD Shrink will never need to touch I and P pictures. The exact % compression where this becomes necessary depends largely on the DVD, or more accurately, on the video encoder software used to encode it.
DVD Rebuilder is a GUI for your encoder. An encoder takes your file and rebuilds it from the ground up to meet a predetermined target size. You are basically starting from scratch.
http://dvd-rb.dvd2go.org/modules.php?nam...&categories=#11
Originally posted by jdobbs: · Just what does DVD Rebuilder do and why would I want to use it?
Over the course of the past couple of years DVD ripping techniques have changed dramatically. Newer "one click" programs have made backing up a DVD a fairly simple process... but there is a significant trade-off. The quality that can be attained by even the best of these programs is poor in comparison to original techniques that used Cinemacraft Encoder, TMPGEnc, or other top-notch encoders. The reason is simple. When using one of these encoders the picture is rebuilt from scratch and optimized for the resulting bit rate. One-touch transcoders usually change quantization and/or motion info in order to lower the bit rate. This can result in pixelation and poor overall picture. But, man, they sure are convenient. That's where DVD ReBuilder (DVD-RB) comes in. This program was built to bridge the gap between the incredibly easy but limited "one-click" solutions and the incredibly complex but high-quality methods of DVD ripping and backup. Another advantage of DVD-RB when compared to older methods is that it doesn't require access to an expensive authoring package. DVD-RB includes its own reauthoring engine that reconstructs the DVD in a way compatible with its original design. jdobbs
The end result is the same in both instances. It's just how you get there that is different. DVD Rebuilder is really just a simple to use interface for the encoder that you want to use. The encoder is what is doing the job, whether it's CCE, HCEncoder etc...DVD Rebuilder just makes it easy to use.
EDIT: Added links
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. October 2008 @ 23:34
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
12. October 2008 @ 17:46 |
Link to this message
|
Well... Trial #1 Success!!! Whats odd is, another person posted that it took Dvd-RB 45 minutes for his Quad, My Dual Core only took 53 min. Slow Slow Slow settings, CCE encoder, I would say that the effect versus dvd shrink is MARGINAL at best! But this was the first trial. Whats more interesting is, My processor never reached more than 72% Usage, And averaged, (IMO) 50-60%. HOWEVER, They way the transfering (Harddisks) were configured, it may have slowed things down a little. It looked like my processor may have been waiting on the drive. SHOULDA used my TB drive. its 300% faster. What encoder would you recommend based on video quality. DISREGARDING SPEED. I WANT it to take its time 2-3 hours and do a good job. CCE did a GOOD job with the movie. But... some of the extras were robbed more than i'd like. I only told it to take 25% from the extras.
|
Moderator
|
12. October 2008 @ 18:32 |
Link to this message
|
What movie are you using as your example ?.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
Senior Member
|
12. October 2008 @ 20:04 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by omegaman7: Well... Trial #1 Success!!! Whats odd is, another person posted that it took Dvd-RB 45 minutes for his Quad, My Dual Core only took 53 min. Slow Slow Slow settings, CCE encoder, I would say that the effect versus dvd shrink is MARGINAL at best! But this was the first trial. Whats more interesting is, My processor never reached more than 72% Usage, And averaged, (IMO) 50-60%. HOWEVER, They way the transfering (Harddisks) were configured, it may have slowed things down a little. It looked like my processor may have been waiting on the drive. SHOULDA used my TB drive. its 300% faster. What encoder would you recommend based on video quality. DISREGARDING SPEED. I WANT it to take its time 2-3 hours and do a good job. CCE did a GOOD job with the movie. But... some of the extras were robbed more than i'd like. I only told it to take 25% from the extras.
If you don't mind, could you post some more detailed info on this post. I too am running a dual core, slightly OC, and while the time you posted is comparable to mine (probably avg. around 60 to 70 min) my processor usage stays near 100% while encoding. Although I use HC Encoder on two pass quality, I would be interested in any options you use that could speed me up.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. October 2008 @ 20:15
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
13. October 2008 @ 02:38 |
Link to this message
|
Sleeping Beauty 50th anniversary edition. Shrink shows me that it would require 58% compression on movie. But...Using Rebuilder, telling it to Steal 25% of the extras space, Gave the main title 70% of original. Well... Thats why it went so fast. I know shrink goes fast at that Level of compression anyway. As far as I know, I had every setting to SLOW. Plus I was playing splashspot.com :) My Cpu is the 5200 amd athlon. Ferguj1, If your running a lesser model, that COULD have something to do with the usage. Or background processes. mine averages 50-60 processes at any given time. The only time ive ever seen my processor max was with Dr. Divx 1.06, And that was telling it to HURRY UP. LOL. I run a KINDA JBOD configuration. a 500gb WD ide to usb drive(STORAGE)THE ONE I USED FOR SOURCE FILES, And a 500gb WD sata (OS)resulting files, and my precious baby LOL. 1TB fals WD. INSANE FAST! it averages 70,000kbs transfer rates. the 500gb sata is about the same (Slightly slower), And the ide to usb 500gb drive averages 20 - 24000 kbs. What i would like to try now is have the source files on the FALS 1TB drive. The read rate would be MUCH faster. Probably get that 100% cpu usage. So... Are QUENC or HC mode any good?
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
13. October 2008 @ 02:42 |
Link to this message
|
havnt tried HC yet. Thats Next! :) I used the CCE on sleeping beauty. Not too impressed, but... it'll do. It robbed quite a bit of quality from the extras!
|
Moderator
|
13. October 2008 @ 04:08 |
Link to this message
|
HC Encoder is excellent, and is multi-core capable. Latest version is 0.23.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
14. October 2008 @ 01:57 |
Link to this message
|
Well... I'll try to cover everything here. It would appear that encode times rely on both CPU as well as THE ENCODER ITSELF. Because, CCE took 53 min (65% cpu average) on one job where HC took 70 and 90 minutes (100% cpu usage) on its jobs. Please note they were comparable jobs. I think what i need to do (For confirmation) is run a VERY LONG movie through it. I.E Titanic, braveheart, L.O.T.R., ETC. Probably end up being an episodic disc. Those are always long... and compare both encoders, AS WELL AS QuEnc. Now im ITCHING for a quad core!!! NO... An OCTO setup with a server board!!
Ok, Now im getting obsessed :)
Something interesting as well. I told it to steal 10% of the extras quality and it looks like it took more like 50%. I compared the output sizes of the original with SHRINK. Any thoughts on that?
Perhaps what the 10% means is not out put size but actual viewing quality. Because it didnt look TOO bad. Coulda been a little better but im not complaining. They are just extras after all. Hmmm... I just looked at the source files of the extras and they were lacking in quality as well. However HC encoder introduced some pixelation into the mix.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
14. October 2008 @ 07:08 |
Link to this message
|
Whoops! I forgot. The 90 minute encode job would have been when my antivirus was running a scan. Scanning all 3 harddrives takes close to that time too.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
14. October 2008 @ 13:54 |
Link to this message
|
Holy bugars batman! WOW WOW. 131 min encode time. Now thats more like it ehh? I ran "Teenage mutant ninja turtles II" The disk had both wide screen and full screen on it. Curious, can i remove a title without effecting (errors in the menu) the menus? I suppose i'll try the other encoders now. By the way, the video quality seemed very awesome. I wont know til i put it in 50" plasma :)
Once again my antivirus was running at the same time. Gonna have to reset it for the next test.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
14. October 2008 @ 17:01 |
Link to this message
|
mmm... it would appear that the fab can remove titles without effecting the menus. AWESOME! I dont see the need in keeping both versions when widescreen is/becoming the standard.
Heres a question on/off topic. I would love to leave my computer for 1day or two keeping it busy. I would love to setup processes to run and leave it. BUT... different programs. I dont want them running via several instances. (imagine the fragmentation!) Is there software that can manage processes in such a fashion? What i mean is... i would tell it Dr. divx, DVD RB, Both under batch mode but NOT running simultaneously. Basically schedule the tasks to run at a given time, Or when the cpu appears to have finished a process, it would basically, "CLICK GO" on the other program. Do i have to design this myself? Or is there something already out, via freeware or other means?
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
15. October 2008 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
Wow! Not used to my processor running 100%. Obviously the HC encoder utilizes both cores equally. Gonna take some getting used to. I LIKE IT. I like knowing its busting its butt.
Wow, the mobile option With dvd takes A LONG time! Atleast with the experimental x264 compression. Had to stop it when i woke up. Have to run that alone some time. The cce encoder, when it was working :( , ran at 60-70%. See... I bought the pro edition last night. It really does deserve dontation :) I'm aware of ways of CHEATING, but it just didnt feel right with this one! Now for some reason my cce encoder gets an error. I forget what it said. No biggie. HC seems to be the most praised.
|
Moderator
|
15. October 2008 @ 14:46 |
Link to this message
|
Good stuff, i knew HC would grow on you in the end :) :)
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
15. October 2008 @ 17:38 |
Link to this message
|
Found myself a little disapointed with the last backup. So I ran shrink. The settings i gave shrink should have gave given the main title (movie) very decent 70% quality. But it looked even worse than HC encoded. I think ive grown more critical!
OK. I tested all 3 (original, shrank, Rebuilded) on my moms 50" plasma. They were all comparable quality. Shrink definetely left pixelation though. I think im starting to critique the orginal dvds now. I wonder if her setup simply cant view dvds to their peak! Gonna have to try running her dvd player through the HDMI. I think its apparent though that the big dogs (paramount, lionsgate, etc) are starting to skimp on quality though. Ironman was awesome though!
Most of the movie looks reasonable, its simply when there are HIGH motion scenes.
|
Moderator
|
15. October 2008 @ 17:58 |
Link to this message
|
I watch movies in 2 ways on my 32" LCD. Via my HDMI upconverting player (i'm no expert on all things HDMI or upconverters but the TV is set to 1080i and as far as i remember the player is set to 1080i, either way the picture is awesome). For example the new HULK movie (both original retail dvd and the HC encoded dvd) looked crisp as anything, though i forget the compression percentage, i think it was around 76% or so.
Also i watch loads of movies (avi and dvd) via XBMC on my old style xboxes, connected via component cables; the main xbox is connected to the above LCD. Of course the movies aren't quite as crisp thru the xbox, but are still very good indeed.
I have no problem with fast moving action scenes on any of my Rebuilder-created discs, am definitely looking forward to Iron Man, think it's out here next week.
Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS-WPA2/AES ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 3node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G2 v1. *** Forum Rules ***
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 15. October 2008 @ 18:00
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. October 2008 @ 19:31 |
Link to this message
|
If you're not happy with the backup, you can make changes. Using bitrate distribution you can give more bitrate to areas that you feel would benefit. You can also try different matrices depending on the amount of compression needed. There are also different settings if you are using The HC encoder.
99% of all problems are between the computer and the chair.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
16. October 2008 @ 00:23 |
Link to this message
|
other than speeding up script .ini, does the *lossless parameter for HC help the resulting video quality any?
Thanks for the tidbit dialysis1. Thats more for getting the quality just right. Im betting its more overkill than anything. Unless your working with a 4hr movie. Correct me if im wrong.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
16. October 2008 @ 03:27 |
Link to this message
|
Those settings can be applied to any movie where the user feels more bitrate is needed. Under certain circumstances you can even have some segments remain untouched so that no reencoding takes place. This will also speed up the processing time.
99% of all problems are between the computer and the chair.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
16. October 2008 @ 03:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dialysis1: Those settings can be applied to any movie where the user feels more bitrate is needed. Under certain circumstances you can even have some segments remain untouched so that no reencoding takes place. This will also speed up the processing time.
very usefull. Thank you much. :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
19. October 2008 @ 23:00 |
Link to this message
|
As You'll see by this posting, (I Hope, Somewhat large)Dvd - RB Did something rather curious. The output size is much smaller than usual, And it seems to have reorganized the dvd structure. Please note that I did this NO DIFFERENTLY than any other job. This seems to be some freak mistake. ANY THOUGHTS WELCOME! I would very much like to rebuild it, Not shrink it. :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
19. October 2008 @ 23:02 |
Link to this message
|
Whoops, Here it is.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. October 2008 @ 10:09 |
Link to this message
|
That is what's known as encoder saturation.
99% of all problems are between the computer and the chair.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
20. October 2008 @ 15:50 |
Link to this message
|
[url=http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-122810.html][/url]
Will this solve my problem? This is a little more advanced then im used to. I am aware of the .ini file. Never experimented with it though. I guess I do have a quick processor though. Could pay to experiment. Average encode is 90-120 min.
|