Blu Ray Lossless Rips vs Compressed Rips/Files

[SkyLiner]

I've always believed that a BD rip using no compression (either with AnyDVDHD or with AnyDVD+CloneBD) and ripping to ISO/Video File/Other would always be a better option than creating a compressed file (the way CloneBD allows you to rip to MKV, MP4, etc.). The sheer file size difference seemed to indicate that there HAD to be a difference in quality since uncompressed rips can be in the neighborhood of 30-50GB for a single BD compared to a compressed file which can be between 5-10GB.

For some time I've been looking for a Blu ray version of "Boy and the World", but haven't been able to find one. I have a DVD of this movie and when I rip it, it's just over 7GB and when I play the rip through my media player, it shows as a 720p file (and has the regular "fuzzyness" of a DVD). Recently I found a compressed version of this movie in MKV format which is only 5.5GB in size and shows as a 1080p file. The MKV file of this movie is much crisper and higher quality than my DVD rip and actually looks (and sounds) "just" as good as my huge BD ISO rips (I think).

What is the official word on compressed files vs uncompressed (lossless) BD rips? FOR SURE there is a VERY noticeable difference between a DVD (rip) and a Blu ray (rip)...the DVDs now look so fuzzy to us and we can't believe we watched DVDs for so many years...and the file size difference and the extra hassle of making BDs is well worth the trouble IMO, but is there enough of a difference between a well-done compressed BD (taking 30-40GB down to 5-10GB) to warrant making only lossless rips?

Thanks

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm guessing the DVD that you're calling 720p isn't 720p, it's 720x480 or 480i (it's interlaced also). The width is extended to fit widescreen TV's but it's still 480. (That would fit the DVD standard)

Compression like the High Efficiency Video Codec (HEVC), which CloneBD can whip out pretty fast, generate excellent quality small files that are suitable for larger screens but it's not "Blu-ray Standard" compression which is the Advanced Video Codec (AVC). An HEVC file compared to a AVC file of the same size is much better quality, IMO.

 

[Pete]

For some time I've been looking for a Blu ray version of "Boy and the World", but haven't been able to find one. I have a DVD of this movie and when I rip it, it's just over 7GB and when I play the rip through my media player, it shows as a 720p file (and has the regular "fuzzyness" of a DVD). Recently I found a compressed version of this movie in MKV format which is only 5.5GB in size and shows as a 1080p file. The MKV file of this movie is much crisper and higher quality than my DVD rip and actually looks (and sounds) "just" as good as my huge BD ISO rips (I think).

DVDs use MPEG2 for compression.
The file you MKV you found either uses AVC, which yields apx. half the file size as MPEG2 at same quality, or even HEVC, which is more than 3x as efficient as MPEG2.

But that's not all. Especially Blu-ray discs are sometimes artificially inflated (filler data, padding). Especially older movies that were "remastered" for BD. They weren't shot with an over-abundance of detail to begin with.
So don't be surprised, if you don't notice any quality loss after compressing a 25GB BD down to 12GB.

 

[tectpro]

@SkyLiner @Sabertooth @Pete
I am currently translating one of my tutorial's for CloneBD to shrink a BluRay movie to BD 5 / 9. (It already exists in the German section).
If you have a movie no longer than 100 min you can choose BD 5 and AC3 448kbps to get a nice looking movie (BD 9 is max. 190 min).
Please note that BD 5/9 can not be played by all players but there will also be a workaround to make these playable via a patch in AVCHD compatible standalone BluRay player. So far all testest AVCHD compatible players that I tested play them.
This shows how good the compression of AVC actually is.

 

[Sabertooth]

This shows how good the compression of AVC actually is.

Being able to compress an entire disk (not just the movie) to BD5/9 is a great feature of CloneBD. I use it occasionally myself especially after they added the High Quality bias settings (Before that the quality wasn't good enough and you could really see compression artifacts in things like rainy scenes.).

That said, IMO, HEVC really looks better at very small files sizes, smaller than BD5 size.

 

[SkyLiner]

Thank you for your answers. Regarding "artificially inflated (filler data, padding). Especially older movies that were "remastered" for BD...", I have noticed that some of the older BD movies I've backed up like all the initial Star Wars 6 episodes are pretty big, like 45gb, while the new Star Wars (The Force Awakens...and Rogue One) are much smaller, in the 20's-30's of GBs. I Googled this subject and couldn't find any information on it explaining the "inflated/filler/padding" subject. Are we pretty sure that when we make backups to other file formats (MKV, AVI, etc, using CloneBD)...whether compressed or not compressed...that it does away with all that filler/padding? (Are there other/better programs that compress BDs, or is CloneBD the best?)

Also, in regards to making a BD5/9 (DVD) backup of a BD...are we saying that a BD5/9 will be pretty close in quality (even if played on a DVD player) as the original BD?--and that it is definitely higher in quality than a DVD backup of a DVD?

Thanks

 

[tectpro]

@SkyLiner
For BD5/9 ( maybe patch to avchd) a BluRay Player is needed. But in general the quality looks better than a normal DVD due to the compression algorithm / codec used.
I suggest to test it. The tutorial is not ready yet since Im busy with work at the moment.

 

[Ch3vr0n]

Not every player supports bd5/9, especially not if the menu is Java based. Keep that in mind.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn Nexus 6P met Tapatalk

 

[SkyLiner]

I've started doing some experimentation using CloneBD to create files (compressed and non-compressed (lossless)) to compare with the non-compressed ISOs Iv'e been creating of all my BDs. I wanted to share some of my initial results as well as some questions.

Re: Aartificially inflated; filler data; padding.
Assuming (some--older?) BDs do have padding (or unneeded data that makes the ripped file size larger than it needs to be) when using AnyDVDHD to do a 1:1 rip, or when using CloneBD to do a similar rip with only selected titles; by using CloneBD to do a "lossless" backup to MKV or MP4 (using no compression) would that in essence remove the padding/data?

I did just that today using my original Titanic BD. First I created a 1:1 ISO of the full disc using AnyDVDHD which created a 48,877GB file. Then using CloneBD I created a new ISO with only the main title (no compression) bringing the file size down to 44,612GB. Then, using CloneBD I created an MKV file (of only the main title) with no compression (lossless). The MKV file took 27 minutes to create and the size came out to 42,210. Then, using CloneBD I created an MP4 file (of only the main title) with no compression (lossless). The MP4 file took 48 minutes to create and the size came out to 36,294GB, about 8GB smaller than the MKV. I'm assuming neither of these 2 rips (MKV or MP4) used HEVC or AVC as CloneBD had those options grayed out since I had selected "Copy Original (lossless)". In the next few hours I'm going to take all these files and test them on my 70" 1080p TV to see if I notice any quality difference.

My next step will be to experiment with using CloneBD to created compressed files to see how small I can get the file sizes while maintaining as-close-to-the-original uncompressed quality as possible. From what I've read in your comments, it seems that HEVC offers better (higher quality at a lower file size) than AVC does, is that right? Since CloneBD createds MKV and MP4 (or MP2...which must be the lowest quality of the 3?)...is there a preference of which format to use?--MKV or MP4? CloneBD allows the user to select either H.264/MP4 AVC or H.265/HEVC when creating either MKVs or MP4s, apart from that, the "Resulting size" slider seems to be the only way to control the resulting file size. Is the slider something you just manually use while eye-balling the file size?--or is it common to take the slider all the way to the left for a small file size?

Thanks

 

[ddjmagic]

Assuming (some--older?) BDs do have padding (or unneeded data that makes the ripped file size larger than it needs to be) when using AnyDVDHD to do a 1:1 rip, or when using CloneBD to do a similar rip with only selected titles; by using CloneBD to do a "lossless" backup to MKV or MP4 (using no compression) would that in essence remove the padding/data?

You aren't seeing CloneBD removing any padding, what you are seeing is just the additional audio language tracks (french/spanish etc) and any special feature/intros being removed causing the smaller file size on the MKV over the full ISO image.

Regarding the MP4 being 6GB smaller than the MKV - last time I checked CloneBD doesn't have the option to keep the original lossless audio track when making an MP4 (I don't think MP4 can handle it).
On a 3 hour movie I would not be suprised if the lossless audio track was 6GB, so replacing that with lossy AAC or AC3 would be why the file is smaller.

When Pete mentioned padding/filler data, that data is not something that can be removed running it through CloneBD, the original encoded video only size on Titantic BD is 36GB, if you choose to keep the video lossless it will always be 36GB, it won't be any smaller unless you choose re-encode it.

As for how small you can go before you notice a difference, it really depends on the person and their setup, for me 5GB (using AVC) is too small and I definitely notice the difference. For AVC I like to keep the main video bitrate at around 15mbps, a good encode at that bitrate and I can't notice the difference to the original. CloneBD slider will show you what the main video bitrate will be, that's what determines the size/quality.

That being said, I only use loseless MKV for all my movies, hard disk space is not an issue so I don't bother compressing and I don't have to worry if I'm losing anything over the original.

 

[SkyLiner]

Thanks for the answer.

To be clear; I have a 1:1 ISO of Titanic I created using only AnyDVDHD (all Titles/languages/etc) and it is 48,877GB. From that ISO I created another ISO by mounting the ISO with VCD then using CloneBD to select only the main Title and English. That new scaled-down ISO is now 44,612GB. I then create an MKV and MP4 version of the original ISO (only choosing the main Title and English language, like I did for the scaled-down ISO)...with no compression (lossless). The MKV file is 42,210GB (and took 27 minutes to create) and the MP4 file is 36,294GB (and took 48 minutes to create). I did this so I could compare the file size of the 3 formats, all of the exact same content. The ISO is the biggest, the MKV is next and the MP4 is the smallest. I just finished doing an A/B/C comparison on my 70" TV. After going back and forth a dozen times I'm pretty sure I noticed no difference in picture quality between the 3. I didn't have the surround sound turned on (because it's late and I didn't want to wake up the wife and kids), so I can't comment on any inherent difference in sound quality (since you mentioned MP4s might not offer lossless audio).

If I understood you correctly, the only way to get rid of padding/filler data is to compress the file using CloneBD to either MKV or MP4?

I'm about to make a compressed file of this Titanic ISO using CloneBD. In the Audio codec options, I notice that if I select "Copy Original (lossless), the file size is 8GB bigger than choosing AAC. Dolby is even smaller...and DTS is bigger. Which would you recommend?

You said that for AVC you like to keep the bitrate at around 15mbps, I thought H.265/HEVC was better than H.264/MP4 AVC? It seems that no matter which of these 2 options I select in CloneBD, it doesn't automatically change the file size even when moving the slider, both AVC and HEVC are showing the same file size that will result. Without going through with the process, I just tested the difference in the reported file size for both an MP4 toggling between H.264 and H.265 and an MKV of the same...they both report the same file size. Since I know it will take several hours to do the compression I am asking these questions now. I realize once I do the compression I might end up with a smaller MP4 than an MKV...etc.

Thanks again

 

[Pete]

To be clear; I have a 1:1 ISO of Titanic I created using only AnyDVDHD (all Titles/languages/etc) and it is 48,877GB. From that ISO I created another ISO by mounting the ISO with VCD then using CloneBD to select only the main Title and English. That new scaled-down ISO is now 44,612GB. I then create an MKV and MP4 version of the original ISO (only choosing the main Title and English language, like I did for the scaled-down ISO)...with no compression (lossless). The MKV file is 42,210GB (and took 27 minutes to create) and the MP4 file is 36,294GB (and took 48 minutes to create). I did this so I could compare the file size of the 3 formats, all of the exact same content. The ISO is the biggest, the MKV is next and the MP4 is the smallest. I just finished doing an A/B/C comparison on my 70" TV. After going back and forth a dozen times I'm pretty sure I noticed no difference in picture quality between the 3. I didn't have the surround sound turned on (because it's late and I didn't want to wake up the wife and kids), so I can't comment on any inherent difference in sound quality (since you mentioned MP4s might not offer lossless audio).

The file size differences here should only be the differing container overhead. Though 42 vs. 36 seems a bit too much to me. MKV really is a bit more.... generous... with it's structuring, but I'm surprised, it can be that much. Maybe you chose lossless audio for MKV? (CloneBD doesn't support lossless audio for MP4, because MP4 only officially supports a handful of codecs).
ISO - requires the whole directory overhead and the sector allocations/extensions.

As for padding: there are two types: on container level and on codec level.
Containerlevel: m2ts files are similar to (example) DVB-S transport streams, which have to transmit constantly, even if there's nothing to transmit. That's because the receivers need to stay in sync. So the TS stream has provisions to send padding data.
m2ts is an extension, that could do without that kind of padding, but still requires it in some situations (mostly to pad at the end to complete encryption blocks).
That's hardly noticeable - and when making a lossless copy to MP4 or MKV you will remove THAT kind of padding, but - as I said - that's usually hardly noticeable.

The AVC codec itself supports padding as well. It's required for CBR (the only way to ensure a constant bit rate) and sometimes also used to bloat the video.
A lossless copy will simply copy the compressed data without touching it. So, yes, you'll copy the padding along, unless you recompress.

 

[SkyLiner]

I wanted to share some results I've had over the last few days with compressing ISOs using CloneBD. My TV is a 70" Vizio 1080p connected via HDMI to a HiMedia Q10Pro media player that has a HD in it that my ISOs (and other files) play off of. For these tests I'm using my BD of Titanic. I started by creating an ISO by using AnyDVDHD to decrypt it and CloneBD to rip it to an uncompressed ISO of the main title only.

Then, using CloneBD, I made a lossless copy of that ISO to MKV set to lossless (no compression) as well as an MP4 set to lossless. The file sizes of these 3 files are as follows:

• ISO: 44,612GB (took 32 minutes to create from source BD)
  
• MKV: 42,210GB (took 27 minutes to create from ISO)
  
• MP4: 36,294GB (took 48 minutes to create from ISO)

Is it a given that of these 3 files (all uncompressed...and "lossless"), the ISO is the highest quality? Notice that the MP4 file is roughly 8GB smaller than the ISO and took nearly twice as long to create.

Next I did some compression tests.

I decided on MKV over MP4 and I thought I'd first try doing a 10mbps bit rate setting with H.265/HEVC and the AAC audio setting. The CloneBD settings I used for this compression were these: https://www.screencast.com/t/7Hom9M7n As you can see, CloneBD estimated that the file size would come out to 16.8GB. To my surprise, the process only took 1 hour and 10 minutes https://www.screencast.com/t/nS0BJIxJ3dhY and instead of creating a 16.3GB file, the file was only 849MB. I took the file to the living room where I did a dozen A/B comparisons with the uncompressed ISO. I was absolutely amazed to see that there was almost no noticeable difference at all. The quality of the 849GB file looked just as good as the 44.6GB ISO. The only issue was that I couldn't FF titles on the small MKV file properly...when attempting to FF titles it does well for the first 4 or 5 titles, but after that it jumps to the next file on the HD instead of jumping to the next Title. The regular FF/Rewind controls don't work that well either on the small MKV file.

I then thought that I should create a slightly bigger file to test. So, I chose 15mbps instead of 10, here are the settings I used: https://www.screencast.com/t/k3Y03HpXE this time the process took 11 hours and 50 minutes https://www.screencast.com/t/tHPN7i8Xa this file came out to 22GB, close to the estimate CloneBD gave (unlike the first compression I did which was way off from the estimate). The quality of this file looked great too...actually, just the same as the 849MB file. It did have a little easier time FF'ing titles and regular FF'ing...but not as seamless as the original ISO.

OK, so I just wanted to share these results with you and get your input. I can't afford 5 hours or more to compress files, but if I can find an option that takes under 2 or 3 hours, I'll probably convert a portion of my movies to smaller file size...while keeping my "A Stock" of movies in original lossless ISO format. Or at least that's what I'm thinking.

Should I experiment with H.264? Should I experiment with AVC instead of HEVC? Should I be open minded to MP4 instead of MKV? So many questions!

Thanks

 

[SkyLiner]

OK, I need to update that last post with a big oops! The MKV 10mbps H.256 compressed file I spoke about, which was only 849MB...and which only took 1 hour and 10 minutes to create...and which looked "amazing" in quality...even though I looked at it a dozen times the other day while comparing to the original ISO and the other compression I made at 15mbps...it turns out the file was only 11 minutes long (not the full movie). THAT'S why it wouldn't let me FF past the 5th chapter, because there were no more chapters. THAT'S why it looked so pristine in quality...and THAT'S why it only took a little over an hour to make. Sorry about any confusion I may have caused...I was too excited to believe that a file under 1GB could have been so good! The fact that CloneBD gave me the "Your copy was created successfully!" message made me believe it was the full movie. Back to the drawing board.

 

[ddjmagic]

Is it a given that of these 3 files (all uncompressed...and "lossless"), the ISO is the highest quality? Notice that the MP4 file is roughly 8GB smaller than the ISO and took nearly twice as long to create.

They all will be the same video quality, they have the exact same lossless video.
As Pete said the MKV is 2GB smaller than the ISO image due to differing container overhead and the MP4 is another 6GB smaller due to not being able to have lossless audio.

I'm about to make a compressed file of this Titanic ISO using CloneBD. In the Audio codec options, I notice that if I select "Copy Original (lossless), the file size is 8GB bigger than choosing AAC. Dolby is even smaller...and DTS is bigger. Which would you recommend?

I'd go with Dolby AC3 surround. Unless you have a really good sound setup, I doubt you would be able to tell the difference between lossless and lossy audio.

You said that for AVC you like to keep the bitrate at around 15mbps, I thought H.265/HEVC was better than H.264/MP4 AVC? It seems that no matter which of these 2 options I select in CloneBD, it doesn't automatically change the file size even when moving the slider, both AVC and HEVC are showing the same file size that will result.

Yes, HEVC is better than AVC. At 15mbps they will both be the same file size, however the HEVC will be better quality.
I haven't used HEVC much, but it's compression is around twice as efficient as AVC, so at 8mbps bitrate the quality should be comparable to a 15mbps AVC file.
As you have seen though HEVC is very resource intensive and will take much longer to encode than AVC, even on a high end PC (probably 3x longer)

I can't afford 5 hours or more to compress files, but if I can find an option that takes under 2 or 3 hours, I'll probably convert a portion of my movies to smaller file size
Should I experiment with H.264? Should I experiment with AVC instead of HEVC? Should I be open minded to MP4 instead of MKV? So many questions

I'd recommend MKV, H.264 15mbps & Dolby AC3.
A 2 hour movie should come out under 15GB and on a decent PC should take well under 2 hours to complete (my old i7 3770 takes less than 30mins no HW acceleration).
It will be difficult to tell the difference between the encoded file and the original, even on a 70 inch TV.

That's my opinion, but as I said previously everyone is different when it comes to this, you just have find something that suits you, though I believe the above should be a good starting point for most who watch on a TV.

 

[Pete]

OK, I need to update that last post with a big oops! The MKV 10mbps H.256 compressed file I spoke about, which was only 849MB...and which only took 1 hour and 10 minutes to create...and which looked "amazing" in quality...even though I looked at it a dozen times the other day while comparing to the original ISO and the other compression I made at 15mbps...it turns out the file was only 11 minutes long (not the full movie). THAT'S why it wouldn't let me FF past the 5th chapter, because there were no more chapters. THAT'S why it looked so pristine in quality...and THAT'S why it only took a little over an hour to make. Sorry about any confusion I may have caused...I was too excited to believe that a file under 1GB could have been so good! The fact that CloneBD gave me the "Your copy was created successfully!" message made me believe it was the full movie. Back to the drawing board.

The only possible way for Elby to fix that, is with a CloneBD log file from that conversion.