Handbrake Lossless file sizes

Discussion in 'Apple TV and Home Theater' started by Mr Dobey, Mar 13, 2014.

  1. Mr Dobey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    #1
    For anyone interested in Lossless compression and its resulting file size but don't want to go through the waiting process here you go.

    Link

    Though I don't recommended using totally lossless video compression like this considering the huge file size increase but there may come a time when you need to for reference reasons.
     
  2. dynaflash macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    #2
    This is well documented in HB's User Guide and FAQ.

    https://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki/ConstantQuality

    Specifically at the bottom:

    "So should you use RF 0 to perfectly preserve the source? Nope. Not at all. In fact, you'll end up with video that's way larger than the DVD, but doesn't look any better.

    See, DVDs use lossy compression to squeeze down the raw video the studios use to make them -- sort of like a quality level of RF 20. It throws away detail. When HandBrake uncompresses the video prior to conversion, the quality lost when the DVD was made is still gone. When you use RF 0 quality with x264, you're telling it to losslessly preserve the decoded, uncompressed video feed, not to losslessly preserve the DVD. Both have the same picture quality, but the uncompressed feed takes up a lot more space.

    To sum up: when converting from a DVD source, there is no reason to go above an RF of ~19, which is roughly equivalent to how heavily the DVD is compressed. If you do go higher, your output will be larger than your input!
     
  3. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #3
    It seems rather peculiar the entire notion of conversion and compression.

    DVD's do compression with lossee output.
    Handbrake also does compression with lossee output in most cases.

    It would seem that Handbrake would further the impact of lost information when it processes VOB (DVD) files into another format.

    If one took an original medium and did a conversion to say an AVI file - which one would hold the most information or be closest to a high quality original? (Just the video aspect)

    Original to - AVI
    Original to Blu Ray level to AVI
    Original to VOB level to AVI

    It would seem logical to assume the above order is from best to worst assuming the AVI container can hold a fair amount of information. Both Blu Ray and VOB (DVD) already have denatured the original by being lossee and have information missing. Using Handbrake to covert* to AVI furthers this denaturing or loses more information.

    If someone believes that the above is incorrect, please do comment. I am not debating but trying to get a better grasp on the entirety of the exercise.
    I am only using AVI as an example format.

    There are containers that do no further compression such as MKV though you can compress if desired.
     
  4. DesterWallaboo macrumors 6502

    DesterWallaboo

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Western USA
    #4
    Absolutely true. However... it won't look WORSE. It will look identical to the DVD original. Something that recompressing the DVD to yet another lossy format cannot give you.
     
  5. dynaflash macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    #5
    But, why would you want to? rf 0 was almost left out of the ui's for HB as even the x264 devs say in practice its really only of any use on uncompressed video sources. The fact is an rf of say 18 is proven to be visually identical (to the human eye) to the source dvd and at a much smaller file size than rf 0.
     
  6. matrix07, Mar 14, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2014

    matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #6
    VOB 'IS' Original. If you want to play original DVD file on the computer without conversion, just change the file extension of the file you copy from the disc from VOB to 'MPG' but then the structure of DVD won't allow you to watch the entire film anyway, so the setting on Handbrake is right. This way you got the near original quality with much less file size. If you dial down the conversion you'll only get the same 'near original quality' (since it is very near in the first place) with bigger file size.
     
  7. dynaflash macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    #7
    Its worth noting encoding to an avi is problematic since its inherently a broken container to begin with. For one it doesn't support variable framerate, which is typical in most modern releases. HB dropped it for the simple reason that patching the avi muxer became way to much of a pita.
     
  8. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #8
    VOB is the DVD format to be sure. One could of course append all the VOB files together to make one large VOB file. I would certainly prefer this over any compression by another software (Handbrake included) for final play as it would be exactly DVD quality. For me, drive space is not a serious consideration. I'll just say that Handbrake is ideal for items such as an i-device that has a small screen to begin with for playback. Handbrake would have to merge/append VOB files together or the output of each to get one Handbrake playable movie file.
     
  9. matrix07 macrumors 68040

    matrix07

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #9
    Sure. If you bother to append all the parts yourself you'll get the identical copy. It's the only way to get the original film on to a computer (apart from copy the whole disc) since Handbrake's RF 0 is still a modification.
     
  10. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #10
    There are plenty of software available between Windows and Mac that can combine VOB files or do an append by command line.
     
  11. westrock2000, Mar 15, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2014

    westrock2000 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    #11
    But you get into the realities of can you tell the difference between a BMP that is no compression and several megabytes versus a JPEG set to 90% quality and only several hundred Kilobytes. Your eyes do amazing things for you.

    EDIT: I should clarify that DVD is not compression free. In fact many movies use too much. But I'm referring to visual quality degradation versus technical degradation.
     
  12. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #12
    I think that if you own a large TV, you see the difference and it is very noticeable. If you play back on an iPad, it wont be noticeable for the most part.
     
  13. westrock2000 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2013
    #13
    82" DLP. I use 14Mb for 1080p and 3.5 Mb for 480P. Any time I have noticed macro blocking I have gone back and looked at the disc and it was evident there. I also haven't seen any problems with high grain scenes on Bluray. I used to use 16 & 4 respectively and with some comparing on my computer screen (so it's up close) I could see a difference in image quality.
     
  14. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #14
    Beyond ripping, macro blocking etc., there are other facets of crushed blacks, nuances of delicate colour change and a few other items that are the difference between high quality and "acceptable." Perhaps in my case it is more apparent with a 65" plasma screen (also on a past 50") than say some LCD screens and of course even a decent graphics monitor.

    My opinion is simple - for me, I want as close to the original medium as possible or exactly the same. For others, depending on their needs and how they see things, let them have at it with whatever gives them output they are happy with. I have recommended Handbrake to many who want to play items on their i-devices without any hesitation. My large screen deserves (in my case) other considerations and given that I have a couple of devices that can do playback of MKV, m2ts, ts, VOB files and more, I am set. I have the storage for the larger files. Similar can be said with audio files. I use lossless and 256 ACC for my i-Devices (along with Dirac app in most cases that makes the Apple phones sound much better in my opinion). For my home system, I play both the above along with 96/24 files (and yes there are times when there is little difference and times when there are huge differences depending on source and conversion methods). My home system is not top of the line crazy but what I consider a great way to enjoy music and video media. I try to be pragmatic and weight the options that best fit my wants and needs.
     
  15. dynaflash macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    #15
    Age old argument. What is lossless digitally and what is lossless to the human eye. A good encoder set right can remove bits in places that the human eye cannot visually detect it. Thats x264.

    Wanna blow up a file 5x its source size to think you aren't getting any visual quality loss ? Knock yourself out.

    Its called a placebo for a reason. ;)
     

Share This Page