Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[benn600]

I spent a huge amount of computer time (my personal computers--around 2100 hours total on p4's) encoding my DVD collection to divx but am realizing the limitations of this.  Not only do I lose all extra audio/video tracks and subtitles, but the audio is reduced to mp3 quality.

Is there a way to extract directly from the Video_TS folders?  What I would really like is a way to extract a portion of the video, such as one chapter, and put it to a single file.  Then, ideally there would be a way to open the entire DVD with menu's, etc.  I want each episode of a show on DVD to be in a single file so I can easily start playing it from MC.

This would be like getting the best possible quality since I would take the original source (DVD qualities files) and utilize them since they are already compressed--unlike .wav which aren't compressed, so we compress to flac or ape.  It is almost like taking a lossless copy of these files.

It's a complicated subject but am very curious because all this time of encoding ended up not really saving much space.  Some files are considerably larger than the original DVD material because I was encoding with a quality setting so it would get the best quality possible with reasonable disk usage.  Using the direct DVD files would not take a whole lot more space than I've already used.

[rjm]

I think your bet bet is to try Nero Recode.

It compresses a DVD up to 2x (so it will fit on standard DVD-R) using a method that does not alter video or audio quality, yet leaves file in MPEG2 format so it can play in standard DVD player (other progams like DVD Shrink do same thing).

Nero Recode has friendly features for trimming video files and selectively removing stuff on the DVD that you do not want.

Plus as a bonus, it also does a great job of encoding DV home video into MPEG4.

I did a lot of experimenting with different products before commiting to Nero Recode. I believe it is the best solution available.

[glynor]

If they're ending up that big then you aren't using the right encoding settings.  Period.  MPEG-4 ASP (which is what DivX and XviD are) should be pretty close to transparent quality at about 1/3 the file size of MPEG-2.  As close as you can get to transparent when recoding from one lossy video format to another anyway.

I use AutoGK to do most of my encoding, and I generally recode to XviD at about 600 MB per hour (meaning a 2 hour movie would be about 1200 MB when finished).  With anything ripped from DVD I generally keep the original AC3 audio intact (which is easy to do with AutoGK).  If it's something I recorded with BeyondTV then I generally just have it compress to a 160 kbps MP3 stream (its actually VBR but it refers to them in approx bitrates).  My quality is pristine in all but a few rare cases (and then I generally switch to x264 and AutoMKV).

If you're not pleased with the limitations of the AVI container (max two audio streams and whatnot), I'd recommend you try out either AutoMKV (which is a lot like AutoGK but for x264 and newer containers) or MeGUI (which is like the Gordian Knot of MKV/MP4) and encode to x264 in an MP4 or MKV container.  MKV and MP4 can contain all kinds of fancy stuff including multi-track audio, subtitles, and menus (though MC doesn't support MKV's menus I don't think).  X264 is a MPEG-4 AVC codec that's very similar to the h264 codecs that are being used to encode the newer HD-DVD and BluRay High-Def content that's coming out now (though a bunch of the BluRay discs are still the older, crappier MPEG-2).

Generally, if you're going to keep them on a hard drive, keeping them in MPEG-2 is just a waste of space.  It sounds to me like you really need to spend a lot more time learning about video codecs and conversion before making sweeping statements about the state of things in the field.  Doom9 (and especially the forums there) is a good place to start.

DivX is certainly not the be-all-and-end-all (and in fact, it generally loses horribly to the free XviD in blind quality comparisons).  XviD/DivX AVIs can certainly contain: AC3 audio, multiple track audio (up to 2 tracks), and subtitles (up to 2 sub streams).

EDIT: Nero Recode is a nice solution if you want to burn them out to disc for it's MPEG-2 resizing, but if you're not going to burn them and play them on a set-top player, then you're just throwing quality away.  Nero Digital's MPEG-4 support is just a different implementation of MPEG-4 AVC (same as x264).  Generally, x264 and Nero Digital are considered identical in quality (but x264 is free).

[raym]

Glynor. I use AutoGK also and it's always fantastic. Question though: what do you use to convert an xvid avi (like those produced by this software) back to DVD? I occasionally need to burn to dvd so it can be played in a stock standard dvd player.

[glynor]

TMPGEnc Plus 2.5 generally.

Since I do DVD production as part of my job at work, I actually have access to lots of high-end DVD authoring software.  Sometimes I use Apple's Compressor (part of Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio Pro) to do the transcoding.

Generally, though, on the rare occasion that I need to do it, TMPGEnc works great, is high-quality, and is easy to use.  Pegasys (the company that sells TMPGEnc Plus) has some other authoring apps that are fairly cheap and very nice as well.  I don't use them because I have DVD Studio Pro for that.

[raym]

Great thanks.

One other question if I may and related to the original post... DVDShrink etc can't rip individual tv episodes as found on many dvds or individual chapters (or can it?). I've never worked this out. Any recommednations there?

Thanks.

[glynor]

I use DVD Decrypter in IFO mode and extract them one at a time.  There's ways to automate it with batch files but that always seemed like more trouble than it was worth.

DVD Decrypter isn't being developed anymore, but it's still widely available (and there's all kinds of tutorials on Doom9 for it).  If you happen to run into a DVD that DVD Decrypter can't handle (some newer ones), you can get RipIt4Me which works with DVD Decrypter to overcome those limitations.  Since it just uses DVD Decrypter as it's engine, it works just as well and has all the same features.

NOTE: Make sure to look at my post above again.  I edited it from my original response... 

[rjm]

glynor,

I did not realize AC3 could be preserved in XviD/DivX. Thanks for the tip!

I have to say I disagree with your quality comments. Even with a very good XviD/DivX rip I can see a definate degredation in video quality from the original MPEG2.

Using the Nero Recode MPEG2 compression (which I know is only 2x versus 4-8x for Xvid/Divx) I cannot see any change in video quality.

[glynor]

I have to say I disagree with your quality comments. Even with a very good XviD/DivX rip I can see a definate degredation in video quality from the original MPEG2.

Any time you re-code from one lossy format to another there will be additional degradation of quality.  True, with very high quality XviD encodes you usually can still see flaws not present in the source MPEG2 material.  The same goes for squeezing it to a lower bitrate in MPEG-2 (which is what Recode does), they're just different artifacts.  If you know what to look for they're there.

In fact... MPEG-2 itself is a fairly crappy source medium.  DV, DVCPro, or M-JPEG would be much better options (as would 10-bit uncompressed) but we don't all have terrabytes of storage lying around unused (nor access to the original sources to grab better copies)!   One thing I find constantly amusing on all the message boards though is how people treat MPEG-2 as though it is the video equivalent of FLAC.  It isn't.  It's lossy (and quite badly so).  It IS the MP3 of video really! 

If you find MPEG-4 ASP not to your liking, I'd really suggest you check out MPEG-4 AVC.  Either x264 or Nero's (both are very good).  It's the format of the future really (as I said, it's what HD content uses) and is far less prone to artifacts and color problems when implemented correctly.

EDIT: I should specify...

MPEG-4 ASP = Advanced Simple Profile (one of the "profiles" of" MPEG-4, Part 2).  This is the "style" of video encoding that is implemented by many of the "older" MPEG-4 codecs including DivX, XviD, 3viX, and the FFMPEG libavcodec based codecs among others.

MPEG-4 AVC = Advanced Video Coding (aka Part 10 and H.264).  This is the "new style" of MPEG-4 encoding that has many new features and can generally get much higher quality at smaller file sizes (and fewer artifacts at high bitrates and resolutions).  Some examples are: VC-1, x264, Nero Digital, CoreAVC, MainConcept, and Quicktime 7 h264 (again, among many others).  This is considered to be the true replacement for MPEG-2.

[rjm]

Thanks glynor.

Didn't say I don't like DivX/XviD. In fact have used it for the 200+ hours of home video I have digitized and I am quite satisifed. Also happy with DivX/XviD for most movies however for special movies I like to stay with MPEG2.

I have had a very close look at Nero Recode video and honestly can't see a difference. But then again, even with high quality headphones, I can't tell the difference between WAV and 128kb MP3. So perhaps it is me.

I am experimenting with MPEG-4 AVC as possible format for future online video. Initial tests look very promising. However encoding speed is really slow, even on a hot system.

[glynor]

Absolutely, RJM!  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  My only difference with you is that for those "special videos" I encode them to x264 rather than re-encoding them to MPEG-2.

My only other problem with Nero Recode is that I've had lots of audio sync problems with it (might just be me and my weird stuff).  For that purpose, I tend to use DVD Shrink (which does effectively the same thing), but as I said... I've moved mostly to x264.  I'll eventually stop using XviD at all, but my co-worker has a set-top player that supports it and I like to burn discs for him sometimes to be nice...

I wouldn't say encoding to AVC is really slow.  It is most certainly a bit slower than XviD 2-pass, but the quality is higher.  What codec were you using and what app?  Some of them don't use CPU extensions and dual-cores very well.

One thing I hadn't thought of before is that if you really want to keep the original MPEG-2 streams in their original pristine quality, you can mux them directly into a MKV wrapper.  That way it'll be a single file that's easy to manage and play (and handle within MC).  MKVToolnix can do this.  I'm not sure if you can use the VOB files directly (you might have to set DVD Decrypter to demux them), but it'd certainly work!

Again... I wouldn't do it that way, but it is an option if you don't care about space at all (plus it'd be fast because you wouldn't have to re-encode them at all).

[rjm]

Thanks glynor.

I will have to try x264 some more. Initial tests show quality is better than XviD but not as good as Nero Recode (which as I said earlier, I can't detect any difference from the original).

Based on LOTS of experience, I have never had a problem with audio sync and Nero Recode. I tried DVD Shrink but Nero Recode is far superior in my opinion.

I am just starting with AVC. Have only tried Nero Recode with the Nero Digital AVC codec.

My first impression when encoding home video DV and comparing DivX with AVC, was that the file size was about the same however the AVC video quality was noticably better when viewed full screen. In small window it makes no difference.

Thanks for the tip on MKV. I prefer to leave my online DVDs untouched. That way if I run out of disc space I can always burn to DVD-R and have standard DVD. MC11 worked quite well with with online DVDs, however MC12 has few problems that need to ironed out.

[glynor]

I will have to try x264 some more. Initial tests show quality is better than XviD but not as good as Nero Recode (which as I said earlier, I can't detect any difference from the original).

The MPEG-4 Part 10 spec is a lot stricter than the old MPEG-4 Part 2 spec.  Generally if a codec supports all the profiles available (basically if it supports High Profile) then final output quality will be very, very, close to identical.  That's the whole idea of the standard.

Nero Digital AVC, VC-1 (Microsoft's version), and x264 all have the same video quality if the same settings, features, and bitrates are used.

The implementations can certainly be better or worse of course.  Not in quality, but in ease of use, speed, and capabilities.  There can also be differences in resizers (if you do that) and pre-processing that can create apparent differences in quality.  This isn't the fault of the codec though, it'd be the support applications (and generally, with the right stuff, the open source stuff is up-to-snuff with Nero's).  But, I'm not disputing (in any way) Nero Digital's good results!  Just the idea that (admittedly not fully investigated) x264 is inferior in quality.  They're on par with each other.

Generally, x264 is considered (right now) faster on most hardware (and free).  Nero Digital is, of course, much easier to use (and not free).  That said... I do like (and own) Nero.  Great stuff, and you'll certainly be very well served by it if that's what you like!  The software isn't quite as flexible as MeGUI and it's army of command line utilities, but sometimes that's a very good thing (to keep your head full of hair).

Same can't be said for Quicktime at all.  Unfortunately, Apple didn't support all of the MPEG-4 AVC Profiles, and didn't even fully support h264 properly.  It looks pretty good, but it isn't as good as Nero, VC-1, or x264.