PDA

View Full Version : PowerPC and Bluray




GermanyChris
Aug 23, 2012, 07:34 AM
Did anyone in the forum figure out a way to rip Blu-rays..

I know MakeMKV is the standard for x86, and toast will rip non-copy protected. Has anyone found a new way in the last 6 or so months?



Lil Chillbil
Aug 23, 2012, 04:59 PM
I personaly don't like blu-ray right now for a few reasons
*Disks are too expensive
*Blu-ray burners are too expensive compared to dvds
*anything a blu-ray can do a dvd can do cheaper and with a larger number of computers able to read the disk

when blu-ray gets a little older I will adopt the concept but for now i'm sticking with dvds

Joeguy
Aug 23, 2012, 05:34 PM
I personaly don't like blu-ray right now for a few reasons
*Disks are too expensive
*Blu-ray burners are too expensive compared to dvds
*anything a blu-ray can do a dvd can do cheaper and with a larger number of computers able to read the disk

when blu-ray gets a little older I will adopt the concept but for now i'm sticking with dvds

Although Bluray is overall more expensive they definitely beat a DVD's quality. I've ripped both but the extra work for the bluray is worth it.

For the actually post - I've began ripping blurays using a combination of Makemkv and Handbrake (to get it in the m4v format), it's slow but I haven't found an alternative.

GermanyChris
Aug 23, 2012, 05:51 PM
Although Bluray is overall more expensive they definitely beat a DVD's quality. I've ripped both but the extra work for the bluray is worth it.

For the actually post - I've began ripping blurays using a combination of Makemkv and Handbrake (to get it in the m4v format), it's slow but I haven't found an alternative.

Both require Intel.

"Blue ray ripper for mac" is fat..but I don't know anything about it.

Joeguy
Aug 23, 2012, 06:06 PM
Both require Intel.

I missed that part... Is PowerPC on the Mac even strong enough to handle bluray files sizes and encodes?

Starfighter
Aug 23, 2012, 06:09 PM
Both require Intel.

Didn't 0.9.5 support bluray? Here is a link to that version (http://mark.nellemann.nu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Handbrake-0.9.5-OSX-ppc.zip), compiled to work on PPC.

GermanyChris
Aug 24, 2012, 12:19 AM
Didn't 0.9.5 support bluray? Here is a link to that version (http://mark.nellemann.nu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Handbrake-0.9.5-OSX-ppc.zip), compiled to work on PPC.

Thank you!

----------

I missed that part... Is PowerPC on the Mac even strong enough to handle bluray files sizes and encodes?

Yes..

Lancer
Aug 24, 2012, 02:44 AM
For the quality BluRay is not much more than DVD, the burners are more expensive and from what I've been told PPC are not supported, I have a G5.

I'll be looking at getting an external BD after I get my new iMac.

AdrianK
Aug 24, 2012, 04:31 AM
Is PowerPC on the Mac even strong enough to handle bluray files sizes and encodes?
The only PowerPC macs that will be able to play blurays (before conversion) are the G5 Quad and possibly any other PCI-e G5 with a Broadcom Crystal HD installed.

For the quality BluRay is not much more than DVD
A 1080p BD has 6x the definition of a 480p DVD. Assuming the bluray is mastered well the difference (in my opinion) is massive.

GermanyChris
Aug 24, 2012, 06:48 AM
The only PowerPC macs that will be able to play blurays (before conversion) are the G5 Quad and possibly any other PCI-e G5 with a Broadcom Crystal HD installed.


A 1080p BD has 6x the definition of a 480p DVD. Assuming the bluray is mastered well the difference (in my opinion) is massive.

No Power Mac will be able to play Bluray conversion. Bluray takes an HDMI connection to the display and DVI to HDMI doesn't work.

My intent is to rip them and convert them.

Starfighter
Aug 24, 2012, 06:49 AM
The only PowerPC macs that will be able to play blurays (before conversion) are the G5 Quad and possibly any other PCI-e G5 with a Broadcom Crystal HD installed.

Why is that? You seem to know what you are talking about so I instinctively want to believe you but I want to understand why this is so that I can motivate if I am to forward it.

AdrianK
Aug 25, 2012, 03:04 PM
Why is that? You seem to know what you are talking about so I instinctively want to believe you but I want to understand why this is so that I can motivate if I am to forward it.
Simply because decoding high resolution, high bitrate video is very taxing on the CPU. The Quad is really the only PowerPC mac that has the grunt to decode bluray-spec video. Other PowerPC macs can play 1080p video, but it would need to be converted to a less CPU-taxing form first.

If you were wondering, you can read about the Crystal HD here (http://xbmc.org/davilla/2009/12/29/broadcom-crystal-hd-its-magic/). It's possible to install one in a PCI-e G5 with a mini PCI-e to PCI-e 1x adaptor.

GermanyChris
Aug 25, 2012, 03:27 PM
Simply because decoding high resolution, high bitrate video is very taxing on the CPU. The Quad is really the only PowerPC mac that has the grunt to decode bluray-spec video. Other PowerPC macs can play 1080p video, but it would need to be converted to a less CPU-taxing form first.

If you were wondering, you can read about the Crystal HD here (http://xbmc.org/davilla/2009/12/29/broadcom-crystal-hd-its-magic/). It's possible to install one in a PCI-e G5 with a mini PCI-e to PCI-e 1x adaptor.

Just ordered one..

We'll see how it goes.

AdrianK
Aug 25, 2012, 03:46 PM
Just ordered one..

We'll see how it goes.
I haven't tested it on anything PowerPC, but I don't see why it shouldn't work. Drivers can be found here (http://code.google.com/p/crystalhd-for-osx/) and it only works with XBMC on the mac currently.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, If you use MakeMKV on a VC1 encoded bluray, the CHD can't play it in the MKV container. You'll have to remux it to .m2ts (.ts may work too, only tried .m2ts and that works perfectly).

GermanyChris
Aug 25, 2012, 03:54 PM
I haven't tested it on anything PowerPC, but I don't see why it shouldn't work. Drivers can be found here (http://code.google.com/p/crystalhd-for-osx/) and it only works with XBMC on the mac currently.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, If you use MakeMKV on a VC1 encoded bluray, the CHD can't play it in the MKV container. You'll have to remux it to .m2ts (.ts may work too, only tried .m2ts and that works perfectly).

I have that site bookmarked...

you can't use make MKV it's Intel only.

alexreich
Aug 25, 2012, 06:46 PM
Even if you do find a way to rip/convert Blu-Ray on your PowerPC, it will be painfully slow. I can't stand how long Handbrake takes on my PowerPC to convert a standard DVD! I only do conversions on my Mac mini or my PC because they don't take forever to do their job.

The PowerPC isn't good enough to convert a standard DVD in a timely manner, so Blu-Ray ripping/conversion on a PPC is a bit of a pipe dream IMHO.

I've never personally ripped Blu-Ray because I don't own a Blu-Ray drive, but I've read that even on a modern machine ripping a Blu-Ray to 1080p can take an extremely long time. PowerPC would take DAYS.

GermanyChris
Aug 26, 2012, 04:59 AM
Even if you do find a way to rip/convert Blu-Ray on your PowerPC, it will be painfully slow. I can't stand how long Handbrake takes on my PowerPC to convert a standard DVD! I only do conversions on my Mac mini or my PC because they don't take forever to do their job.

The PowerPC isn't good enough to convert a standard DVD in a timely manner, so Blu-Ray ripping/conversion on a PPC is a bit of a pipe dream IMHO.

I've never personally ripped Blu-Ray because I don't own a Blu-Ray drive, but I've read that even on a modern machine ripping a Blu-Ray to 1080p can take an extremely long time. PowerPC would take DAYS.

Ripping wont take long, converting will take some time though..

Blackberryroid
Aug 26, 2012, 05:38 AM
Would a PowerPC even support Blu-ray? I doubt it. My Intel Core 2 Duo is dying trying to open a 720p. I wouldn't expect a PowerPC to go beyond 480p.

alexreich
Aug 26, 2012, 05:57 AM
Ripping wont take long, converting will take some time though..

I meant conversion. My bad.

ihuman:D
Aug 26, 2012, 06:19 AM
Would a PowerPC even support Blu-ray? I doubt it. My Intel Core 2 Duo is dying trying to open a 720p. I wouldn't expect a PowerPC to go beyond 480p.

My 1.25GHz iMac G4 can stream 720p in flash and play 1080p from HDD so stop spreading lies and if your C2D has trouble playing HD there's something seriously wrong with it.

AdrianK
Aug 26, 2012, 06:30 AM
if your C2D has trouble playing HD there's something seriously wrong with it.
Resolution is not the only factor which will affect the performance. Bitrate, codec and profile come in to it as well.

Quoting performance is meaningless unless detailed information about the file (eg MediaInfo log) and player are provided with it.

GermanyChris
Aug 26, 2012, 06:46 AM
Would a PowerPC even support Blu-ray? I doubt it. My Intel Core 2 Duo is dying trying to open a 720p. I wouldn't expect a PowerPC to go beyond 480p.

Thats OK I've never tried to live up to your expectations.

ihuman:D
Aug 26, 2012, 07:05 AM
Resolution is not the only factor which will affect the performance. Bitrate, codec and profile come in to it as well.

Quoting performance is meaningless unless detailed information about the file (eg MediaInfo log) and player are provided with it.

Yes but C2D's can play blu-ray quality video so there is something wrong if it can't play 720p.

AdrianK
Aug 26, 2012, 07:20 AM
Yes but C2D's can play blu-ray quality video so there is something wrong if it can't play 720p.
Again, too broad. It depends on the model, clock speed, whether it's mobile or desktop class. If you look at geekbench charts, C2Ds have scores from 1227 to 3799. Try playing a bluray on a 1GHz U7500 ;)

bizzle
Aug 26, 2012, 07:38 AM
My 1.25GHz iMac G4 can stream 720p in flash and play 1080p from HDD so stop spreading lies and if your C2D has trouble playing HD there's something seriously wrong with it.

Sure it can play it. At what frame rate, 6? You're delusional to think that it plays properly. I've had plenty of maxed out G4s in my day that couldn't even do it.

I ran a dual 2.0ghz G5 as a media player for a while and it couldn't handle jack worth of 1080p.

ihuman:D
Aug 26, 2012, 10:28 AM
Again, too broad. It depends on the model, clock speed, whether it's mobile or desktop class. If you look at geekbench charts, C2Ds have scores from 1227 to 3799. Try playing a bluray on a 1GHz U7500 ;)

You got me there :o . I assumed the C2D was a 2GHz+ since my Dell laptop with 2GHz C2D can play blu-ray and my dell desktop with Pentium Dual-Core(The low end C2D models) at 2GHz can play blu-ray too.

----------

Sure it can play it. At what frame rate, 6? You're delusional to think that it plays properly. I've had plenty of maxed out G4s in my day that couldn't even do it.

I ran a dual 2.0ghz G5 as a media player for a while and it couldn't handle jack worth of 1080p.

Does it matter what frame rate once it plays it smoothly? It might help that I'm using an optimised MPlayer build.

bager
Sep 8, 2012, 05:10 AM
Simply because decoding high resolution, high bitrate video is very taxing on the CPU. The Quad is really the only PowerPC mac that has the grunt to decode bluray-spec video. Other PowerPC macs can play 1080p video, but it would need to be converted to a less CPU-taxing form first.


In the past, one could play H264 encoded blu-ray videos on PowerMac with CorePlayer (fastest H264 player around!). It uses only one core as it is not multithreaded, but can still play all high-bitrates BBC documentary programmes blu-rays like Wild Pacific and Wild China, which are particularly taxing on CPU. Coreplayer plays 720p movies smooth on PowerBook G4 as well.

Nowadays, ffmpeg, mplayer and VLC support mulithreaded H264 playback. Two G5 cores are needed for frame loss Blu-Ray playback, so any PowerMac G5 could do.

WMV encoded blurays are still problematic on PPC architecture. Flip4mac up to 2.1.x versions were very fast on PPC and had potential. Unfortunately, decoder in 2.1.x has bugs and produces lots of artifacts when decoding WMV. Flip4Mac from version 2.2.x onwards are way slower on PPC, like twice as slower as earlier releases. Telestream never addressed the performance issue. See the following thread: http://forum.telestream.net/forum/messageview.aspx?catid=9&threadid=3683&highlight_key=y&keyword1=quad

crewkid89
Sep 11, 2012, 11:00 PM
Wouldn't the video card also play a major role? If the video card is handling the decode that would take a lot of stress off of the CPU. If we are talking c2d the earlier MacBooks had intel gma 950. That chip has issues with any high def content

GermanyChris
Sep 12, 2012, 07:57 AM
The issue isn't playing so much as the decrypting. The application I found that said it was a universal wasn't.

orestes1984
Sep 12, 2012, 08:18 AM
Wouldn't the video card also play a major role?

Yes... this is where any video card in the Nvidia 6xxx series or newer and any ATi card in the newer 9xxx inclusive of the 8500 Mac edition comes into its own with hardware video decoding chips on the video card designed specifically for this purpose. Obviously not Blu-Ray in the days of the ATi 8500 but you get the picture that it takes over video decoding from the CPU and really makes light work of things in a low CPU power machine.

VLC will do hardware decoding on your video card so long as you have Quartz Extreme and a compatible video card.

In this day and age you should be aiming for no less than a Nvidia 6200 (PCI)/6600(AGP) or ATi 8500(AGP)/9200(PCI) as a display card in any PPC mac. That covers all bases either PCI or AGP.

throAU
Sep 12, 2012, 08:58 AM
For the quality BluRay is not much more than DVD, the burners are more expensive and from what I've been told PPC are not supported, I have a G5.

I'll be looking at getting an external BD after I get my new iMac.

Proper high def content that was filmed in HD and viewed on a quality screen is amazingly more detailed than DVD.

I have a NIN concert in HD-DVD and you can see that people are filming the concert on their mobile phones - you can see the screens in fairly decent detail.

I was a doubter until i saw some proper HD content - the difference is amazing.

orestes1984
Sep 12, 2012, 09:09 AM
That's the problem with a lot of the early BD/HDDVD content. A lot of it isn't true HD, but that's not so much the problem of the studios but to do with the film and the original camera used.

Film shot on 35mm will still be cinema quality as if you were watching it with the best cinema technology that was available at the time it was filmed, but it won't be HD in the sense of modern HD digital taken from the newest camera equipment available.

It's a technology issue... when there is no HD film stock you get the best quality film stock the studio had at the time upscaled for 1080 viewing and in that sense you see all the detail in the film grain and cigarette burn marks to tell the person running the film when to change film rolls. It's not like the studio can go back and magically reshoot a movie for you, they work with the best film stock from their archives they have and digitally remaster it and this is how you get Blu-Ray content for movies that were shot before HD was available.

The definition of Kodachrome is amazing as an example of film that was used for over 60 years and its capable of impressively high resolution including 1080p but its still film stock and you get to see the content really warts and all as you would have sitting in a cinema chair watching film as opposed to digital content.

This is something to marvel at in itself though... A real legacy to the era of the flickering lights of real cinema film rather than the digital cinemas of today.

crewkid89
Sep 12, 2012, 09:19 AM
That's the problem with a lot of the early BD/HDDVD content. A lot of it isn't true HD, but that's not so much the problem of the studios but to do with the film and the original camera used.

Film shot on 35mm will still be cinema quality as if you were watching it with the best cinema technology that was available at the time it was filmed, but it won't be HD in the sense of modern HD digital taken from the newest camera equipment available.

It's a technology issue... when there is no HD film stock you get the best quality film stock the studio had at the time upscaled for 1080 viewing and in that sense you see all the detail in the film grain and cigarette burn marks to tell the person running the film when to change film rolls. It's not like the studio can go back and magically reshoot a movie for you, they work with the best film stock from their archives they have and digitally remaster it and this is how you get Blu-Ray content for movies that were shot before HD was available.


Interesting. Obviously quality of the media can be an issue, but I always thought the effective "resolution" of film was far higher than digital. I am thinking back to my B+W photography class where I was able to enlarge the tiniest spiderweb I had found in a negative I shot to the size of a 9x12. Fun stuff

orestes1984
Sep 12, 2012, 09:26 AM
Interesting. Obviously quality of the media can be an issue, but I always thought the effective "resolution" of film was far higher than digital. I am thinking back to my B+W photography class where I was able to enlarge the tiniest spiderweb I had found in a negative I shot to the size of a 9x12. Fun stuff

It is and you're 100% correct, even today's high end 30mp+ digital cameras don't come close to what film film SLRs and cameras are capable of but as with everything that is not digital there is artifacts such as film grain that come with it that are not produced with digital film. Don't quote me on this but I remember reading somewhere along time ago now that you would need digital film in the order of 200 to 300mp for it to be truly equal film in terms of the detail it could capture. The current highest end cameras have a lens capable of capturing something in the order of 50 megapixels.

Now I personally love Kodachrome photography and other things like Super 8, but you take it for what it is and as a product of its time and as with the transition from records to CDs we have seen a standard that may not be technically better, but removes the pops and crackles and doesn't require high end gear like the type it would have taken to play like Michael Jacksons Thriller recorded in Stereo 2.1 to make it sound/look good gear so consumers prefer that instead.

Besides, who has the money for a film projector in their home to view that movie in true cinema quality? If you were rich in the old days you might have had a super 8 projector, but these things were expensive and not common. Now you can come pretty close just by popping in a BD and getting out your 3D glasses for less than $1000.

crewkid89
Sep 13, 2012, 08:14 AM
Orestes I completely agree. what I meant was it is possible to make amazingly good film transfers to blu ray. The new jaws for example was fantastic

orestes1984
Sep 13, 2012, 08:24 AM
Orestes I completely agree. what I meant was it is possible to make amazingly good film transfers to blu ray. The new jaws for example was fantastic

Of course, theres brilliant examples and not so brilliant ones, one of my favourites for picture quality is actually Shawshank Redemption not just because its a good movie. You see every little detail.

TacticalDesire
Sep 13, 2012, 02:34 PM
For the quality BluRay is not much more than DVD

Someone either has bad eyes or has never watched a bluray movie.

Lancer
Sep 13, 2012, 03:46 PM
Someone either has bad eyes or has never watched a bluray movie.

You miss read my last post when I said 'not much more' I meant the cost of a BluRay burner over DVD. I'd go for BD.

TacticalDesire
Sep 13, 2012, 08:07 PM
You miss read my last post when I said 'not much more' I meant the cost of a BluRay burner over DVD. I'd go for BD.

My apologies.

GermanyChris
Sep 25, 2012, 05:29 PM
OK, status update..

BluRay is fine on my quad video is stellar audio is AWESOME!

The process goes like this I convert to MKV on the MacBook Pro then drag back to the Quad. I play the MKV with VLC..

If anyone knows where I can get a Blu Ray ripper or an older copy of Make MKV I'm willing to either pay a finders fee or pay for the app itself if you wrote it or compiled it...

orestes1984
Sep 25, 2012, 06:27 PM
Just grab an old version of Handbrake

http://mac.oldapps.com/handbrake.php?old_handbrake=22

I'm not sure what you're going to do for tagging though... that is if you care. It's not so much an issue unless you're running a media player, but MetaX doesn't really play all that nicely with iTunes and its not as nice as iDentify either.

crewkid89
Sep 25, 2012, 10:59 PM
Just grab an old version of Handbrake

http://mac.oldapps.com/handbrake.php?old_handbrake=22

I'm not sure what you're going to do for tagging though... that is if you care. It's not so much an issue unless you're running a media player, but MetaX doesn't really play all that nicely with iTunes and its not as nice as iDentify either.

handbrake is not capable of ripping/decoding a bluray. the only program I currently know of is makemkv and I am pretty sure it is intel only

orestes1984
Sep 26, 2012, 12:07 AM
Hmm, I didn't realise that. You might be stuck if that's the case...

GermanyChris
Sep 26, 2012, 01:26 AM
No Handbrake won't decrypt BluRay..

I've done the internet search for a fat binary decrypter and can't find one that's why I was asking..

crewkid89
Sep 26, 2012, 02:23 AM
Honestly I know this probably isn't what you want to hear, but on my Core i5 iMac, it takes 6-12 hours to transcode an makemkv bluray rip to .m4v. I couldn't imagine how slowly an old version of handbrake would crank away at a bluray rip on a G5.

Your best option may be to buy or build a more modern pc and use it solely for ripping and encoding. This is actually a very efficient way to handle this as your main computer won't be tied up with every core running at 100% transcoding videos.

You could run ubuntu with makemkv and handbrake for ripping and encoding and setup a network share to serve the videos over your home network. There are even itunes daap compatible protocols on linux you can check out.

Sorry if any of this didn't make sense, it is very late at night right now

orestes1984
Sep 26, 2012, 03:11 AM
Yep, it takes me 6 hours at least to do a full transcode, but once you've got the mkv you can do a pass through with subler instead of recreating the wheel, or in this case container and its contents, with handbrake. A pass through that fits everything into an MP4 container that can be edited or played on just about anything takes about the same time as it does to copy and paste the same file.

GermanyChris
Sep 26, 2012, 03:29 AM
Honestly I know this probably isn't what you want to hear, but on my Core i5 iMac, it takes 6-12 hours to transcode an makemkv bluray rip to .m4v. I couldn't imagine how slowly an old version of handbrake would crank away at a bluray rip on a G5.

Your best option may be to buy or build a more modern pc and use it solely for ripping and encoding. This is actually a very efficient way to handle this as your main computer won't be tied up with every core running at 100% transcoding videos.

You could run ubuntu with makemkv and handbrake for ripping and encoding and setup a network share to serve the videos over your home network. There are even itunes daap compatible protocols on linux you can check out.

Sorry if any of this didn't make sense, it is very late at night right now

You didn't read my post..

I'm not much in interested in in compressing the blue ray I have many TB of storage (16 at last count). I am testing to see how long it's going to take to handbrake a bluray I let it do it's thing when heading off to work this morning at 1% complete it said 7 hrs.

orestes1984
Sep 26, 2012, 03:34 AM
A passthrough transmux does not compress the file unless you tell it to :) It just puts it in a new container. A transcode may compress the file and add artifiacts that werent there before.

A transmux using something like subler is like making your lunch in one lunchbox and then taking it out and putting it into a different lunchbox.

A transcode is like remaking the lunch and the lunchbox while your at it, which may not ever turn out the same as the original ;)

GermanyChris
Sep 26, 2012, 03:47 AM
A passthrough transmux does not compress the file unless you tell it to :) It just puts it in a new container. A transcode may compress the file and add artifiacts that werent there before.

A transmux using something like subler is like making your lunch in one lunchbox and then taking it out and putting it into a different lunchbox.

A transcode is like remaking the lunch and the lunchbox while your at it, which may not ever turn out the same as the original ;)

VLC Plays the MKV file of the BluRay rip just fine..I really don't know what I use subler for..

In all of this talk please keep in mind I don't own a TV, Apple TV, iPod Touch, and my iPhone became my wifes. I am watching watching these movies on one of my monitors.

orestes1984
Sep 26, 2012, 05:41 AM
Ok to get on topic, I don't know of any Blu-Ray ripping software that has fat binaries, I thought I did but was mistaken, best of luck in finding what you need.

GermanyChris
Sep 26, 2012, 06:06 AM
LOL, yup it's gonna take right under 8 hrs. to handbrake Sherlock Holmes.

orestes1984
Sep 26, 2012, 06:36 AM
That seems to be a pretty well within normal ranges.

GermanyChris
Sep 26, 2012, 06:42 AM
I agree