A Question About Audio/video Encoding Programs

[Aninhumer]

I wasn't aware that FLAC would likely take up more space than the dvd's standard audio, I've actually never ripped any of my movies before..also please don't insult me. I'm FULLY AWARE that "FLAC does not magically make it higher quality"

Sorry that was a bit harsh.
The point being, the audio on the DVDs is already compressed with a lossy codec (most likely), so by converting to FLAC which is lossless, you're more likely to increase the bitrate than reduce it.

 

[ImmaculateChimp]

to Aninhumer: thanks, I get it now originally my train of logic was "re-encoding the lossy audio in a dvd movie with a lossy audio file format might only degrade the audio quality further, so if I use a loss-less audio format like, say FLAC for instance, at least it shouldn't get any worse" I didn't know that the audio pass-through option in HandBrake makes an exact copy, and that FLAC might actually end up making the audio size even bigger.(I didn't know in this instance FLAC would be less-efficient than the dvd's standard audio)
to everyone here who uses HandBrake: when you enable anamorphic encoding do you use "Strict" or "Loose"?(if you could also tell me why you use one over the other I'd appreciate it)

 

[Prometheus]

I just go with whatever looks correct in the preview images.

 

[Aninhumer]

to everyone here who uses HandBrake: when you enable anamorphic encoding do you use "Strict" or "Loose"?(if you could also tell me why you use one over the other I'd appreciate it)

I haven't used handbrake specifically, but I know a little about video encoding anyway.

Just checking out the wiki article, there doesn't seem to be much practical difference between the two.
Strict encodes the video at the same pixel ratio of the source.
Loose rounds it up/down to a multiple of 16. (note: this doesn't affect the aspect of the video on playback, because it will be automatically stretched anyway)
This rounding makes it more efficient to encode, so may improve quality at lower bitrates.

I think for archiving your best bet is strict as it avoids distorting the video at all.
I'd avoid targeting a bitrate though, and use fixed quality (generally a good idea for archive).

Loose might be better if you intend to reencode a smaller, lower quality version, although you might want to reduce the resolution then anyway.

 

[second exodous]

When it's something that is for archival purposes I just hit high profile, put it in a .mkv wrapper, and make sure I get the commentary put it(an extra video track). I upload that to a server that isn't in my house in case a meteorite hits it, put my DVDs in storage(often not connected to my house) and watch the files through a computer or hook up my PC to a HDTV. I'm really paranoid about loosing my video, but that is me.

High profile does Decomb, and I can't describe what it does but it makes interlaced video(99.99% of DVDs) look good on progressive monitors/TVs(every new LCD and Plasma display/TV). I think only High Profile does it but you can turn it on by clicking the 'Picture Settings' button at the top and then clicking the filters tab and turn it on.

I also recommend the MKVToolkit. What this does is allows you to see everything in the .mkv file like the video, audio, and subtitles and lets you rename them. Handbrake just titles everything 'unknown' but I buy Brazilian DVDs so I get Portuguese and English tracks so I use this tool to name the tracks. You can also specify which audio track is used by default and turn off or on the subtitles by default. Really handy tool. It is for *nix OSes but I know they have one for Windows also. Like I said I archive all my DVDs so this is really handy.

 

[Kramy]

I swear I used to be able to tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and a 384 mp3 but not anymore.

Your soundcard is probably better now.

I'm serious. Try playing them both on an old soundcard - it makes a world of difference. With any modern card, it won't.

Most people don't notice this, because they don't keep their old computers around, and use them regularly.

I swear I used to be able to tell the difference between a 128 mp3 and a 384 mp3 but not anymore.

That's because mp3 encoders have gotten better.

That too.

I wasn't aware that FLAC would likely take up more space than the dvd's standard audio, I've actually never ripped any of my movies before..also please don't insult me. I'm FULLY AWARE that "FLAC does not magically make it higher quality", I never said or implied anything of the sort, so don't treat me like an ignorant child who can't tell the difference between an 128kbit/s and an 160kbit/s mp3 because I CAN tell the difference..(so you're aware, I was really tired when I wrote "crappy low-quality audio" my intent was to convey my desire to make a library of movies that took up less space, but didn't have a degraded level of audio quality, I was just too tired to think of how to say it appropriately).

Hehe... you should try 3GPP AAC+ v2. 48kbit AAC sounds about like 96kbit mp3 - but you save a whole boatload of bits. If you care about space more than quality, it's a fine compromise.

the audio pass-through option in HandBrake makes an exact copy,

Most Windows/linux encoders call this "direct stream copy", because you're copying the stream's bytes rather than re-encoding the data.