How to make the output filesize for a BR smaller

[Chetwood]

False conclusion. I'm not giving up "superior video quality" for file size -- as explained (extensively) in my previous post.

Yeah, and it's still doubtful. There's always a trade-off.

Are you somehow under the impression that the posted link refutes anything I said previously? It doesn't. In point of fact, it supports one of the critical points I made in my previous post.

The link merely suggests that larger screen sizes than those you've been able to test on so far, might yield different results.

Please make an attempt to understand the discussion before responding.

Says the one who still doesn't get my point about wasting time on encoding, testing (and convincing people in the forums). Apparently, you have lots of it, given how you keep going on about this. By all means, do, I'm out.

[joe42]

Says the one who still doesn't get my point about wasting time on encoding, testing (and convincing people in the forums). Apparently, you have lots of it, given how you keep going on about this.

He certainly has a lot more time to fiddle with reencoding than I am willing to do. I couldn't believe he would actually spend a lot of time encoding a moving, watching it to look for artifacts, then reencoding it with less aggressive settings and checking it again. To me, that is nuts! Just rip the movie and be happy!

[DaveQ]

I'm responding this time because a couple of points have been raised that haven't already been addressed.

False conclusion. I'm not giving up "superior video quality" for file size -- as explained (extensively) in my previous post.

Yeah, and it's still doubtful. There's always a trade-off.

You're going to have to forgive me for pointing out that your argument here is based solely on theory -- whereas I'm speaking from the experience of actually having done it and checked results. When it comes to questions such as these, testing trumps theory every time. There's no question that the re-encoded files differ from the original media. But are those differences noticeable? You're saying they're noticeable based on... nothing. I'm saying that with the right settings, they are not noticeable, and I know this because I've checked.

The link merely suggests that larger screen sizes than those you've been able to test on so far, might yield different results.

No, it doesn't. Again, it's clear you don't understand the content of that link. Or, if you do understand the content in that link, you don't understand how it applies to this discussion. That link supports one of my points from a few posts back -- namely, that viewing distance makes a big difference when it comes to questions of perceived resolution. The implication is that if I examine 1080p output from much closer than typical viewing distance on (for example) a 64" screen, it can be MORE revealing of flaws than the same content viewed on a larger screen from further away. Get far enough away from the screen, and it doesn't even matter if the displayed content is standard def or high def -- it will appear the same. Get closer, and the differences become apparent.

Because we're resolution-limited (none of our content is better than 1080p), there is also a practical limit to screen size vs. viewing distance vs. apparent detail. Get too close, and the limitations of 1080p will become apparent, even if it's a well-mastered title. Display it on successively larger and larger screens, without increasing your viewing distance, and the limitations of 1080p will also become apparent. The article you linked explains the equivalence of those two scenarios. I can perceive flaws in 1080p output equally well whether I'm looking at them on a smaller screen up close or on a bigger screen from more typical viewing distances.

There are indie films that were shot, edited and distributed on 1080p video, then shown in theaters on screens that completely dwarf any screen you're going to have in a home theater setup. In the theater, they usually look alright. The reason why is that they're being viewed from much further away than they would in your home. If you were to plant yourself 8 feet away from the center of the movie theater screen, you'd notice two things: 1) You can't take in the entire picture in your in-focus visual field; you're just too close and your peripheral vision is poor, sensitive primarily to movement but not detail. 2) From this distance, the image quality suffers. It would look fine from 50 or 60 feet away, but the flaws are revealed at distances much closer than the image was meant to be viewed from.

Says the one who still doesn't get my point about wasting time on encoding, testing (and convincing people in the forums).

Another false conclusion. It wasn't a waste of time to encode my movies and do some comparison tests, given the money I've saved as a result. I'd rather spend $100 on new Blu-rays than on another hard drive. Also: I don't comparison test every movie. I tested a few titles I thought would be particularly revealing of flaws. Even then, I didn't watch the entire film as part of the tests. I compared a few scenes.

I could point out what a waste of time and money it is to build big disk arrays to store unmodified blu-ray rips, when spending a small amount of time encoding them could reduce your storage needs by 50-80%. Not to mention the time you're wasting going on the forums to defend your methodology. But that would be equally pointless. You do what you do for your own reasons. I do what I do for my own reasons. Neither approach is a waste of time. It's two different approaches, each with their own merits.

I will point out that you and SidebandSamurai started this crap. The OP asked a simple question -- how can he reduce the file size from his Blu-ray rips? I answered his question. You jumped in and instead of answering his question, implied that he was stupid for wanting to do it. What's worse is that you're criticizing the methodology without even having tried it yourself.

He certainly has a lot more time to fiddle with reencoding than I am willing to do. I couldn't believe he would actually spend a lot of time encoding a moving, watching it to look for artifacts, then reencoding it with less aggressive settings and checking it again. To me, that is nuts! Just rip the movie and be happy!

I guess my description just wasn't clear before. See above -- I don't do this for every film, and I didn't watch the tester films beginning to end looking for flaws in the encode.

I watch my movies for entertainment. Out of the hundreds I've watched for entertainment purposes, four caught my attention because I thought the quality was lacking, and (as previously explained) only one was actually due to a poor encode.

Dave

[joe42]

I guess my description just wasn't clear before. See above -- I don't do this for every film, and I didn't watch the tester films beginning to end looking for flaws in the encode.

I watch my movies for entertainment. Out of the hundreds I've watched for entertainment purposes, four caught my attention because I thought the quality was lacking, and (as previously explained) only one was actually due to a poor encode.

I'm not going to waste my time reading your long, inconsistent accounts any more. If you don't do what I wrote, then you are obviously getting lower quality on some of your encodings and you just didn't notice. It has to be one or the other. If one is going to renecode to such a smaller size, either one has to encode, watch, check for artifacts, rencode; or one has to be satisfied with occasional artifacts. You are just fooling yourself. But I'm not going to try to argue you out of denial, since you clearly have a lot invested in your misconceptions.

[DaveQ]

I'm not going to waste my time reading your long, inconsistent accounts any more.

My accounts are not inconsistent. When I was testing, trying to nail down good settings, I used key/difficult scenes from Blade Runner, WALL-E, Avatar, and a couple others. I didn't have to watch 10+ hours of movies after each encode to draw reasonable conclusions about what I saw, especially since I had the blu-ray media to compare side-by-side. I used these tests to establish my preferred encoding settings.

If you don't do what I wrote, then you are obviously getting lower quality on some of your encodings and you just didn't notice.

Non-sequitur. (One does not follow from the other.) That I don't watch every movie beginning to end with a critical eye post-encode is not proof that I'm getting "lower quality" on some of my encodings.

If one is going to renecode to such a smaller size, either one has to encode, watch, check for artifacts, rencode; or one has to be satisfied with occasional artifacts.

See above. Your argument would have merit if I was encoding with random settings, or if I had never taken the time to encode and compare previously.

Now let's set everything else aside, and (just for the sake of argument) say you are correct, and that some number of the movies on my media server would, if compared side-by-side with the original media, be noticeably different. Tell me: when could this possibly happen? Without the benefit of a side-by-side comparison, who can watch a carefully-encoded movie and say, "Hey! This doesn't look exactly like the original media!" In testing circles, such a study would have to be conducted double-blind to ensure the results are valid. That's way more work than I'm going to do, especially since I suffer from no paranoia about the quality of the media on my server in the first place. These movies look fantastic.

Dave

[joe42]

Now let's set everything else aside, and (just for the sake of argument) say you are correct, and that some number of the movies on my media server would, if compared side-by-side with the original media, be noticeably different. Tell me: when could this possibly happen? Without the benefit of a side-by-side comparison, who can watch a carefully-encoded movie and say, "Hey! This doesn't look exactly like the original media!"

[most of your nonsense snipped...you do babble on....]

You seem to have missed the fact that quite a few people have done comparisons (myself included) on various movies, and DO notice the difference.

As I said, I am not going to argue with your self-denial, since you obviously have a lot invested in your misconceptions. If you are happy in denial, then you should stop arguing and just be happy.

[DaveQ]

You seem to have missed the fact that quite a few people have done comparisons (myself included) on various movies, and DO notice the difference.

You noticed a difference in my media files? You'll have to forgive me for doubting you.

As to "quite a few people..." they don't seem to be participating in this discussion. Chetwood and SidebandSamurai objected based on theoretical grounds -- i.e., (paraphrased) 'There's no way you can reduce file size without the video turning to crap.' Neither claimed to have seen this for themselves -- they just asserted it and implied that anybody who didn't build a big disk array to store unmodified blu-ray rips was a fool. I think it's foolish to rip blu-ray media and then leave it full-size on my media server based on some kind of paranoia that while the smaller files might look great on my current television, I'll somehow regret it when I buy a new television or projector "in three years." Based on my testing, my media files will still look great in three years on a new television. But even if they don't, the original blu-ray media isn't going anywhere. I'll re-rip then if necessary, but I'm confident it won't be.

This discussion is just going in circles. I'm done.

Dave

[joe42]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is plenty of evidence that many movies cannot be reencoded significantly smaller without introducing artifacts. But as I said, if you are happy in denial, then you should keep it up. I think your stopping arguing here is a good decision, since the only thing you can achieve by continuing to argue is finding out that you have spent a lot of time encoding only to create some artifacts that you have not seen or will not allow yourself to see.

[davmrls]

DaveQ....Do you have some kind of guide I could follow with the settings you use that you have found to have the best results....Thanks in advance.

[srj1209]

Hello,

I am relatively new to makeMKV and recently started using it, but have heard a lot about Handbrake. Can anyone post Handbrake settings to get maximum quality (1080p and possibly lossless audio) with reasonable file size? I have tried with makeMKV and the size of a blu-ray was about 19 GB. How do I get this to a 11-12 GB size using Handbrake?

Thanks in advance for any help..

[setarip_old]

@srj1209

Hi!

Your question would be better posted at the Handbrake forum, as this forum is for beta testing MamkMKV...