BD Ripper (3D Plus) BluRay to mobile average Bits Per Second

[bernard500]

Hey guys.
Im sure this has been asked a thousand times, but if someone can make some logic out of it all for me quickly that would be awesome.

Im new to BluRay to mobile. Been doing DVD to mobile forever.
Like many, I want to get the best quality file with the right file size as well.
In my opinion, alot of people encode at crazy high BPS and it becomes alot of wasted file size and unnessacary. The naked eye can only see so much detail.

For me, When it comes to dvd to mobile AVI for instance, 704 x 396 (a close to MAX compatibile DVD quality rez) I am satisified with FIXED BITS PER SECOND or whatever it is at 1100.

Its hard for me to tell the difference from the dvd to the compressed file with that setting. I'm pleased.

When I encode a Blu Ray to mobile MP4 or MKV for instances, the DVDFAB program defaullt BPS is like 7494 at 1920 x 1080p rez. Wow!

My questions are...

1. How low can i make that BPS before it comes really noticeable in this scenerio?
2. What fixed BPS is commonly used out there for a 1920 x 1080p rez?
3. What about a commonly used fixed BPS for 1024 x 768?

Thanks guys.

[IPopov50]

When I encode a Blu Ray to mobile MP4 or MKV for instances, the DVDFAB program defaullt BPS is like 7494 at 1920 x 1080p rez. Wow!

My questions are...

1. How low can i make that BPS before it comes really noticeable in this scenerio?
2. What fixed BPS is commonly used out there for a 1920 x 1080p rez?
3. What about a commonly used fixed BPS for 1024 x 768?

Thanks guys.

bernard500:
For starters, I have to tell you that you not only have apples and oranges together, but also bananas and peaches - you have a very nice fruit basket.
However, here's some info for you, I hope you will make sense of it, and if not - Google and Wiki are your best friends.

Lets start with resolution. Display resolution you are referring to is an essentially dimensions of a display in pixels, where first number is a width in number of pixels, and second number - height. If you do your math, you will quickly realize that that's a lot of pixels to light up.
In low resolution displays less information required to show all pixels, in oppose to higher resolution displays with larger number of pixels. Display resolution is not necessarily directly correlated with size of display. For an example, old CRT 32" TV with resolution 720x480 and iPhone 4 with HD display 1024x720.
Besides, every one have different eyes, perceptions and expectations.

Bitrate. In order to deliver all those pixels, fill them with information, you would have to deliver a lot of information to your TV. Amount of information is measured in bits, and stream of information in bits per second (bps). Higher transfer rate = more information delivered = more pixels displayed.

Of course, on smaller, mobile displays pixels so close to each other, loss of some of them can't be even detected with a naked eye. That's why mobile devices required a very low bitrate to produce "perfect" picture, while same picture with same bitrate on 50" TV will looks crappy, because not enough info were delivered to display adequate pixel density.

So, here's answer on your first question: "How low can i make that BPS before it comes really noticeable in this scenario?"
A. It depends on size of your display, bitrate limitations of your device, means of data delivery, your eyes and ability tolerate crappy picture. A lot of members here settle around 2500 kbps on 32 - 42" display. I personally have different standards: for portable devices (iPhones/iPods in our family) - 1190 kbps, DVD content - 5000 kbps, HD content (1920x1080) - 8000 kbps minimum.

To answer on your question 2 and 3, I have to say first that it's not just a bps issue, but also file size limitations (storage issues), as I said above, size of display, data transfer means, and individual's eyes.
If you have "big ass" projector, you want capture every single bit, and you can downplay bitrate if you have mid-size TV.

In average, what I see most often for HD content is:
for 1024x720 - around 5000 kbps with file size around 5 Gig
for 1920x1080 - around 8000 kbps with file size around 8 Gig

[bernard500]

That was a great explanation.
Thanks for taking the time.

I guess im a little blind then or just easy to please. I have a 67 inch Samsung TV that I watch movies on through the PC/VGA port. (computer hooked up to it) and Tv Shows/Movies look just fine at 1100. (ripped from DVD content) I can't tell the difference from a regular DVD (with it not being upscaled or filtered in anyway of course)

You do your mobile devices at my regular rate. hehehe Wow im off.
You said you do 5000bps for big screen DVD AVI files? Damn that regular movie length file has to be 3 to 4 gig. You may as just watch it from the DVD (File size is still half than a DVD9 at least)

When it comes to Bluray, I guess Im just going to have to play with it. If I do what you say, its still smaller than the actual movie size. 25 Bluray disc down to 8 gig same quality is not bad.

Im just used to DVD great quality AVI files at around 800meg to 1 gig on my media server for a regular hour n half movie.

Its going to be hard to get used to Blu ray being 8 times the size.


Thanks again!

[gamecaptor]

So I would like to chime in here. For me, I rip all of my DVDs at 2000 kbps. The result gives me a good quality for the size. Minus the black areas, the quality is nearly DVD (to my eye).

I'm still playing around with Blu-Ray, but I'm settling on about 4000 to 5000 kbps (still doing some testing). The things with Blu-ray rips, the original source is already so good, that unless you down sample it a lot, the rips all look damn near the same.

For me, it’s all about finding a balance between a quality that I can find acceptable and not take up a ton of hard drive space.

I have a Samsung 40� LED and a Samsung 62� DLP that I do my viewing/testing on (going to upgrade the DLP to an LED next year).

Bottom line, do a few different rips, invite over some friends and watch them. It helps to have a few different eyes looking at them.

[IPopov50]

Im just used to DVD great quality AVI files at around 800meg to 1 gig on my media server for a regular hour n half movie.

Its going to be hard to get used to Blu ray being 8 times the size.


Thanks again!

I think I know who can share a lot of wisdom with you - GregiBoy. You guys are soulmates in regard s of the video concept. I will ask him to throw a couple of cents in a bank.

[GregiBoy]

Yeah, I will.

If you are happy with the viewing quality of your DVD's, why not just maintain the same settings for your Blu-Ray conversions?

In fact, why bother with Blu-Ray at all???

[IPopov50]

Yeah, I will.

If you are happy with the viewing quality of your DVD's, why not just maintain the same settings for your Blu-Ray conversions?

In fact, why bother with Blu-Ray at all???

To be honest, I did not expect crusade against Blu-ray!!!!
BLU-RAY ROCKS!!!!!!!

[GregiBoy]

In fact, here is an excerpt of a discussion that I had a couple of weeks ago with IPopov

Firstly, I will again agree that BR quality is the BEST and there is absolutely no disagreement there at all.

BUT.....

I have done testing on DVD to MKV and BR to MKV both at passthrough rates and for DVD at ~1500 bitrate.

As a general statement the 1500 DVD MKV averages out at 1.5Gb whilst the passthrough BR MKV averages out around 22Gb and requires around 15x the storage space.

Again, I had a group of people around to appraise the difference in quality and no one rated the BR more than 10% better,

Therefore the equation is simple.

1. Am I happy with DVD MKV quality on the displays that I am using = YES
2. Am I prepared to pay for 15x more storage for a 10% increase in quality = NO

Another factor also:-

I encode a LOT of TV shows from the series disks. A SD AVI is around 350Mb, a HD MKV is around 1.4Gb.

Again the equation
Am I happy with the quality of the SD file = YES
Am I prepared to use 5x the storage for the 10% increase in quality = NO

There are a lot of other factors also that come into play.

My current media library would require around 50 Terabytes of storage if stored at BR MKV passthrough.

Just not feasible and that is without the time taken to redo it and the cost of purchasing the BR titles.

So basically, it comes down to the fact that I (and others that I have tested with) are not prepared to pay the cost for a max of 10% increase in quality.

[GregiBoy]

BLU-RAY ROCKS!!!!!!![/B]

I disagree. BLU-RAY SUCKS !!!

It is a marketing ploy by the major manufacturers to sell new more expensive hardware rather than just the replacement DVD player market which is now just about saturated and also a ploy by the studios to resell more titles by re-releasing all their old stuff on Blu-Ray.

They've done a great job on convincing you to part with your hard-earned dollars to achieve an increase in quality that a lot of people can not even discern.

I will venture into Blu-ray only when I am forced to or when the hardware, title and hard disk storage cost ratio is similar to what it is now for DVD.

As happened with VHS/DVD, the mass market did not really kick along until costs were comparable.

[gamecaptor]

Let's bring back Betamax! Who's with me!
{chirp-chirp}
ok, maybe not....

But I hear you GregiBoy, it all boils down to size vs. substance. I do have a lot of storage around, but NOT that much to justify the those kind of rips.

[GregiBoy]

Your VHS Vs Betamax example is a classic regarding a technically superior output versus price & marketing war.