How to make the output filesize for a BR smaller

[Petersteffensen]

Hi.

I love MakeMKV, it's a fantastic tool to rip Blu Ray's with - but the output file size is normally around 18-20GB, and I would prefer it to be around 5-6GB instead - is there any way to do this with MakeMKV? Or do I need another program for resizing the file afterwards? And if so, what program is best/fastest? I have tried one that took several hours resizing, and it ended up only making it 2GB smaller than the original...

Hope someone can help, it would be most appreciated!
Peter

[DaveQ]

Makemkv does not modify the audio or video streams in any way... so your rips will continue to be large.

To reduce their size, try HandBrake. It has presets that will allow you to reduce the size on disk of your movie files with little or no noticeable degradation in quality. I have found that the "Normal" and "High Profile" presets are a good starting point, after which you can tweak the audio options to your preference. "Normal" is much quicker to convert than "High Profile." I would recommend setting the constant quality slider to 21, which provides a good trade-off between file size and image quality.

Note that films containing lots of film grain (especially older films) will take up a lot more disc space than newer, relatively clean films. This is because the encoding software attempts to retain all detail, grain included.

Dave

[Petersteffensen]

Thanks for the thorough info, Dave!

I will try it out straight away!

[NutFlush920]

I agree with Dave. I make my MKV's then run them through HandBrake in the "normal" preset. A word of advice, remember to select "large file format" (I think it's called) or you won't be able to watch HD content.

I do this process for all my DVD's and Bluray's then use iTunes Home Sharing to watch them on my multiple Apple TV's.

[Petersteffensen]

Thanks again - HandBrake installed and everything going smoothly (although a bit timeconsuming when there is 50 Bly Ray's to resize )

[NutFlush920]

I usually queue up 4 movies and let them run overnight while sleeping. On average each Blu-ray takes about 2 hours to do on my 13" 2012 MacBook Pro.

[SidebandSamurai]

Whats the sense of having high def content if you compress it down to 1/5th of its size. You have to loose a significant amount of quality when you do that. For my DVD's I just rip it and put it on my media server. I am thinking I will do the same for the BD disks when I get a reader. My server could hold a total of 72TB if necessary.

Now on the other hand I can understand if you are compressing it for an Ipad or a phone, that makes sense.

Sideband Samurai

[DaveQ]

Whats the sense of having high def content if you compress it down to 1/5th of its size. You have to loose a significant amount of quality when you do that.

Nope. Don't knock it until you try it. Disc space savings are quite significant, and the output (with the right settings) is usually not noticeably different than the original blu-ray. There are two reasons for this:

1. Significant space savings are achieved just by discarding content you won't use, such as foreign audio tracks.

2. HandBrake (really X.264) is a very efficient encoder, and (if you're careful about settings) produces excellent output that closely matches the visual appearance of the input file. So close that you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

For my DVD's I just rip it and put it on my media server. I am thinking I will do the same for the BD disks when I get a reader. My server could hold a total of 72TB if necessary.

Doesn't matter how much disc space you have... whatever it is, you'd be able to store 3-5 times as much content on it with careful re-encoding than without it.

I don't have many DVDs ripped for my media server, but those I have typically compress to around 1-1.3 GB with no noticeable degradation. For Blu-ray, it varies more. For new movies shot on fine-grained film with clean masters, it's often possible to get a 2 hour movie in around 3-5 GB at 1080p, with DD or DTS soundtracks. If you want the full uncompressed audio you're still going to be under 6 or 7 GB, usually.

It's very different for older films, especially those with heavy grain. But even then, you can save significant space. A movie that was 35 GB on Blu can be compressed to 10 or 12 GB, retaining grain and detail.

Dave

[Chetwood]

Of course it makes a difference since hard disk space is getting cheaper all the time (now that the flood damage is fixed). Conversion also takes a significant amount of electricity and time. And when in 3 years or so you decide to get a beamer and watch your stuff on a 3+ m wide screen, you'll be in for a surprise.

[DaveQ]

Of course it makes a difference since hard disk space is getting cheaper all the time (now that the flood damage is fixed). Conversion also takes a significant amount of electricity and time.

Really? You're objecting to reducing file size because of "electricity and time?" The electricity is almost negligible, given that my media server is running 24/7 already, and the time is insignificant. I set up a queue to run overnight and it's done in the morning.

And when in 3 years or so you decide to get a beamer and watch your stuff on a 3+ m wide screen, you'll be in for a surprise.

My comments are not based on theory. I have compared some of my original blu rips to the encodes of the same movies using Plex on a 64" plasma, up close (i.e., much closer than normal viewing distance, for testing purposes). A 64" screen viewed up close is more revealing of flaws than any projected image viewed from a normal viewing distance is. 1080p doesn't magically become 2K or 4K on a projector; it's still 1080p. My encoded files look fantastic, which is to say that properly encoded, they cannot be distinguished from the original media.

I've also viewed some of my encoded movies using a 1080p projector (not mine) at over 100 inches. Again, they look fantastic, though I admit I have not made a comparison between the unmodified blu rips and the encoded files on that projector. Nonetheless, I was not subjected to a "surprise" as you imply I would be.

I did not just blindly decide to encode everything to save space on an assumption that they would look okay. I actually made comparisons at various CQ levels and with various encode "tunings." I found settings that save significant disc space for most movies and I am fully confident based on viewing tests that I will not find myself "disappointed" later. Because I wouldn't have encoded my entire library that way if they were lacking in quality in the first place.

The best part about this is that even if someday I do come across an encoded file that doesn't live up to my expectations, I can still just pop the original blu-ray disc into my blu-ray player and watch it that way. Building a Plex library is an awesome way to put everything right at my fingertips. But those original blu-rays are still sitting in my media cabinet and will remain available should something be lacking in an encode. If I come across something like that in the future, I can simply re-encode with different settings to rectify the situation on my Plex server. But so far everything is going swimmingly.

And I can guarantee I've spent a lot less money on electricity encoding those movies than you have on hard drives and electricity to keep your disk array spinning.

Dave

[Chetwood]

Really? You're objecting to reducing file size because of "electricity and time?"

Really? You're objecting to keeping superior video quality because of "file size"?

I've also viewed some of my encoded movies using a 1080p projector (not mine) at over 100 inches. Again, they look fantastic, though I admit I have not made a comparison between the unmodified blu rips and the encoded files on that projector.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

Of course, you are free to waste as much time on conversion as you want. Have fun.

[Romansh]

Of course it makes a difference since hard disk space is getting cheaper all the time (now that the flood damage is fixed). Conversion also takes a significant amount of electricity and time.

Really? You're objecting to reducing file size because of "electricity and time?" The electricity is almost negligible, given that my media server is running 24/7 already, and the time is insignificant. I set up a queue to run overnight and it's done in the morning.

Well, power consumption at idle vs. 100% CPU will not be the same. It might be interesting to do a comparison on the cost of electricity vs. additional disk space. It will of course depend on the machine and encoding settings used.

But of course, the real good reason to re-encode stuff it because it's fun!

[DaveQ]

Really? You're objecting to reducing file size because of "electricity and time?"

Really? You're objecting to keeping superior video quality because of "file size"?

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

I've also viewed some of my encoded movies using a 1080p projector (not mine) at over 100 inches. Again, they look fantastic, though I admit I have not made a comparison between the unmodified blu rips and the encoded files on that projector.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

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. Please make an attempt to understand the discussion before responding.

It occurs to me that perhaps you don't understand my points because you think that encoding the blu-ray rips using HandBrake reduces their resolution. It doesn't, unless you specifically choose to encode them at a lower resolution than the source file. I don't -- I encode them at the same resolution (1080p) as the source file.

Well, power consumption at idle vs. 100% CPU will not be the same. It might be interesting to do a comparison on the cost of electricity vs. additional disk space. It will of course depend on the machine and encoding settings used.

It isn't even close. It costs somewhere between $80 and $200 per year to leave a computer turned on the entire time, 24/7. (Depends on power draw of the unit -- a Mac Mini, for example, is going to use a lot less electricity than a full-size tower). As I mentioned previously, my media server is running 24/7 whether I'm re-encoding or not. The additional power draw during encoding is, to err on the side of least efficiency, an additional 10% per year. (I really do believe that's a very high estimate, given the number of blu-ray purchases I make each year, etc.) So we're talking maybe an extra $20 per year for electricity, vs. buying additional hard drives. Keep in mind that every extra hard drive represents an initial outlay of money, plus extra electricity to keep that disk spinning in a disk array. There's no question that re-encoding saves significant disk space AND significant money in the long run.

But of course, the real good reason to re-encode stuff it because it's fun!

Agreed.

Dave

[joe42]

Movies that have no dark scenes; no large, fast-moving objects, and no very fine details (like intricate designs or or lots of small print) can usually be encoded to a smaller size without any noticeable loss of quality.

But for movies that do have those elements, anyone who watches carefully can tell the difference between the original encoding and the smaller re-encoding. It may still be worth it for some people. But personally, if even 1 in 10 of the movies that get reencoded look worse than the original, that is enough to make me avoid the hassle of reencoding. And in my experience, it is significantly more than 1 in 10 (admittedly, I am more of an action and sci-fi fan than a drama or romcom fan).

[DaveQ]

Movies that have no dark scenes; no large, fast-moving objects, and no very fine details (like intricate designs or or lots of small print) can usually be encoded to a smaller size without any noticeable loss of quality.

But for movies that do have those elements, anyone who watches carefully can tell the difference between the original encoding and the smaller re-encoding.

I made my comparisons using difficult movies -- i.e., those with dark scenes, action, fine detail, etc. The most difficult aspect to control was quality in shadow areas/dark scenes. But it can be done. When there are lots of dark scenes, you just have to use settings that result in larger files. But in no case did I find it impossible to reduce the size of the file by a significant amount. For some movies with lots of darkness, the result might only be a 30-40% reduction in file size. For other movies it is closer to 70 or even 80%. I had a hard time accepting it the first time that happened. How could it possibly look right when the file size had been reduced so much? But it just happened to be a movie that encodes easily -- little or no grain, few dark scenes, not a lot of fast-moving action.

I also have a large number of sci-fi and action movies. A lot of my testing/comparisons were done with Blade Runner, Avatar, and WALL-E (among others). Believe it or not, the most difficult encode I had was the Pixar movie THE INCREDIBLES, which has a couple scenes that X.264 had trouble encoding without noticeable banding. Most live action stuff works fine.

I put WALL-E and Blade Runner on a USB thumb drive and played them on my friend's 100+" projector through his Plex server. Everybody was impressed. IIRC, encoded WALL-E is about 4 or 4.5 GB with lots of dark scenes (outer space, inside Wall-E's "house," etc. Blade Runner is around 6 or 6.5 GB, also with lots of dark scenes, as anybody familiar with the movie knows. Those are with DTS and AC3 soundtracks, not lossless. Lossless audio would have increased their sizes considerably, but still left them well smaller than the original Blu-ray sizes.

Something else to remember: ALL Blu-ray video is encoded/compressed already. (The video on Blu-ray discs is not 'lossless.') Using HandBrake allows you to exploit the high efficiency of the X.264 encoder to get nearly identical results with smaller on-disc sizes. I say "nearly identical" because there is no way to make it mathematically identical when re-encoding. The only question is this: are the results noticeably different? With careful encoding, and from normal viewing distances (regardless of screen size*), it is easy to get results that are not noticeably different.

(* I say "regardless of screen size" because screen size tends to correlate with typical viewing distances. Yes, there are exceptions.)

Since my adventure with Plex server and HandBrake-encoded movies began, I've watched at least a couple hundred of them. I don't keep a viewing journal, so I can't tell you exactly how many. But I have only found myself disappointed in the picture quality on four movies so far. Three of the four proved just as disappointing when I popped the Blu-ray into my player to watch it that way instead -- in other words, the fault lay not with HandBrake/re-encoding, but with the source material or the Blu-ray mastering in the first place. The fourth one was one of the first I ever encoded with HandBrake, before I had made my careful comparison tests. Re-encoding with less aggressive settings led to great results.

And it all comes back to that anyway. I have all my original Blu-ray media still, and can go back to it if necessary -- either to watch it unmodified, or to re-encode if desired.

It's been an interesting discussion, but I'm starting to repeat myself. I'm not going to convince anybody to switch their methodology, and that was never my intention anyway. People can try it out for themselves and decide if they want to do it. Or they can never encode anything, and build massive servers with big disk arrays to store everything unmodified from the Blu-ray rip. If that's what you want to do, have at it.

Dave