Wow! Sounds like there's a technicolor sequel - "1 Angry Ripper"
Hoping not to irritate: If you were to look at the vob files produced from the rip, what is their quality, ie could you narrow down the fall in quality to the ripping process from dvd, or transcoding process into xvid/whatever? What then happens if you run a command line transcode on a ripped file with fairly simple parameters, then maybe with the parameters generated by dvd::rip? If the first output is good but not the second, then you could accuse dvd::rip of botching things up somehow. If not, then you have a standalone transcode command and params to throw back to the mailing list... Seems to me that if you can split up what dvd::rip is trying to do into bits you can verify, an answer might suggest itself, or at least the point at which the output is degraded be better pinpointed? Sorry I ain't no guru, but am at any rate trying to be constructive... On 1/9/06 15:46, "Luke Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > >> Absolutely right, it's immaterial. If it were color and had lots of action, >> it *might* come out as big >as 1.8 Gb. If a dvd is encoded at a wasteful >> and meaningless average bitrate of 5000 Mbits/s by >adding white noise, you >> are going to have to add white noise to your encode to get the bitate >> up to that level. > > Do you have any intention of helping people who have a problem on this list > or are you just trying to throw around sarcasm? > >>> If it were color and had lots of action, it *might* come out as big as 1.8 >>> Gb > No. _As I've already said_, I have actually tried ripping some high action > colour dvds since I've been having a problem, and yes, they were undersized. > > >>> The fact that you formerly managed to make some bogus encodes that were >>> huge is irrelevant. > Again, no. I said nothing of the sort. I've been having a problem > with the output files being undersized. I have never ripped a dvd that has > been oversized. The first few dvds I ripped came out perfectly sized, at > the exact size expected at the bitrate chosen, as predicted by dvd::rip. > This was the *normal* behaviour. > >>> If a dvd is encoded at a wasteful >>> and meaningless average bitrate of 5000 Mbits/s by adding white noise, >>> you are going to have to add white noise to your encode to get the bitate >>> up to that level. > > People here seem to think that my dvds are being ripped at perfect > quality and that to expect them to be any bigger would necessitate the > addition of bits of data that were not present in the original film (white > noise?). _This is not the case_. > > The output files are at a significantly lower quality that the original DVD. > Of course they are. The size has been shrunk by almost a 5th. However, > of the past 2 weeks, clearly what has happened is when I've tried to rip > something to be of a quality 1830kbits/sec has for some reason actually > outputted at a much lower bitrate quality than I'd like, and consequently a > smaller output size. > > Recently, the quality of the output is lower than it should be for the given > bit rate, and the files are smaller than they should be. > > > What I would like to know is why all the first few films I ripped > came out at the size predicted for the bitrate exactly, and why *all* the > films I've ripped since then have been considerably smaller. > > Does no-one seem to see the pattern I have described? NORMAL > behaviour: first few films I rip, come out perfectly (NOT oversized), as > predicted, e.g. as with calculation in post I submitted yesterday. ALTERED > behaviour: all the films after that come out undersized, and not of the > quality they should be for the bitrate chosen. > > I really don't think this is part of the variability of output > sizes some people here expect, as there is a definite pattern trend here > which I've described which is clearly not due to random variablity. 930Mb > as opposed to 1300Mb is a significant shortfall, and is a good example of > the problem I've had. I will post the results of re-encoding the dvds that > previously came out fine in a few days. > > Any help with what the problem would be appreciated. Have I accidentally > changed some setting, etc? Is there any debug output I could post to see > why this is happening? > Thanks > > _________________________________________________________________ > Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! > http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters > mobile 00447766543759 home 00441517333870 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ichat [EMAIL PROTECTED] msn [EMAIL PROTECTED] home f3 81 Hartington Rd Toxteth Liverpool Merseyside L8 0SE United Kingdom Go look and listen to some music I wrote at http://www.myspace.com/tempolibre
