Bleeding Steel Ordeal

Discussion in 'CloneBD' started by testiles, Oct 5, 2018.

  1. testiles

    testiles Well-Known Member


    I'm using CloneBD to process a protected .iso of Bleeding Steel Blu-Ray and create a Partial Copy folder.

    I'm just removing a few unwanted titles.

    Keeping all audio and subtitles.

    Using Original Menu and Original Audio.

    Destination size is 50G, so no compression is required (and CloneBD confirms this).

    Yet, when CloneBD processes this .iso, it insists on decoding and encoding it.

    This computer has no hardware acceleration so the estimated time is like 12 hours. Not good.

    I always thought CloneBD only encodes and decodes when compression is involved. But like Ch3vron likes to say, I apparently thought wrong. (lol)

    Can someone tell me under what circumstances CloneBD decodes/encodes when compression is not involved?

    In case needed, CloneBD log attached....


    Attached Files:

  2. Ch3vr0n

    Ch3vr0n Translator NL

    Pretty sure the removing titles is the one that triggers the encoding. You can't expect it to fix menu issues linking to the titles you're removing without encoding it right? Think about it. Because if it wouldn't, the menu/playlist files would still look for them, and break the navigational / file structure because the no longer exist.

    If you or someone else would then select them (or by accident) the player could lock up or playback stop because the disc structure is broken.
  3. SSoft88

    SSoft88 Active Member

    Having a similar problem when trying to just create a main movie only ISO without menus.

    BDClone seems to decode/re-encode when, I think, it should just be copying/remuxing - no CPU and time needed.
  4. testiles

    testiles Well-Known Member

    CH3vron you're right.

    Maybe I used the wrong terminology. I guess I should have said "transcode" (although I thought that was encode/decode).

    Normally, when I do this process, there is a message that says "The current video is being copied without being transcoded".

    The Video decoder input, Converter input, and Encoder input bars all read "100%".

    The Encoder output bar is a solid 100%.

    The process takes under an hour even on a computer without hardware acceleration.

    But with Bleeding Steel doing the same general process, the estimated time was 12 hours on the computer I was using -- so I had to process the .iso on one that has hardware acceleration.

    There, the message is "Hardware acceleration is being used (decoding and encoding)".

    The Video decoder input, Converter input, Encoder input bars say "100%(QuickSync)".

    The Encoder output bar is fluctuating but generally stays near 100%.

    So, why does this .iso require transcoding to remove a few titles, without compression, when none of the hundreds I've done previously do?

    Maybe @Reto could shed some light??

    [BTW, the log file attached is from the run on the computer with h/w acceleration]

  5. testiles

    testiles Well-Known Member

    Hi SSoft88.

    Glad someone else is experiencing this too!

    And you're not compressing either right? Your target size is larger than the movie size?

  6. SSoft88

    SSoft88 Active Member

    Ola testiles,

    Yes I'm having similar/same concern... and, yes, I thought transcode was, roughly, the same as "encode/decode" o_O

    Anyway, I'm definitely not forcing it to compress. Just trimming a small portion out of the main title and creating an ISO with no menus. Target size is easily larger.

    But! I'm glad you mentioned the status messages. I have not seen/noticed them!?!
    Where do you see the "The current video is being copied without being transcoded" message?
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2018
  7. SSoft88

    SSoft88 Active Member

    Ok, now I've (finally) noticed the "The current video is being copied without being transcoded" message.

    All my input/output bars are at 0%.

    Then why does BDClone use ~70% CPU if it's not transcoding? Competing products I've tested use close to 0% for, I think, the same thing...

    Attached Files:

  8. testiles

    testiles Well-Known Member

    SSoft88, friendly pointer... it's CloneBD. I think you will confuse people by referring to BDClone...

    I'm not familiar with competing products but I would imagine CloneBD is using the CPU to do the editing you requested and stitch the titles back together to make the output.

    I only see CPU rate lower when transcoding is involved and h/w acceleration in the GPU takes over.

    I have no idea why your input/output bars are 0 though.

    Maybe someone more technically familiar with CloneBD could explain.

    Btw, your conversion rate of 232 is excellent.

    Wish I could get it that high.

    Anyway, looks like your process is doing what (I always thought) it should, which is to not use transcoding when you're not compressing...

  9. SSoft88

    SSoft88 Active Member

    Yes, sorry my mistake - can't type and think at the same time!
    Also, I've been comparing various products with similar names so my simple mind is scrambled.

    I probably would have thought the same if I hadn't seen competing programs trim the same title with little to no CPU load... so I'm stumped on that one.

    Which would make sense but, in my/our case, it says it's not transcoding but still seems to be doing something that requires CPU grunt... and I don't have any GPU acceleration enabled, I think.

    Oh, I didn't realise. What rate do you get?
    My source ISO and destination ISO files are on different HDDs which probably influences the rate.

    Yes, it seems so. It just seems to be doing it in an incredibly inefficient way so as to need so much CPU usage to, basically, copy files... compared to competing products. Very strange.
  10. testiles

    testiles Well-Known Member


    Well, I'm not sure what the other programs are doing and are capable of doing but CloneBD has the capacity to do a lot.

    So maybe just that capacity alone, although not being fully utilized, makes it use CPU?

    You know, like using a Zamboni-sized vacuum cleaner for your living room carpet when a regular one will do. Both may do the same job in your living room but the Zamboni Vac eats up 100 times more power. He he.

    Hey, I dunno. Grasping at straws here.

    But it may not be fair to compare the other products unless they have the same overall functionality as CloneBD.

    And it looks like you're not using an unduly large percentage of your CPU so it may be a non-issue -- as long as it gets the job done and done in a short timeframe.

    CloneBD usually says it averages just under 100 fps with peaks in the high 200's, low 300's.

    I use separate source and destination HD's too. I think your CPU/GPU and whether or not you're using hardware acceleration has more of an effect on conversion rates.

    Guess I'm gonna need a bigger computer (lol).

    In your case, it's can't be just copying the files. Didn't you say you were trimming the main title?

  11. SSoft88

    SSoft88 Active Member

    Haha... gold.

    Very true but I think they would be direct competitors with the CloneBD product - CloneBD still being my preference overall.

    I don't have any GPU acceleration and my CPU is ancient!... and old quad Xeon ;)

    From my (meager) understanding, if you/I are just trimming something off the beginning or the end of a single title, it doesn't need to be re-encoded. It literally is just slicing a bit off.
    Hence my perplexity as to what CloneBD is doing to spike the CPU usage. Again, trimming the same title with the competing products barely registers on the CPU usage.
  12. testiles

    testiles Well-Known Member

    No I don't think you would use the GPU for what you're doing anyway.

    But an ancient CPU gives you such a high conversion rate? Interesting.

    I guess I really don't understand exactly what affects CloneBD performance then....

    If that's true I didn't know that.

    I thought any editing of a title required re-encoding.

    But as you see I have limited knowledge here.

    So, SSoft88 ...

    Your question is basically why CloneBD uses so much of your CPU to create a new folder with the main movie trimmed at beginning and/or end.

    However, from your screenshots, it doesn't look like you're transcoding - so you don't have my issue - which is that CloneBD is transcoding Bleeding Steel when I am just removing a few titles and not compressing (and not trimming).

    Especially when this same process has never invoked transcoding for me for any other title.

    I'm hoping someone with tech knowledge of CloneBD can take a look at the log file and see some reason for this.

  13. SSoft88

    SSoft88 Active Member

    Yep, I think I'm in the same boat there. Would need someone who knows more able the workings of CloneBD.

    There's many video/audio slicers out there so, unless there's something special about the Blu-ray codecs/structure, should be no different, I think.

    That would basically be it! I think disk transfer speed should be more of a limiting factor than CPU grunt, when "not transcoding".

    Yes, your issue is different again, then.
    Something must be triggering the transcode even though you're not actually needing to transcode the video stream.
    Maybe Ch3vr0n is right, in that it has to do with the menu setup... or my only other guess is maybe something to do with the audio stream\s...

    Definitely need someone who knows a lot more about the workings of CloneBD.
  14. testiles

    testiles Well-Known Member


    Retaining the original menu and nothing is different about it (to the naked eye) than the hundred others I've done this for.

    Not altering the audio in any way and only difference is the main audio is Korean. Should be a moot point.

    Again, agreed.

    When the devs get back from the weekend (and Columbus Day?), I'm sure someone will take a look.

  15. SSoft88

    SSoft88 Active Member

    In that case, very strange... and different language audio shouldn't make any difference, that I know of.

  16. Pete

    Pete Forum Admin Staff Member

    It really should only transcode, when - well it has to. This here seems to be some strange quirk, I can't reproduce it, tried a few discs.
    It would be interesting to find out what makes your disc so special.
    Despite the no-compression setting, CloneBD really does decide to recompress your video track.

    Very strange that we're getting two similar effects reported for the first time in such a short time span and they still don't even seem to be related.

    CloneBD does do a lot more than the other products. They usually just remux and don't care much about what it is they're copying, while CloneBD really undoes the muxing and sets up the new stream entirely. By that, a lot of authoring errors get cleaned up.
    But I don't see how that would add up to 70% CPU usage.
    My tests here at similar rates (~300fps) never exceeded 21%. If you switch off the preview, the load should go down another 1 or 2%, that doesn't eat much (it doesn't use up any CPU at all, when you're actually transcoding, because then the decoding needs to take place anyway).

    Can you monitor the task manager and tell me what process uses the most of the CPU? How much does CloneBD.exe itself use? Also note all processes starting with "Drone.*" - there should only be one.
  17. testiles

    testiles Well-Known Member

    Yeah, this disc is the single one out of hundreds to do this.

    See Uncle Drew pm....

  18. SSoft88

    SSoft88 Active Member

    I would normally think that's a good thing, unless, in this case, it's causing the high CPU usage...

    Yes, the first think I did was turn off the preview - makes me go cross-eyed o_O

    No problem.. pic's attached, plus a log file.
    CloneBD.exe is using about 70%.
    Drone*.exe is about 0%.

    Thanks for your help...

    Attached Files:

  19. testiles

    testiles Well-Known Member

  20. SSoft88

    SSoft88 Active Member

    Yep, you are probably right. Otherwise, just getting confusing.

    Hopefully Pete has time to have a look also...
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018