MakeMKV + Handbrake = 10GB files...need smaller

[Cobra611]

Yes, my pic is somewhat old, but very slow. So, running Handbrake AND MakeMKV at the same time makes it even slower. I am also aware of the quality difference between the ATV3 and Normal settings. And as much as I am a stickler for quality, the Normal setting presents very good image quality...closely resembling an Network HD broadcast. Mostly, it was about convenience and having as many movies completed before Thanksgiving I started this project back in the last week or two of June and have been running non stop and just recently finished. Now, that I have 99.8% of my collection completed, I will definitely go back and rerun a few movies at a time using ATV3. When I started this project, I went out and purchased a 3TB external HD and I have just under 1TB left. Almost time for another trip to Best Buy!

But, I am waiting for the new models to come out and then I will take a dive into the iMac pool!!! I wasn't under any time constraints to complete this. In fact, I never realized I could do all this. I'm not computer savvy, but I can find my way around. So, I thought this would be a fun project...and it is! RedBox is my stop!

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

I have a 2009 2.66 duo core and it can take that long. And I don't consider a 3 year old machine to be ancient. I think the improvement seen with the 2010+ models is due to having multicore CPU.

This has nothing to do with multicore CPUs. The changes in the memory controllers, the CPU caches, registers and instruction set architecture (ISA) improved the performance more than anything else. The newer CPUs have also more transistors to solve the same problem, which makes them "automatically" faster. And do not forget turbo boost 2.0, which does support more than one core (turbo boost 1.0 supported only one processor core).

HB is very good at utilizing multicore CPU, which of course will really speed up the processing.

You mean probably x264, not HB. ;-)

So I am just going to have to grin and bear it for a couple years as I am not going to go spend $3K on a new MBP just so I can drop movie encode time (and have mirroring capability). In all other respects, the 2009 MBP is just fine.

You do not need a 3.000 US$ MBP-a Mac mini with a Sandy Bridge i7 Quad-Core processor is enough (requires additional cooling).

 

[mpossjr]

Raid

I am currently ripping my Blu-Rays also. I am ripping my kids movies and the "ok" ones at 720p and my favorites at 1080p.
I'm not worried about file size as much because I would rather have the quality. 9 GB down from 25 GB is amazing.
I am considering this RAID http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=103&cp_id=10322&cs_id=1030605&p_id=8673&seq=1&format=2
when I add another 2 TB HDD.

 

[mic j]

I am currently ripping my Blu-Rays also. I am ripping my kids movies and the "ok" ones at 720p and my favorites at 1080p.
I'm not worried about file size as much because I would rather have the quality. 9 GB down from 25 GB is amazing.
I am considering this RAID http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=103&cp_id=10322&cs_id=1030605&p_id=8673&seq=1&format=2
when I add another 2 TB HDD.

Did you notice the limit was 1.5TB disc?

 

[mpossjr]

Did you notice the limit was 1.5TB disc?

Thank you for pointing that out. I misread the specs. I will be on the lookout for a good deal on a RAID enclosure. Monoprice had a USB 3.0 RAID that was a good deal but it looks like they don't carry that one anymore.
At the rate I am going I may not even need an upgraded HDD for at least a year. I am currently using a 2 TB USB 3.0 external drive. By the time I fill this one it might be cheaper to just buy a larger hard drive instead.

 

[utazdevl]

OK, can someone please explain the file size variance issue again, because it is making very little sense to me again. Last night, I encoded Moneyball (133 mins) and the file size came out at just over 12GB, whereas last week, I did Watchmen (171 mins) and the file size is around 8GB.

Why would a film significantly shortly and with less fast motion visuals be 1/3rd larger?

 

[BJMRamage]

OK, can someone please explain the file size variance issue again, because it is making very little sense to me again. Last night, I encoded Moneyball (133 mins) and the file size came out at just over 12GB, whereas last week, I did Watchmen (171 mins) and the file size is around 8GB.

Why would a film significantly shortly and with less fast motion visuals be 1/3rd larger?

no real idea here but isn't The Watchmen darker? and sometimes darker portions use less data in there? whereas (only saw parts of money ball) but things like bleachers are many seats.

similar to photos..a photo of a sky can be smaller file size than that of a suit or rock with lots of texture.

 

[dynaflash]

OK, can someone please explain the file size variance issue again, because it is making very little sense to me again. Last night, I encoded Moneyball (133 mins) and the file size came out at just over 12GB, whereas last week, I did Watchmen (171 mins) and the file size is around 8GB.

Why would a film significantly shortly and with less fast motion visuals be 1/3rd larger?

Simple, Constant Quality encoding. The encoder will use whatever bitrate is needed .. frame by frame to obtain a specified quality (expressed in an RF value). So quality is maintained, bitrate be damned. Grain, complex action, etc. can balloon file sizes. Where as a dark still scene of just two people talking will use little bitrate typically.

For reference: https://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki/ConstantQuality

 

[charlien]

I'm happy with the Universal setting and the 1gig file size. I also can't tell the difference between a $7 bottle of wine and a $50 bottle. I consider myself lucky.

 

[nbppp2]

Use iDentify2 not MetaX or MetaZ

I will have to look out for Meta X or MetaZ or whatever it is.

I have been converting both Dvd's & Blu-Ray's for some time now. I used to use MetaX, but no longer. Not only is iDentify much faster/better, MetaX is no longer supported. iDentify has both a free version & a paid version. I used the free version for a month & then went with the paid version because of how well it worked. Really love the batch features & it runs circles around MetaZ in speed.

 

[utazdevl]

Simple, Constant Quality encoding. The encoder will use whatever bitrate is needed .. frame by frame to obtain a specified quality (expressed in an RF value). So quality is maintained, bitrate be damned. Grain, complex action, etc. can balloon file sizes. Where as a dark still scene of just two people talking will use little bitrate typically.

For reference: https://trac.handbrake.fr/wiki/ConstantQuality

OK, so not trying to sound too stupid here, but if quality is my top priority, I should just leave the encoding process as is, and file size vs. film length be damned, right? I am getting a top quality encode and should basically ignore the file size as a reflection of encode quality?

Thanks.

 

[mic j]

OK, so not trying to sound too stupid here, but if quality is my top priority, I should just leave the encoding process as is, and file size vs. film length be damned, right? I am getting a top quality encode and should basically ignore the file size as a reflection of encode quality?

Thanks.

Yup

You can adjust the quality slider to more or less quality, but lowering the slider value, e.g. 18 vs 20 will dramatically inflate your file size for a minimal quality improvement. In fact you may not be even able to see it. You can always try a chapter or 2 at both setting and directly compare.