addiesin
Well-known member
- Messages
- 5,896
- Reaction score
- 1,508
- Trophy Points
- 163
This thread is for anyone to post questions and hopefully for knowledgeable users to post more accurate answers than I can. This conversation started in a project thread but continuing there would be off topic so this seemed like a good place for it.
My understanding of the matter is limited, so I'm no guru on best practices, I've just picked up information and am trying to share what I understand.
I think this is all correct.
When you rip your disc you have a true 1:1 copy of the disc file, which was compressed to fit in the disc. If you were to convert to a lossless codec, it won't enhance anything to look better than the already compressed file but will guarantee there is no further loss in quality that comes from encoding. The benefit is avoiding generational loss from working on a compressed file, exporting a compressed "master" file with an additional layer of compression, and perhaps even converting/re-encoding that into yet another smaller file for delivery.
The file size difference comes in because the way video information is stored in compressed files takes less space but more work from software to accurately read it. Converting to lossless takes the software's guesswork away, which is why it's easier/less intensive/less error prone on editing programs, but the trade-off is huge file size.
Try saving an MP3 as a wav file, it's very similar. The new wav isn't higher quality than the mp3 you started with and is much larger, but it's also compatible with software without needing an extra codec to interpret the mp3. Another example could be a small drawing on a standard size piece of paper. You could compress that by cutting the excess paper away from around the drawing, this is not dissimilar from an official Blu-ray (at least in this metaphor). If you tape that cutout to the center of a new standard size piece of paper it doesn't add to the drawing, and yes a lot of the space send empty and wasted, but things like a printer tray, fax machine, or photocopier will only accept paper with those dimensions and shape.
I think this is more relevant if you're concerned about losing quality, or especially with standard definition edits. Personally in the age of low bitrate HD streaming, I feel that a lossless workflow with HD material doesn't benefit me and my potential audience won't notice because no matter what it'll still be better looking than a theatrical film on, for example, Netflix.
Let me know if that makes sense, and to anyone else who understands better than I, please correct me.
My understanding of the matter is limited, so I'm no guru on best practices, I've just picked up information and am trying to share what I understand.
Last Impressions said:addiesin said:Last Impressions said:To add my 2 pennies worth. I use Clone BD which will allow you to rip a completely lossless 1:1 MP4 just for the video
I know it's confusing, but if it's an mp4, even if it is 1:1 identical quality to the Blu-ray, it's not technically lossless.
I imagine that unless we have the original master tapes or negative everything is lossy because the delivery of a file or bluray will always need to be compressed. If an unpacked MP4 file contains an MT2S file at 25GB then surely you can only extract a 25GB file.
I think this is all correct.
Are you saying that the lagarith codec upgrades and stores/captures more pixel information and even fills in (duplicates) pixel information to enhance the picture quality and this is the reason for the larger file size. Interesting.
I am aware we are hijacking this thread with technical stuff...sorry Declan1974
When you rip your disc you have a true 1:1 copy of the disc file, which was compressed to fit in the disc. If you were to convert to a lossless codec, it won't enhance anything to look better than the already compressed file but will guarantee there is no further loss in quality that comes from encoding. The benefit is avoiding generational loss from working on a compressed file, exporting a compressed "master" file with an additional layer of compression, and perhaps even converting/re-encoding that into yet another smaller file for delivery.
The file size difference comes in because the way video information is stored in compressed files takes less space but more work from software to accurately read it. Converting to lossless takes the software's guesswork away, which is why it's easier/less intensive/less error prone on editing programs, but the trade-off is huge file size.
Try saving an MP3 as a wav file, it's very similar. The new wav isn't higher quality than the mp3 you started with and is much larger, but it's also compatible with software without needing an extra codec to interpret the mp3. Another example could be a small drawing on a standard size piece of paper. You could compress that by cutting the excess paper away from around the drawing, this is not dissimilar from an official Blu-ray (at least in this metaphor). If you tape that cutout to the center of a new standard size piece of paper it doesn't add to the drawing, and yes a lot of the space send empty and wasted, but things like a printer tray, fax machine, or photocopier will only accept paper with those dimensions and shape.
I think this is more relevant if you're concerned about losing quality, or especially with standard definition edits. Personally in the age of low bitrate HD streaming, I feel that a lossless workflow with HD material doesn't benefit me and my potential audience won't notice because no matter what it'll still be better looking than a theatrical film on, for example, Netflix.
Let me know if that makes sense, and to anyone else who understands better than I, please correct me.