Comments on: undvd: looking ahead. and back. http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/11/undvd-looking-ahead-and-back/ A blog about nothing Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:14:03 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: foobar http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/11/undvd-looking-ahead-and-back/#comment-42244 foobar Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:49:44 +0000 http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/11/undvd-looking-ahead-and-back/#comment-42244 @ Dirk MP4 is not a smaller container than AVI, it has much less overhead that AVI, thus for its smaller size. The thing is that AVI + h264 video is the worse thing you can ever do. The AVI container isn't designed to use B-Frames in the first place, and it cannot see that far when you use multiple frame references in H.264 - it uses ugly nasty hacks to allow B-Frames and even with the biggest hack, it cannot see beyond 8 frame references (h264 allows up to 16 framerefs). The MPEG and ITU groups strongly advise to stay away from the AVI container if you're going to encode to H.264 video. Preferred container for h264 video is MP4, but a lot of movie freaks, especially those from the Doom9 forum, will advise you to stay away from MP4 because of its limitations (can hold only a few audio codecs) and its closed nature and that's why you see a lot of MKVs on the Net holding h264 video. On the other hand though, MP4 is standardized and supported by hardware players. There are only a few of them that support the MKV container @ Dirk

MP4 is not a smaller container than AVI, it has much less overhead that AVI, thus for its smaller size. The thing is that AVI + h264 video is the worse thing you can ever do. The AVI container isn’t designed to use B-Frames in the first place, and it cannot see that far when you use multiple frame references in H.264 – it uses ugly nasty hacks to allow B-Frames and even with the biggest hack, it cannot see beyond 8 frame references (h264 allows up to 16 framerefs). The MPEG and ITU groups strongly advise to stay away from the AVI container if you’re going to encode to H.264 video. Preferred container for h264 video is MP4, but a lot of movie freaks, especially those from the Doom9 forum, will advise you to stay away from MP4 because of its limitations (can hold only a few audio codecs) and its closed nature and that’s why you see a lot of MKVs on the Net holding h264 video. On the other hand though, MP4 is standardized and supported by hardware players. There are only a few of them that support the MKV container

]]> By: Dirk R. Gently http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/11/undvd-looking-ahead-and-back/#comment-41994 Dirk R. Gently Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:02:52 +0000 http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/11/undvd-looking-ahead-and-back/#comment-41994 These scripts I'll have to try out. I've spent alot of time researching the first time I'd ripped straight from DVD and I wish I'd seen these first. Recently I've learned to rip to MP4, it's container is smaller than that of avi. Also I learned how to use ffmpeg in a single pass. http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_DVD_to_MP4 These scripts I’ll have to try out. I’ve spent alot of time researching the first time I’d ripped straight from DVD and I wish I’d seen these first. Recently I’ve learned to rip to MP4, it’s container is smaller than that of avi. Also I learned how to use ffmpeg in a single pass.

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_DVD_to_MP4

]]> By: numerodix http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/11/undvd-looking-ahead-and-back/#comment-41978 numerodix Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:14:43 +0000 http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/11/undvd-looking-ahead-and-back/#comment-41978 Yes, that is all true. But in response, may I select a not-so-random paragraph? :) "Therefore, I think it’s fair to say that we have the Photoshop of DVD ripping in place. Personally I want to use Paint for this activity, because I have no deep interest in all the details." There's absolutely no doubt that you will get better quality with a highly specialized setup. But that's.... okay with me :) Yes, that is all true. But in response, may I select a not-so-random paragraph? :)

“Therefore, I think it’s fair to say that we have the Photoshop of DVD ripping in place. Personally I want to use Paint for this activity, because I have no deep interest in all the details.”

There’s absolutely no doubt that you will get better quality with a highly specialized setup. But that’s…. okay with me :)

]]> By: microchip http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/11/undvd-looking-ahead-and-back/#comment-41977 microchip Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:43:31 +0000 http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/12/11/undvd-looking-ahead-and-back/#comment-41977 Actually, an interactive ripper has huge advantages over one that is non-interactive. When you encode video, there's no such thing as "one fits them all" setting - this has been discussed by the MEncoder developers many times on their mailing list. Video encoding is always been very hard because each DVD content is different from the other, especially when you start considering cropping, deinterlacing, telecine (which is a complete mess), badly mastered DVDs which tend to mislead the encoder about their FPS values and force it to skip frames when one does not set or force the correct output frame rate... interactive rippers also offer the user enough options to produce very high quality encodes and also to "correct" something if needed (see above about badly mastered DVDs). Yes, with an interactive ripper you need to take the time to set your stuff, but in the end, you can be pretty sure that you will get a "tweaked" encoding optimized for (very) high quality or for a specific file size :) Actually, an interactive ripper has huge advantages over one that is non-interactive. When you encode video, there’s no such thing as “one fits them all” setting – this has been discussed by the MEncoder developers many times on their mailing list. Video encoding is always been very hard because each DVD content is different from the other, especially when you start considering cropping, deinterlacing, telecine (which is a complete mess), badly mastered DVDs which tend to mislead the encoder about their FPS values and force it to skip frames when one does not set or force the correct output frame rate… interactive rippers also offer the user enough options to produce very high quality encodes and also to “correct” something if needed (see above about badly mastered DVDs). Yes, with an interactive ripper you need to take the time to set your stuff, but in the end, you can be pretty sure that you will get a “tweaked” encoding optimized for (very) high quality or for a specific file size :)

]]>