| Author |
Message |
Christian Link
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:24 am Post subject:
Re: Has DivX become unnecessary? |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005 05:58:15 -0800, "Yef" <e97y@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | 1. background noise become a loud wub-wub type sound
that is as loud as the main speaking voice. For example,
background sound such as restaurant conversation and
traffic.
2. With some DVDs there is a loud cluck or kuk sound
when a person begins speaking a word.
|
I'm a bit tired right now, so I won't wake the rest of my brain just to
check if my assertion really fits the symptoms you describe, but it somewhat
sounds as if it wasn't the MP3s screwing up, but rather the dynamics
compression (in an audio-, not the data way, so to speak) is set up wrongly.
Try if the same happens if you use WAV instead (don't worry about the file
size - it's just a test, after all).
Still, how come so many people use MP3 for hifi music listening and are
perfectly satisfied with it at that, and once you use it for movies (assumed
you use a decent bitrate, of course), it screws up. Does that make sense to
you? And again: This has nothing to do with DivX (unless you say that MP3 is
the de facto sound standard for DivX - which I'd agree it is -, *and* if MP3
sound quality is so bad in general - which it certainly isn't).
| Quote: |
I have been using FairUse -- the older free version, not
the 10 euro copy. It has happened so far with several
DVDs. Some where Dolby 5.1, but one was
Dolby stereo. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Christian Link
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:33 am Post subject:
Re: Has DivX become unnecessary? |
|
|
Hi, Larc,
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:19:06 GMT, Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | SmartRipper will sometimes "choke" on a rip with one of my drives and
handle it flawlessly with another. But I've never found any DVD that
it hasn't been able to break down on one or another.
|
that's good news. What I was told there were supposedly some discs around
that just couldn't be ripped with SmartRipper *at all*. Of course, those
dudes certainly didn't try it with many drives ...
| Quote: | I've been quite happy with letting DVD2AVI handle the conversion to
WAV in the next step after ripping with SmartRipper. The resulting
|
DVD2AVI can give you quite some, um, yeah, "headache" ;-) if you have to
process MP2 or PCM tracks (the latter is from hearsay, the former I've
noticed myself). Sure, not really your everyday scenario, but still ...
Further, as far as I remember, DVD2AVI has no "downmix to surround 2.0"
option (or has it?), which I consider a really nice bonus speaking for
HeadAC3he and BeSweet respectively.
| Quote: | audio file is usually at an unacceptably low level, but CoolEdit or
the newer Audition can easily handle that problem. Of course,
|
(Gee, I feel like a salesman for HeadAC3he now:) HeadAC3e can do the
normalizing/boosting for you on the fly as well.
| Quote: | VirtualDub can correct volume too, but I like the luxury of seeing the
wave pattern so there's no trial and error for settings.
|
YIKES! But VirtualDub doesn't do a Normalize, so chances are good you're
going to clip the signal!
| Quote: | I used HeadAC3he earlier, but found it to be a little flakey as well
as an extra step that I simply didn't need in my SmartRipper > DVD2AVI
VFAPI Reader > VirtualDub route to DivX (OK, CoolEdit on the side).
|
The extra step is a small con indeed. As for the bugs, I've yet to encounter
one with the latest version (which actually is quite old already). The only
thing I could complain about is that it just aborts and deletes the output
file (as far as it had been written) once it encounters an error, instead of
fixing it transparently and just notifying you. This way, you may have to
get back to AC3Fix, fix the file (imagine you're extremely short of
harddrive space, that may suck, too), and redo the whole thing. Yeah, it's
not completely perfect, but I got all my stuff done with it so far, this way
or another.
| Quote: | Another talent CoolEdit (Audition) has is the ability to stretch or
shrink audio digitally to make the soundtrack agree with the video
timewise. I've managed to correct audio problems with it many times,
even on some downloaded DivX and XviD movies.
|
You can do this with BeSweet as well, and even with AVISynth alone (with or
without pitch shift). I do agree, however, that if you have the time, doing
it in a dedicated sampling program is always the best approach,
quality-wise. I mean, there must be a reason for Audition taking *way*
longer for some of these steps than other programs, and I doubt this reason
is its programmers' pathetic lack of skills ;-) .
Greetings,
Chris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Link
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:50 am Post subject:
Re: Why current DVD ripping is wrong |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005 06:27:55 -0800, "Yef" <e97y@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | 1. decrypted VOB -> uncompressed video frames & uncompressed audio
chunks
& subtitles
|
So I take it you want to write some 170.000 - 200.000 single frames (and I'm
not even talking about the subpictures here) to your harddisk? Good luck for
having the file system find any of them (hint: try it with, say, 5.000, then
come again ...).
| Quote: | Reasons why this is a good approach:
|
.... you _think_ it is a good approach, you mean?
| Quote: | A. Better modularity therefore easier to develop & debug.
|
You don't even have to be an experienced programmer to organize even bigger
projects (yeah, big as in "DVD ripper", ehem) in a modular way and thus not
losing control over what part is doing what.
| Quote: | B. Using a generic uncompressed intermediate format would
help cleanse the source material of any artifacts.
|
I assumet you've never actually "clean" source material, have you? Be it
scratches on the source (film) material or artifacts from former encodings -
not only is checking single frames *not* the usual way to do it, but only an
exception for really hard cases, but also, you wouldn't even *notice* most
flaws unless the movie's running! So, unless you're going to re-import your
200.000 frames into whatever application you choose and see it from there,
this is not going to help.
| Quote: | C. It would permit people to use additional filters if they
chose to.
|
So what, you can do this with *any* tool able to import *whatever* format
and applying filters. I suggest you google for VirtualDub. It can read
picture sequences like your 200.000 frames alright (assumed you're patient
enough for the loading of frame 10.000, 10.001 etc. to complete), but rumor
has it it may even read exotic and totally non-generic formats like AVI and
- if we speak about VirtualDubMod - MPEG-2.
| Quote: | D. And it would permit a more efficient division of labor
wherein programmers would specialize in parts of the
process rather than having every programmer trying to
develop his or her own big program. This may be happening
already to some extent.
|
The source for, e.g. SmartRipper is out there. So if somebody doesn't want
to bother dealing with the DeCSS stuff etc., he doesn't have to. Besides, I
do agree that this is probably already being done in a more organized
manner, anyway.
And what if not? It is common practise to first rip your movie with either
SmartRipper or DVDDecrypter, and hardly anybody complains.
| Quote: | E. It would permit archiving the decoded frames & audio
for later use in developing better codecs.
|
Sorry, that's complete nonsense - or let's say, it doesn't support your
argument. I don't need 200.000 decoded frames for doing this. All I need is
a lossless compressor and store the results with that one. HuffYUV comes to
mind (although you'd have to choose carefully which color space to set this
one up for, then), CorePNG, and Alparysoft's. The latter can even
delta-compress pictures, making the results *comparably* smaller than
storing each and every frame in a single file and hence as a *keyframe*.
| Quote: | There is only one type of conversion where this approach might be
avoided, and that is splicing VOB directly to MPEG2, which
does not change the encoding.
|
Oddly, I could think of a lot more, but I'm really too tired to seriously
deal with this, as it would lead to nothing. Sorry for putting a stopper in
your enthusiasm, but I seriously suggest you google a bit to learn about the
things you're talking about. I mean that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yef
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:55 am Post subject:
Re: Has DivX become unnecessary? |
|
|
| Quote: | Still, how come so many people use MP3 for hifi music listening and
are
perfectly satisfied with it at that, and once you use it for movies
(assumed
you use a decent bitrate, of course), it screws up. Does that make
sense to
you?
|
Not all movie sound turns out badly.
But since the situation is inherently complex and involves multiple
parts, I can really only guess. My guess is that the noise is there
from the beginning and that MP3 is mistakenly amplifying it,
thinking that it's the dominant signal when it's not.
The key then is to use AC3 sound at the same bitrate as
the source so that (hopefully) it will pass thru without transcoding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yef
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:03 am Post subject:
Re: Has DivX become unnecessary? |
|
|
Given the same source Divx may have better quality,
but given an mpeg2 DVD source, one can never do better
than that and I think most times it will be worse.
Tools I've used:
FairUse, which transcodes sound using BeSweet
For mpeg2 non-Divx
SmartRipper
Wombat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Link
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:15 pm Post subject:
Re: Has DivX become unnecessary? |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005 19:03:41 -0800, "Yef" <e97y@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Given the same source Divx may have better quality,
but given an mpeg2 DVD source, one can never do better
than that and I think most times it will be worse.
|
Generally speaking, yes, as there's recompression involved. However, if you
apply filters to DVD sources that were not optimally mastered in the first
place (especially suffering from grain, lack of sharpness etc. - just think
of those products that had been transferred from a tape master as an extreme
example) and use a bitrate that's not too low, you can in fact get better
results.
One could argue that this would also hold true for recoding to MPEG-2 and
thus has nothing to do with DivX vs. DVD, but the difference is that if
you'd recode to MPEG-2, you'd usually need about 1.5 to 2 times the bit rate
to achieve the same compression quality. So, even this may be a bit
exaggerating, you could filter your DVD source material, recode to DivX with
roughly its original bit rate (or even below), and *still* get away with a
much more pleasing result. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yef
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:01 pm Post subject:
Re: Why current DVD ripping is wrong |
|
|
Christian Link wrote:
| Quote: | So I take it you want to write some 170.000 - 200.000 single frames
(and I'm
not even talking about the subpictures here) to your harddisk?
|
No, I think the GOP approach is better.
| Quote: | you wouldn't even *notice* most
flaws unless the movie's running!
|
I'm also thinking of unclean in the sense of watermarks,
serial numbers encoded as groups of pixels etc. Think about it.
| Quote: | The source for, e.g. SmartRipper is out there.
|
Where?
| Quote: | All I need is
a lossless compressor and store the results with that one.
|
Yes but then you have to decode it. You're missing the point entirely.
| Quote: | Oddly, I could think of a lot more, but I'm really too tired to
seriously
deal with this
|
Or to think apparently. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Link
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:22 am Post subject:
Re: Why current DVD ripping is wrong |
|
|
On 22 Mar 2005 06:01:34 -0800, "Yef" <e97y@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | So I take it you want to write some 170.000 - 200.000 single frames
(and I'm
not even talking about the subpictures here) to your harddisk?
No, I think the GOP approach is better.
|
.... and had the drawback of preventing you from navigating smoothly back and
forth. Very helpful indeed (not that the single picture variant would be
more sane, anyway).
| Quote: | you wouldn't even *notice* most
flaws unless the movie's running!
I'm also thinking of unclean in the sense of watermarks,
serial numbers encoded as groups of pixels etc. Think about it.
|
And just because you don't want to use the appropriate programs that have
been out there for ages and can do exactly that to complete movies without
first butchering them, you need a decompressed format? Sorry, but you don't
really seem as if you knew what you were talking about. Why not *try* things
first, and save your valuable ideas for later, when you know what material,
processes, inherent problems etc. you're dealing with (and thus probably
have ditched them by then, anyway)?
| Quote: | The source for, e.g. SmartRipper is out there.
Where?
|
Why not do things yourself instead of continuing asking questions? You've
heard of Google, didn't you? It's so easy! Or maybe Google just gives you a
distorted picture, because it's copy-protected or whatever?
| Quote: | All I need is
a lossless compressor and store the results with that one.
Yes but then you have to decode it. You're missing the point entirely.
|
That's no big deal, seeing as there never had been a point to begin with!
I was referring to your innovative suggestion regarding storage for
compression with later (yet-to-be-developed) codecs, and with a format as
straight-forward as, e.g. HuffYUV (and its sources available for all to
port), it would be downright dumb not to make use of it.
| Quote: | Oddly, I could think of a lot more, but I'm really too tired to
seriously
deal with this
Or to think apparently.
|
Absolutely, because instead of "thinking apparently", i. e. in a way so
everybody notices it, I rather prefer to think for myself - and logically. I
suggest you try that, too. Could solve a lot of your problems, believe me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yef
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:24 pm Post subject:
Re: Why current DVD ripping is wrong |
|
|
| You're obviously just a teenager. All bickering, no thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:52 am Post subject:
Re: Has DivX become unnecessary? |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:09:17 +0100, DanielEKFA
<sorry.no.em@il.i.get.viruses.and.spam.invalid> wrote:
| > Agreed, Biz, that copying the ac3 is better and faster.
| > However, I've never discovered a way in VDub to mux ac3 with the
| > AVI-video. Would you mind walking me thru it? I've always used
| > AVI-Mux-GUI, which also does a quick job (particularly when the
| > sources and object all reside on different drives). But I use
| > VDub for so many other functions, I'd love to know how to use it
| > as an ac3 muxer.
| >
| > BJ
|
| Use VirtualDubMod
That's a new one for me. I can't figure out any way to do it with
VDM. Nandub can handle AC3 muxing with ease, of course.
My problem with AC3 is editing. Changing volume selectively in the
various channels and then saving as AC3 is beyond any reasonably
priced software I've found so far
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Link
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:19 am Post subject:
Re: Why current DVD ripping is wrong |
|
|
On 23 Mar 2005 04:24:17 -0800, "Yef" <e97y@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | You're obviously just a teenager. All bickering, no thought.
|
You see, that's so bad about newbies not knowing how to quote: Nobody would
feel addressed ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Billy Joe
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:46 am Post subject:
Re: Has DivX become unnecessary? |
|
|
In ref: u5v34155kco2h0ho62vq9r6io38cva7l6h@4ax.com
Larc <larc-news@jupiterlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
| Quote: | That's a new one for me. I can't figure out any way to do it
with VDM. Nandub can handle AC3 muxing with ease, of course.
|
Thanks for the tip!!
| Quote: | My problem with AC3 is editing. Changing volume selectively
in the various channels and then saving as AC3 is beyond any
reasonably priced software I've found so far
|
Is this often necessary?
| Quote: | Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christian Link
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject:
Re: Why current DVD ripping is wrong |
|
|
Mark,
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:53:27 GMT, Mark Spatny
<vfxproducer@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | your subject made me think of moral issues. Ultimately, the theft of
intellectual property is why ripping is wrong.
|
Theft is always wrong, but by linking these two things you're supposing
ripping is always theft, and that isn't true at all (although I would agree
that many people who rip don't use their own originals as sources and thus
usually do infringe the copyright of others, alright).
Personally, I use ripping as a means of creating backups of my own DVDs (I'm
not saying I wouldn't rip/copy a rental, though - it's just that I'm usually
too lazy to rent movies ;-) - so don't consider this an "I'm holier than
you" speech). Partly because I really *want* a backup just in case, partly
because I want to put, say, all three parts of a trilogy onto one medium,
and partly, because I love experimenting with video filters, and DVD
material is a good source to start with (especially if your own DV material
is as crappy as mine, because you're no Spielberg). I think besides the
die-hard freeloaders who'd do anything just because they can and because
it's free, many of us have similar reasons. Morally, that's absolutely
nothing to frown at.
In my country and many others, however, it is illegal to even circumvent a
copy-protection, which is why ripping, too, may still be illegal (depending
on whether the disc is CSS encoded or not). But not because what the law
forbade us to do (breaking the protection) was theft, but because the law
has simply declared it to be. As far as we're talking about *morals* here, I
wouldn't see anything bad about that, though, as from a purely moral
perspective, I consider it highly more questionable _preventing_ my
customers from securing their investment, than to ignore these laws and
giving a damn. Doesn't change a bit about this still being illegal per
definitionem, right. But morally speaking ...
Well, but I guess this discussion has been led a couple hundred times
already, hasn't it?
Greetings,
Chris. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larc
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Has DivX become unnecessary? |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:46:13 -0800, "Billy Joe" <see.sig@invalid.org>
wrote:
| > That's a new one for me. I can't figure out any way to do it
| > with VDM. Nandub can handle AC3 muxing with ease, of course.
| >
|
| Thanks for the tip!!
You're very welcome!
| > My problem with AC3 is editing. Changing volume selectively
| > in the various channels and then saving as AC3 is beyond any
| > reasonably priced software I've found so far
| >
|
| Is this often necessary?
Not all that often, but I needed to be able to do it recently. An
XviD copy of Der Untergang with AC3 audio I downloaded had center
channel volume at no more than 50% of the L and R fronts for some
reason. A character talking as he moved across the screen got
considerably louder as he got to the side or was off screen
altogether. I was able to convert the audio to multi-channel WAV and
make necessary corrections with Cool Edit, but that program doesn't
support saving a file as AC3. So I had to save it as WAV and convert
to MP3 after I had muxed in the WAV file using VirtualDub (that's
probably the greatest single piece of free software I've ever seen).
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rotes Sapiens
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:19 am Post subject:
Re: Home Movie / DVD most popular format/codec? |
|
|
On 15 Jul 2005 19:11:30 -0700, "chocawok" <deanjamesware2@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I'm trying to develop a new piece of software that adds filters and
cleans
up digital video.
|
An ambitious project even for someone qualifed in multimedia or
computer science. The video in most cameras is usually compressed in
some way. It might be a proprietary format, although I would think it
would follow some sort of standard format.
| Quote: | Currently the algorithm works on stills and does a good job of
improving the
contrast and color balance of stills.
|
colour stills are stored very differently from video
| Quote: | I want to make it work on digital video. In particular "home" digital
video
(since I figure the pros don't want a simple $20 tool).
|
makes sense
| Quote: | My question is what is the format I need to be looking at?
|
Typically avi files (which can hold almost any format), mpeg2, mpeg4,
divx or xvid.
| Quote: | If I was doing an audio filter, I would know that I would have to
support
MP3 at least, and probably also WMA and maybe WAV (but I could go for
just
MP3 and know I've still got big market).
|
You would also need to handle AC3 audio format which seems to be
popular in video.
The problem with editing video is that it's frame compressed, so you
have to get the I, P and B frames (only one of which is a complete
picture), form a still image, clean it up, then recompress it into
mpeg2 or whatever format.
VideoReDo from http://www.videoredo.com/
is an example of a commercial package which can do fast editing and
some cleanup.
Some other opensource programs are VirtualDub andVirtualDubMod, also
VideoLan (aka VLC). Source code is available for these.
Sig:
I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them.
-- Isaac Asimov |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in