1.0.2.7 Still Transcodes When It Should Not

[ron spencer]

I have a target size at dual layer Blu-Ray..the program says end size will be 22 gig. So there should be NOT be any transcoding. This time around the program at least is applying a very high bitrate of 24 MBPS. But this should not happen. I am curious if this will ever be fixed...or if the "fix" is to just have a high bitrate and transcode in all circumstances.

 

[kanady43]

The same experrience

Source: BD "Karel Zeman Collection" - a BD with three Karel Zeman movie. Every movie is about 13-14 Gbyte on original disc. I tryied to make a partial copy- only one movie to 25 Gbyte BD.
Clone BD transcode again, with high bitrate, runnig time about 90 minutes (all six cores on my Phenom II 1100T on 100%). PLaytime of this movie is average the same.
After transcoding is the result about 200 Mbyte smaller than the orginal file, the picture quality is worse (more artefacts on edges).
I mean, this as a huge bug - in this case should CloneBD only demux choosen streams and mux it only again - if the target has enough capacity.

Only for info - the same movie was processed with BD Rebuilder in only 6 minutes....

 

[Adbear]

I'm finding on the discs I've tested that if I leave the setting at DL BD-R then it takes about 10mins, whereas if I set the size smaller then the original size it takes a couple of hours, and you can see the difference in the speed on the preview screen

 

[kanady43]

Thanks for share experiencies

Good to know this workaround, but on my opinion, it should be not so big problem to insert a decision into program, which would be compare source file size with target parameters, and then or demux and mux only or transcode....

 

[Adbear]

That's pretty much what it does, there's no way it could re-encode the movie, even back to the same bit-rate in 10 minutes. It just seems to play the video from the file whilst it does it. Having checked the original video stream against the one made in CloneBD it's just re-muxed it. Anything re-encoded through CloneBD would be flagged as x264 under the 'Writing library' section of Mediainfo.

Not sure how else you would expect it to do it. As long as the size slider is bigger than the original file it won't re-transcode it. Easiest way to do this is just leave it set to the biggest possible (50GB) failing that check the input size against the output size on the 'Summary' page.

 

[ron spencer]

That's pretty much what it does, there's no way it could re-encode the movie, even back to the same bit-rate in 10 minutes. It just seems to play the video from the file whilst it does it. Having checked the original video stream against the one made in CloneBD it's just re-muxed it. Anything re-encoded through CloneBD would be flagged as x264 under the 'Writing library' section of Mediainfo.

Not sure how else you would expect it to do it. As long as the size slider is bigger than the original file it won't re-transcode it. Easiest way to do this is just leave it set to the biggest possible (50GB) failing that check the input size against the output size on the 'Summary' page.

It most certainly transcodes...I choose BD-R (DL), Movie only, size estimated by CloneBD is less than single layer BD-R, so this should be demux-remux. It does not. I have tried this with 10 ISO files...all with ClownBD are less than single later BD-R and I remux manually. CloneBD always will transcode. Dunno what is going on here, but I will continue my manual making of MKVs until this is sorted properly. This is not a one-click wonder yet. Hopefully some time.

 

[Adbear]

Well it definitely isn't transcoding the ones I've tested, there's no way it could transcode a 2 hour movie in under 6 minutes, and as I said when I check the video stream in Mediainfo it's exactly the same as the original. When I make the output size smaller and it does an actual transcode it takes a lot longer and the video stream is marked as x264 in Mediainfo

 

[DSquare]

Could it always be transcoding in the trial version to apply the watermark?

 

[Adbear]

Yeah, that would probably do it. I have a full version so didn't think of that

 

[ron spencer]

Yeah, that would probably do it. I have a full version so didn't think of that

so that could be the culprit then....perhaps a trail with no watermark is more useful....LOL if that is the reason.

if it is true, it doesn't say much of the developers for not commenting.