Compressing blu-ray MKV with DVD settings

[mkvfanclub]

Hello,

I am used to ripping DVDs and have no problems. But I recently got into ripping blu-rays.

So I have ripped a blu-ray movie with my paid copy of MakeMKV. MakeMKV did a perfect job as always but obviously I need to compress the files with HandBrake.

When I rip DVDs, I use quality 18 and this has always been fine. But when I use quality 18 with blu-ray, the MP4 files are way too big (for me). It seems that the main reason for this is the resolution. Using any resolution higher than a DVD resolution (720x576) results in a file which is too big and blu-rays are higher resolution by default.

So I compressed the blu-ray ripped MKV files to the same settings that I use for DVDs (720x576 quality 18). The file size is fine now and the quality seems ok (watching on 1280x720 display which is all I have).

However, I'm thinking to myself, if I rip my blu-rays with the same HandBrake settings that I use for ripping DVDs (720x576 quality 18), am I any better off paying extra and waiting longer for blu-ray discs at all or should I just buy DVD discs like I always did before?

So my question is if I use MakeMKV to rip the exact same movie from a blu-ray source and a DVD source, and then I use HandBrake to compress both files with the exact same settings (720x576 quality 18), will the MP4 file compressed from the blu-ray source be better quality than the MP4 file compressed from the DVD source? Or will there be no difference?

On the one hand, the finished MP4 file will be the same resolution as the DVD. So that would suggest the same quality. On the other hand, the blu-ray MKV source file will be higher quality. Would this help HandBrake to make a better quality MP4 file? Also, I'm using quality 18 for both blu-ray and DVD. Would that make any difference because I read that quality 18 is higher quality for blu-ray MP4 files than it is for DVD MP4 files.

[Woodstock]

Encoding at a higher resolution but a lower RF (1920xwhatever and RF20) will work just fine. Give it a try.

My encodes are RF20 for both resolutions, normally. Haven't seen the need to go RF18 except to play with things. My ripping is usually anime, so the compression generally results in .5-.9 GB for 24 minute BD shows. That's vs .3-.4 GB for DVD quality. Harry Potter did 4-7 GB for full movies at 1920x800 or so.

The question isn't "what's best, everybody?", but "what do I like better?" Play with it. Encode a BD movie at full resolution, but change the RF around. Watch the results. Do you like them? What I like doesn't matter - it's what YOU like that works. You may actually like reducing the resolution to fit a TV better.

[Ezatoka]

It's not like Handbrake tells you this in the overlay popup


(https://i.imgur.com/0ij68fg.png if the picture doesn't show inline)

[dcoke22]

Your 1280x720 display has more pixels than a standard definition DVD. That display has fewer pixels than a high definition blu-ray. The movies you buy are likely to outlive the size and resolution of your current display. Your next display will likely be higher resolution.

I have 20+ year old DVDs that have the same resolution as they've always had, but look comparatively worse now that I watch them on a larger, 4K display.

As the others have suggested, I would try to retain the resolution and adjust the compression to achieve a file size you can live with. Personally, I've been compressing blu-rays using 10-bit h.265 encoding. I usually get 8:1 or better compression although the processing time is non-trivial.

[mkvfanclub]

Many thanks to both of you. You have both helped me.

For now, I have gone with 1280 x 720 with quality 20 for blu-ray and I will stick with 720 x 576 with quality 18 for dvd.

I understand what you are saying about planning for the future but I like the file sizes for these settings and I can never use anything higher than 720p in a display because my eyes aren't good enough to see the small letters (even with 720p, I have to use 125% font sizes in both Windows 7 and Chrome) (yes, I still use Windows 7 and if you really want a chuckle, I still use Office 2003 including Outlook 2003 as my main email program!)

I mean, we have 4K blu-ray discs now and there's no way I could preserve that resolution because I don't have the space for the files. It's unlikely I'll ever use 4K resolution on my computer anyway even if I get a display that supports it. I'm old. It's a handicap.

Thank you for highlighting that HandBrake does indeed tell me the quality settings I should be using. Sometimes I look and look at things and can't see the answer even when it's right in front of me.

[dudeman2009]

While not explicitly related to MakeMKV, using higher screen resolutions doesn't mean the text or visual detail has to get smaller. I run a 4k display, and the test is exactly the same size as 20 years ago when I was using a 1024x768 monitor. I could make it even bigger if I wanted, however the text is much clearer now, the edges are crisp, and reading results in far less eye strain. As far as video goes, I can encode 4k into about 2x the size of SD and have a night and day difference remain.

I wouldn't write off higher resolution displays going forward. I have text scaling set to 150% but the option can go up to 350%, which on screen makes the letters about half an inch tall on my monitor, but would still maintain the ability to watch higher than SD video if desired. Right now there is no need for larger encoding sizes, but storage and monitors are getting cheap. You might mess around with getting an HD display some time, you might find it's really nice in a larger screen size (for reference I just use a 40" 4k TV as a monitor).