Direct DVD MPEG-2 extraction into .mp4 container [With Poll]

Archive of historical feature requests.
Please use the GitHub link above to report issues.
Forum rules
*******************************
Please be aware we are now using GitHub for issue tracking and feature requests.
- This section of the forum is now closed to new topics.

*******************************
Locked

Would you like to see this feature?

Yes
1
50%
No
1
50%
 
Total votes: 2

ItsInTheCave
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:01 am

Direct DVD MPEG-2 extraction into .mp4 container [With Poll]

Post by ItsInTheCave » Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:36 am

[UPDATE] Seeing as there are some people who have been totally against this idea and others that would love to see it I have added a poll so we can get a better idea of how wanted it actually is.



DVDs use the MPEG-2 codec so would it not be possible to add a feature to MediaFork so the movie can simply be extracted from the DVD and placed (not re-encoded) into an .mp4 container using the MPEG-2 format it is originally in?

The ability to do this would have numerous benefits. Firstly, it is very difficult to create a video that looks like the original when one is re-encoding it; you could give it a huge bitrate but the file size usually ends up bigger than the original. Doing it this way would make a smaller file for the same lossless quality.

Secondly, as there is no re-encoding going on the process should be made much faster than if one were to re-encode it (especially on older computers).

To sum it up I guess I'm requesting the ability to use MPEG-2, inside the .mp4 container for lossless video in a smaller file than MPEG-4/H.264 and created much faster.

I hope this is implemented soon as it is definetely a feature that I would use for ALL of my DVD imports.
Last edited by ItsInTheCave on Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

baggss
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:21 am

Post by baggss » Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:54 am

Interesting idea, but I don't see it anytime soon.

leon
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:58 pm

Post by leon » Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:25 am

Most of my "main title only" extracts are 3-5 gigabytes in size. Using Handbrake (and now MediaFork) with a very high bitrate or 70+ constant quality I end up with an .mp4 that's usually between 1 and 2 GB.

No, there's no way it could be lossless, but I sure can't tell the difference from the original, even blown up to huge size and up-converted to 1080p.

I only mention this because I'm trying to figure out how you've come to some conclusion that current methods that yield high quality results will lead to files that are larger than the source materials? Maybe that can happen, for example if you put constant quality at 100... But In my experience I'm usually getting a file that's half the size or less of the original main title's native MPEG-2's + AC3 and no distinguishable loss of quality.

I'm thinking that the equivalent quality at roughly half the file-size has less to do about information loss and more to do with MPEG-4 and H.264 just being that much better at representing an image and also that much better at compressing it without distinguishable impact on quality.

So in effect the ROI for the extra time to convert from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 or H.264 is mainly a smaller file-size and the invest is time, not loss of quality.

Maybe your question is driven by caring more about saving the time to convert and less about the file-size? Is that it?

I think most people care about both, but especially the disk-space -- particularly if they have a lot of DVD's. In my case, even though I have a huge drive I still have to be conscious of the space because I'm keeping two versions of each output -- one optimized for iPod and one that is intended to replace the physical DVD without any distinguishable loss in quality. And on top of that I still have all the original source DVD's on the drive, because until Apple TV comes out, I'm just not sure I won't have to re-rip... I won't be deleting the original on-disk DVD images until I'm sure I've got the formats right.

Anyway, everybody has different needs. If enough people come forward not caring about the disk-space conservation aspects of the conversion from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 or H.264 ... then maybe your idea will fly, after all. <smile>

ItsInTheCave
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:01 am

Post by ItsInTheCave » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:18 am

leon wrote:Most of my "main title only" extracts are 3-5 gigabytes in size. Using Handbrake (and now MediaFork) with a very high bitrate or 70+ constant quality I end up with an .mp4 that's usually between 1 and 2 GB.

No, there's no way it could be lossless, but I sure can't tell the difference from the original, even blown up to huge size and up-converted to 1080p.

I only mention this because I'm trying to figure out how you've come to some conclusion that current methods that yield high quality results will lead to files that are larger than the source materials? Maybe that can happen, for example if you put constant quality at 100... But In my experience I'm usually getting a file that's half the size or less of the original main title's native MPEG-2's + AC3 and no distinguishable loss of quality.
With the smaller file size I was going by constant quality at 100% which is theoretically lossless compared to the original MPEG-2 file. They both have the same quality but the original is smaller. (Believe me, I've experimented with this on numerous occasions).

And yes, what you say is true that you can change the bitrate and still get a reasonably good quality result but this gets very complicated as different movies need different settings; there is no one-size-fits-all setting for DVD compression.

I guess this method is for those who are concerned with the absolute best quality they can get (like me). Sort of like audiophiles but for video instead. Videophile?

baggss
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:21 am

Post by baggss » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:35 am

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but I don't get the impression that MF is intended for high end, high quality video. I mean, if you want that much quality, just watch the freakin DVD.....

clee
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:57 am

...

Post by clee » Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:58 am

I can't believe that you've suggested this.

Why not just use Disk Utility to create an ISO of the DVD itself? I mean, that's 100% lossless, and you can preserve the multiple audio tracks and subtitles perfectly! And you don't even need MediaFork for it. Disk Utility comes with OS X.

Here's the thing. This isn't for creating perfect DVD backups. There are other tools to do that, like MacTheRipper. This is for creating good-enough backups at much smaller file sizes. It would take over seven terabytes for me to store the VOB files for every single DVD I have, but with MediaFork I can back up my entire collection without spending $10k on storage.

And from a technical standpoint, sure, MPEG2 is a valid video codec for storage inside of MP4 files. That doesn't mean it's a good idea - if you're going to use a modern container, you might as well use a modern codec; otherwise what's the point of using the modern container?

As far as the "lossless" argument - MPEG2 is lossy. MPEG4 is lossy. The difference is, MPEG2 video takes up an order of magnitude more space. MPEG4 uses up significantly less space, for similar quality levels, but requires more CPU power to encode and decode. This is a tradeoff that I'm more than willing to make - my CPU speed has exploded far faster than my storage capacity has, and I suspect most others are in the same boat.

ItsInTheCave
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:01 am

Re: ...

Post by ItsInTheCave » Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:45 am

Jeez, I didn't think that everyone would take this the wrong way... Allow me to try to explain.
clee wrote:Why not just use Disk Utility to create an ISO of the DVD itself? I mean, that's 100% lossless, and you can preserve the multiple audio tracks and subtitles perfectly! And you don't even need MediaFork for it. Disk Utility comes with OS X.
MediaFork makes the videos into a single file that can be played back through standard video players (both software and hardware). When I copy the movie I don't want the menus, documentaries, trailers and legal notices. I just want to watch the movie at the best quality I can. And cutting out all these things does actually reduce the file size making it possible to store more movies. Sure you could use MacTheRipper to extract just the movie but I thought it would be better storing the movie in just one file that can be read through a lot more media players than selecting a ripped VIDEO_TS folder.
clee wrote:Here's the thing. This isn't for creating perfect DVD backups. There are other tools to do that, like MacTheRipper. This is for creating good-enough backups at much smaller file sizes. It would take over seven terabytes for me to store the VOB files for every single DVD I have, but with MediaFork I can back up my entire collection without spending $10k on storage.
Everyone wants different options and choices when it comes to recording their media. The method I described might not be for everyone (and obviously not you) but it would definitely work well for what I want and I'm pretty sure there will be others out there who would use it.
And from a technical standpoint, sure, MPEG2 is a valid video codec for storage inside of MP4 files. That doesn't mean it's a good idea - if you're going to use a modern container, you might as well use a modern codec; otherwise what's the point of using the modern container?
If you can losslessly convert a film into MPEG-4 and use less space then please explain how as that is the very reason I suggested this. Re-encoding the film into a newer codec takes up more room that simply using the older one. I don't think it matters when the codec was created, just that it does what we want.

Just to add too, the 'modern' container can actually do a lot more than the older container; hence why I suggested it. A .mp4 container can hold a lot more diverse range of information than say a .mpg. And .mp4 can hold MPEG-2s.
As far as the "lossless" argument - MPEG2 is lossy. MPEG4 is lossy. The difference is, MPEG2 video takes up an order of magnitude more space. MPEG4 uses up significantly less space, for similar quality levels, but requires more CPU power to encode and decode. This is a tradeoff that I'm more than willing to make - my CPU speed has exploded far faster than my storage capacity has, and I suspect most others are in the same boat.
Yes MPEG-2 is lossy but perhaps you misunderstood me. This method preserves the quality of the DVD. The DVD itself is lossy when compared to the original film that the people who produced it have, but hey, its the best that we can readily obtain. And about memory space, this request obviously isn't for you, but I would rather buy a $40 external harddrive if it came down to it than watch my movies at a lower quality.

I'm sorry that some people have taken this the wrong way but not everything is for everyone. Some people will prefer to take a loss at visual quality to store more movies while others would like to take a loss at the amount of movies they can store while having the best quality of what they have. I fall into the latter and, from the comments I have read, some others here fall into the former.

Sir.Charles
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:37 pm

Post by Sir.Charles » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:52 am

I personally agree with ItsInTheCave. I would like to watch my movies without having to use a specialized video player. Having a single file that can be almost universally played is incredibly convienent.

Granted, I also have no work with video encoding, and minimal other coding experience, so I don't know how difficult it would be, but what ItsInTheCave is describing is the one feature I would really, really like but that MediaFork does not have. Even though I've already encoded a large number of DVDs, I would be more than happy to reencode them all, even if it took 8+ hours per DVD on my MacBookPro. Processing time is of no concern to me, and storage space is only of limited concern. Convience and quality however, are very high on my list.

I'm not helping to code the project though, so I can only hope that it isn't just the two of us that want a feature like this. Thanks for and considering our input though.

thanar
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:16 am

Post by thanar » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:10 pm

Excuse me... what is this? If I am reading correctly, you are talking about an mp4 file with a mpeg2 video track and an ac3 audio track?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the feeling that this SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK! There is no way to put mpeg2 video and ac3 audio in an mp4 file. That simple.

Furthermore, IF something like this could be muxed up, it would play ONLY ON A CUSTOM PLAYER, software or hardware!

SORRY for yelling, I could be wrong. Correct me please if I am.

zen649
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:45 pm

Post by zen649 » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:03 am

I agree with the members who are posting their request for the best possible video quality with the file size being a secondary priority. I am surprised at how much this is bothering some people. The truth is you CAN see a difference in quality when you encode at 1500 kpbs with h.264. I usually use as high as 4000 kpbs and even with this setting you can see noticeable compression artifacts on a 56" screen. I agree that if you wanted to have full quality dvd then just play the dvd but this option is more limiting then you might think. It is much more convenient (especially in Front Row) to have the video in the mp4 format. With this method all your video files are accessible in a very easy to use (my wife loves it!) manner. I could use many of the various work a rounds to have my DVD's available to play all the time in Front Row but they do not work all the time (buggy). If some people just want to compress their movies so they look good on their iPod I think that is great but don't begrudge others who want to use the tools and formats for a different purpose then you. You are not right and neither am I. We just have different purposes. We are just putting in a request to people who know a lot more then we do on how to get the best quality rip using this tool.

Soap Box complete, please return to base.

baggss
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:21 am

Post by baggss » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:38 am

I think this thread highlights some interesting things to be honest. The initial point of HandBrake seems to have been to get reasonable quality video at a low file size, but not to give full DVD quality at any size.

Many of you here may be surprised to learn that some who have answered in this thread are actually MF developers who are working on the App and it's upgrades. Right now everyone wants an app that will do everything for them. That's all well and fine, but a bit of a reality check may be in order.

I think the dev team needs to sit down and clearly identify what MF/HB is and what it is intended/expected to do. If the goal is to provide all things to all people, so be it, but having a road map and clear sense of where this app is headed will make this process easier and will allow the end users to decide if it the right app for them.

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:49 am

baggss wrote:I think the dev team needs to sit down and clearly identify what MF/HB is and what it is intended/expected to do.
In this case, I do not know how we can be any clearer.

"MediaFork is a GPL'd multiplatform, multithreaded DVD to MPEG-4 ripper/converter."

Anyone who cannot get a transparent MPEG-2->MPEG-4 encode at less than 9 megabits would find their time better spent learning how to properly use the codecs, rather than asking us for absurd ponies.

cbud
Bright Spark User
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:24 am

Post by cbud » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:01 am

Asking for this as a feature in MediaFork might be silly, but the question was intresting. It would be valuable to see how much content we can get Apple TV to play. Perhaps by creating reference movies or wrapping a movie in a certain container we can get Apple TV to play more stuff.

baggss
Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:21 am

Post by baggss » Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:02 am

jbrjake wrote:
baggss wrote:I think the dev team needs to sit down and clearly identify what MF/HB is and what it is intended/expected to do.
In this case, I do not know how we can be any clearer.

"MediaFork is a GPL'd multiplatform, multithreaded DVD to MPEG-4 ripper/converter."
Ok, you got me on that one...... :wink:

ItsInTheCave
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:01 am

Post by ItsInTheCave » Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:39 am

thanar wrote:Excuse me... what is this? If I am reading correctly, you are talking about an mp4 file with a mpeg2 video track and an ac3 audio track?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the feeling that this SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK! There is no way to put mpeg2 video and ac3 audio in an mp4 file. That simple.

Furthermore, IF something like this could be muxed up, it would play ONLY ON A CUSTOM PLAYER, software or hardware!

SORRY for yelling, I could be wrong. Correct me please if I am.
Sorry friend but you are WRONG. MPEG-2 is included in the mp4 specification as a format that plays in mp4s and hence all players that are specification compliant (most of them).
Last edited by ItsInTheCave on Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

ItsInTheCave
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:01 am

Post by ItsInTheCave » Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:42 am

jbrjake wrote:
baggss wrote:I think the dev team needs to sit down and clearly identify what MF/HB is and what it is intended/expected to do.
In this case, I do not know how we can be any clearer.

"MediaFork is a GPL'd multiplatform, multithreaded DVD to MPEG-4 ripper/converter."
As it is a ripper/converter should not the software be able to 'rip' as well as 'covert'? At the moment the only thing it can do is the 'conversion' process that requires re-encoding. It cannot currently do the 'ripping' process which wouldn't require re-encoding.
zen649 wrote: If some people just want to compress their movies so they look good on their iPod I think that is great but don't begrudge others who want to use the tools and formats for a different purpose then you. You are not right and neither am I.
I couldn't have said it any better.

dynaflash
Veteran User
Posts: 3820
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:19 pm

Post by dynaflash » Thu Feb 22, 2007 6:58 am

Maybe its just me, but I think this has been beat to death. Now everyone is arguing semantics. I think the point has been made.

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:52 pm

ItsInTheCave wrote:Sorry friend but you are WRONG. MPEG-2 is included in the mp4 specification as a format that plays in mp4s and hence all players that are specification compliant (most of them).
Sorry, but *you* are wrong. Thanar specifically said you cannot mux mpeg-2 and AC3 into an .mp4. This is entirely accurate. You cannot put AC3 into an .mp4.

You people really haven't thought this through. At all.

What are you going to do about the subs?

What are you going to do about the audio?

Do *you* want to handle all the user complaints from people who don't understand that you have to *pay money* to decode MPEG-2 in QuickTime? Because I sure don't.
As it is a ripper/converter should not the software be able to 'rip' as well as 'covert'?
Um, wtf do you think MediaFork is doing when it's reading the disc, if it isn't ripping?

If you'd bothered to take even a cursory glance at the source code before making this ridiculous request, you'd understand that the work process is hand-crafted with a custom dvd reader that feeds packets directly to mpeg2dec. You can make semantic arguments all day about how "ripping" should be possible without "converting", but unless you plan to rewrite the core structure of the application on your own, you are simply wasting everyone's time. You must already own the QT MPEG-2 component if you care about any of this (you did do enough research to know QT doesn't ship able to read MPEG-2, right?) so what exactly is stopping you from ripping the disk with MacTheRipper, splicing the .vobs with MPEG Streamclip, and muxing in QT Pro?

Oh, and btw? You can cut this holier-than-thou act where *you're* the only ones who care about quality and the rest of us are uncultured groundlings, awed by the iPod's 320*240 screen. I don't even own a video iPod. I couldn't care less about low-quality output. The only reason I'm involved in the project is because I wasn't satisfied with the PQ of HandBrake's output and wanted to improve it so it looks good on big screens, not iPods. The solution isn't using bloated, archaic video codecs. It's learning how to properly use x264 and xvid.

ItsInTheCave
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:01 am

Post by ItsInTheCave » Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:42 am

jbrjake wrote:
ItsInTheCave wrote:Sorry friend but you are WRONG. MPEG-2 is included in the mp4 specification as a format that plays in mp4s and hence all players that are specification compliant (most of them).
Sorry, but *you* are wrong. Thanar specifically said you cannot mux mpeg-2 and AC3 into an .mp4. This is entirely accurate. You cannot put AC3 into an .mp4.
I never once suggested muxing the AC-3 audio into the file.

You are right, that simply wouldn't function in most players.

Instead audio can be encoded in high bitrate AAC or, if they are implemented, newer codecs (hopefully lossless but my hopes aren't high for this).
jbrjake wrote:Do *you* want to handle all the user complaints from people who don't understand that you have to *pay money* to decode MPEG-2 in QuickTime? Because I sure don't.
That is of course presuming that people will use QuickTime. Just because apple likes to milk its customers for money doesn't mean other applications won't play it. The truth is almost everything will.
jbrjake wrote:What are you going to do about the subs?
Doing this might actually make implementing VobSubs easier. It's one of your goals to implement this later on so all this would do is make the job simpler. And even if it doesn't does it matter? So what they might not be used but they don't mess anything up by being there.



I honestly think that a large number of people are taking this the wrong way. This was merely a suggestion for a project where the developers are asking for suggestions. Even if no one likes it a polite response would have been much nicer than what I have been reading by some posters (Some have been polite and I thank them for their decency). If you do not like an idea than just say so but don't go about flaming others for suggesting it.

Although it will probably make no difference at this point I must argue that although some people may never use such a feature there ARE people who would use it and love to see it.

jbrjake
Veteran User
Posts: 4805
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:38 am

Post by jbrjake » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:42 am

Okay, you've had your say now, ItsInTheCave.

By my count, 3 developers as well as our first-line support have chimed in to say "pass". Get a clue. It's not happening. A poll doesn't help. At all. Get back to one of us with a diff and we'll surely patch it in. Short of that, issue closed. Locking this now so I'm not tempted to respond at length.

Locked