Screamers Audio replacement (using tsMuxer)

[Harpers Tate]

Different technique (with another film altogether) used here - I found it easier to cope with.
Step 1: Use MakeMKV to create an MKV of
(a) the DVD - just the movie title; deselected everything except video and audio. (mkv joins vobs into a single file without re-encoding so no degradation)
(b) the BD - again, just the movie title; deselect everything except video and audio (I guess one could keep subtitles, but I didn't). Again - a single file with no re-encoding.
So now I have a "raw" movie, picture and sound only, in two versions/.mkv files. One has the picture I want; the other, the sound I want.
Step 2: Use TSMuxer. Add the two .mkv files and see the four tracks - picture (DVD), sound (DVD), picture (BD), sound (BD). Select BD picture and DVD sound only and mux to chosen output method.
Step 3: Test and re-sync and re-mux as necessary as described above.

 

[testiles]

Hi @Harpers Tate

So you had to do something like this too? Cool.


Nice alternative approach to muxing sound and audio from two movies.

I think the advantage of the technique you outline is you don't have to worry about figuring out .vob files, .m2ts files, etc. Just let makeMKV handle all that.

Question, though, if the Blu-Ray movie has ScreenPass is makeMKV smart enough to pick the right playlist?


The possible disadvantage is the final output here requires two passes of processing...

... I know you say that makeMKV doesn't have to re-encode to create .mkv's of the movies, but it has to process them in some way to do that. There's always some amount of degradation inherent in any process.

In the first method, the audio and video of the original discs go directly into the "final-product" output file.

Also, I personally am not a big fan of .mkv's made by makeMKV. On my computer they always look a bit choppy. But I guess as an alternative, CloneBD could be used to create an .mkv of the Blu-Ray, which, with Screamers, is supplying the video part of the final product.


This method may also take a little longer as you have to create the two .mkv's.

I tried this technique using makeMKV and it took about 15 minutes to make the .mkv's. Not that long really and I guess it could take that long to figure out what .vob, .m2ts. or .mpls you need to use in the first method (lol).


Visually though, I found the copy I made with the original method was cleaner on my 4k TV than what I got using the makeMKV method.

It was enough to be observable to me, as I'm really picky with audio and video. Others may not see or care about the (small) difference.


So I would say if one wants to avoid the task of analyzing the discs that will be used to create the muxed version, this makeMKV method will do that.

And if you're a stickler for minimal processing of the original discs and getting the best possible audio and video, then the one-pass method will provide that.


Thanks for the info!


T

 

[Harpers Tate]

I don't believe there is any degrading effect on the video or audio in the makeMKV process. All it does is decrypt (in the absence of eg AnyDVD, and they do recommend that it's disabled; decryption is essential, of course, and is not in itself a degrading process) and then copy the selected streams into a new container.
I don't believe there is any degrading effect on the video or audio in the TSMuXer process. All it does is copy the selected streams into a new container.

makeMKV does not work round playlist obfuscation. You have to know (by an external source) which playlist to choose; it will present them all in a list, all the same length.

I can't speak for "choppy" but I don't believe the output of makeMKV is responsible for "adding" this effect. I suspect something else in your playback method/app/etc. And whilst I don't doubt your observations, I don't see how the output can differ - since both methods involve merely copying streams in and out of containers.

Anyhow - we each do what works best for us......

 

[testiles]

I don't believe there is any degrading effect on the video or audio in the makeMKV process. All it does is ... copy the selected streams into a new container.
I don't believe there is any degrading effect on the video or audio in the TSMuXer process. All it does is copy the selected streams into a new container.

There is no process in the real world where you get out exactly what you put in. Degradation may be too strong a word but there is always some loss within a process. It may be so small as to be virtually non-existent, it may be negligible, not too bad, all the way up to unacceptable. But it's there in some form.

For that reason, the fewer times you run media through a process, the better the final outcome will be.

makeMKV, and tsMuxer for that matter, isn't just straight copying streams, it's turning the .vob files of the DVD and the .m2ts files of the Blu-Ray into the single .mkv/.m2ts file of the output. tsMuxer is also reformatting the Blu-Ray into an .iso., at least for the Screamers process I outlined. Those conversions have some (small) effect.

I did an actual A-B comparison of the two Screamers Blu-Ray .iso outputs and although both looked good, the output using the first technique had colors a bit brighter, smoother playback in fast motion scenes and had a bit more contrast.

makeMKV does not work round playlist obfuscation. You have to know (by an external source) which playlist to choose; it will present them all in a list, all the same length.

Ok, so you'd have to check the AnyDVD Status window to get the right playlist there too.

Gotcha.

I can't speak for "choppy" but I don't believe the output of makeMKV is responsible for "adding" this effect. I suspect something else in your playback method/app/etc.

I don't know what it is with makeMKV. But I've made .mkv's of the same movie with both CloneBD and makeMKV and I always get that choppiness only with the makeMKV version.

Granted I've done this test more with UHD's than regular Blu-Rays. I don't know if that's a factor.

CloneBD seems to take longer too, so it's doing something different and that difference apparently works better on my computer.

Anyhow - we each do what works best for us......

Agreed.

Both methods are equally valid. Each has its pluses and minuses.

Comes down in the end to personal preference.



T

 

[Harpers Tate]

I am as convinced that there is no actual process occurring here (beyond copying and joining data) as you are that there is.
I am as convinced that there is absolutely no difference at all in the actual stream data, as you are that there is.

We will, therefore have to agree to disagree.