Which is the better rip?

[MichaelLAX]

My friend rips his DVDs with HandBrake CLI and generally gets a 720x404 resulting image.

I use HandBrake for the Mac with the Apple TV preset, and I generally get a 853x480 result.

Assuming that my friend and I set all other settings the same, he wants to know if I am getting better resolution/quality; in other words, who is getting the better rip? Thanks.

[dynaflash]

you are getting 853 x 480 simply because you are using Anamorphic in HB on an anamorphic dvd. With the same dvd using the cli your friend can enable anamorphic as well, resulting in an identical movie as you are getting in the Mac Gui.

Both the CLI and the Mac Gui use the same exact core libraries, so, my answer would be that you should be getting identical movies using identical sources with identical settings.

If the question is: is the anamorphic movie better than non-anamorphic, then thats totally a matter of opinion, I tend to favor anamorphic and leave it on for all of my encodes.

[PuzZLeR]

Hey Michael.

HandBrake on the Mac/Windows, with just the CLI, etc., all run under the same "engine", or core libraries, as Dynaflash mentioned. Assuming the exact settings, you should both have identical content. The difference in output is that you are both using different settings for sure. You are using anamorphic, your friend isn't. But Dynaflash already addressed that.

As for which is the "better rip", here's my take on it:

Your rip at 853x480 gives 409440 pixels.
Your friend's rip at 720x404 gives 290880 pixels.

Your rip was "natural" based on the true resolution. Your friend's wasn't.

Since you have about 30% more pixels, you will need about 30% more bitrate to compensate. Here are 4 hypothetical scenarios:

1) Both rips have the same bitrate and the display is smaller.
On a small screen the difference won't show and your friend wins because he will have more quality per pixel.

2) Both rips have the same bitrate and the display is bigger.
You win on the big screen. The artifacts and limitations of your friend's rips will show more.

3) Your rips have 30% more bitrate than your friends' and the display is smaller.
Your friend wins on a smaller screen by getting about the same quality as you AND by saving bitrate.

4) Your rips have 30% more bitrate than your friends' and the display is bigger.
You will SURELY win here. Your rip will look more natural and "filled". You have retained all pixels while your friend lost some. Stretching the picture will expose this.

Obvious conclusion? You win with the big screen. Your friend wins with the small screen. If I recall from previous posts, you have a big screen TV. I say you're doing fine. If you are using more bitrate, then so be it. Storage has never been this expansive or this dirt cheap ever anyway.

[MichaelLAX]

you are getting 853 x 480 simply because you are using Anamorphic in HB on an anamorphic dvd. With the same dvd using the cli your friend can enable anamorphic as well, resulting in an identical movie as you are getting in the Mac Gui.

Both the CLI and the Mac Gui use the same exact core libraries, so, my answer would be that you should be getting identical movies using identical sources with identical settings.

If the question is: is the anamorphic movie better than non-anamorphic, then thats totally a matter of opinion, I tend to favor anamorphic and leave it on for all of my encodes.

But we are not getting identical movies: he is getting 720x404 and I am getting 853x480. Now, I can take the result from HB and have QuickTime Pro readjust it to any sized window. Is that what HB is doing? Is there more meat in the 853 version, or just the 720 version scaled up? Certainly scaling it up to 1,280x720 won't give me HD, because it didn't exist to begin with. Thanks.

[hawkman]

It's both. Read the anamorphic section in the HandBrake guide. There's little point in going through it again here because the Guide explains it very clearly.

[PuzZLeR]

But we are not getting identical movies: he is getting 720x404 and I am getting 853x480.

There definitely is a difference in the settings if you're both using the same version. (GUI/CLI shouldn't be different.) If you can post the Query you're using and your friend's command line, then maybe one of us can find it.

Is there more meat in the 853 version, or just the 720 version scaled up?

Yes and no. I can't explain it in technical terms, but here's the deal. The 720 is the true amount but an anamorphic DvD stretches it to 853 using a PAR flag. Now with HB, instead of encoding with 720, you are encoding the stretched 853 displayed picture. You are creating the "true look" of the 853 version not the actual amount of pixels that are packed in without the PAR flag. I know, it's not straightforward, but the guide actually details this better than I could ever explain it.

I can't answer your question directly if you ask if there's more "meat" with 853, but a different answer would be that you are NOT adding "filler" like you would with encoding a DvD rez to 1,280x720.

Encoding to 1280x720 adds fictional content.
Encoding to 853x480 adds the full meat of the display. Not a waste.
Encoding with 720x404 does not waste bitrate on pixels, but loses juice in the true display.

You will win on the big screen with 853x480 over any other in the most optimal way down to the exact pixel. You will win with your friend's encode on the smaller display.

But you will lose on any screen with encoding to 1280x720.

[hawkman]

Well, apparently you are going to get spoon-fed this time. This does not change the fact that you should read the damn documentation, however.

[PuzZLeR]

Hey Hawkman. Our "read-the-guide" posts were just minutes apart. Couldn't help but laugh a bit when I noticed this after submitting mine. I agree that alot of people in this forum are not reading guides and expecting to be spoiled by the devs.

But, to Michael's credit, anamorphic encoding is truly one of those abstract subjects that, even after reading a few guides, you will only understand it when one morning you get hit with that cocunut and say, "Ahhhhhhhh. Now THAT'S how it works...."

...I was whipping some coconuts...

[MichaelLAX]

... anamorphic encoding is truly one of those abstract subjects that, even after reading a few guides, you will only understand it when one morning you get hit with that cocunut and say, "Ahhhhhhhh. Now THAT'S how it works...."

Gentlemen:

1. Thank you for the well detailed replies. After further study of the issue, I have concluded that the 853x480 rip by HandBrake (when set for Apple TV) is better than the 720x404 HandBrake default rip (i.e., it has more meat and no fillers), and here is why:

DVDs can support a maximum resolution of 720x480. For example, this explains why a standard DVD is NOT HD, which requires a minimum resolution of 1280x720 (some will argue that 960x540 is minimal HD, but that discussion is outside of the scope of this Topic).

720x480 is an aspect ratio of 1.5:1; which is neither fish nor foul! For SDTV, it gives you greater resolution than the 640x480 needed and for motion pictures shot in an aspect ratio of 16:9 or greater it is not enough.

Hence - anamorphic; basically doing what film cameras achieved with lens years ago: squish the 16x9 image into the 1.5x1 (13.5x9) window and when watching it, unsquish it to its natural 16x9 (853x480) size when viewing.

That being the case, since the DVD gives me a minimum vertical resolution of 480, why would I want to throw away quality and reduce it to 404? I wouldn't; hence, at the risk of additional storage space (which there is generally a correlation between quality and size), I want to rip at 853x480, and I will advise my friend accordingly.

2. Interestingly enough, this seems to affect the discussion I have had previously, on the Topic: "outputting 852x480 not allowed manually in HandBrake"

http://handbrake.m0k.org/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

When I have time, I am going back to figuring out how to get HandBrake 0.9.0 for the Mac to give me 853x480 on my squished DVD burns of HDTV programming, without all of the hoops and whistles that were proposed there...

3. Now, interestingly enough, the release of v0.9.0 also has a solution for this problem: keep the file squished at 720x480 and just tell the software program (VLC, QuickTime, etc.) to stretch it out to 853x480 as it plays it. This solution achieves both file size compactness with full visual quality; quite brilliant!

4. Puzzler: don't be put off by the attitude exhibited here by the administrators. While I found it offensive at first, I now get quite a chuckle out of their continuous stream of insults and attitude.

Since I posted this message, (and before he replied here) Hawkman could not stand, after 9 days, to dig in the needle on the Topic I linked above:

The resulting file will work correctly with MetaX in its use of Atomic Parsley for metadata...

Tell me: why did you think it was suggested? Just to keep you busy?

My philosophy is that I don't mind attitude, so long as I don't have to pay extra for it!

Insults are another matter, and having an administrator (nee: test driver) refer to the major portion of Apple TV owners (which includes myself) as either inept or lazy, was quite over the top! Since I was not partaking in that topic discussion, I choose discretion to be the greater part of valor...

Thanks again.

[hawkman]

*Sighs*. Let's not get into "he started it" territory, please. By the way, anamorphic output has been around longer than 0.9. We've pointed you towards it before.

[MichaelLAX]

*Sighs*. Let's not get into "he started it" territory, please. By the way, anamorphic output has been around longer than 0.9. We've pointed you towards it before.

Sorry, neither comment is relevant nor makes sense nor is particularly helpful... but I did get a chuckle out of it!

In the Guide to Anamorphic Encoding in HandBrake, the first line starts: "I am in love with clee's new Anamorphic Pixel Aspect Ratio feature..."

I'm sorry, I thought "new" meant "new" but if it doesn't, well in the words of Steve Martin: "Well, excuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeeeee!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGmP-3R4NkE

[hawkman]

3. Now, interestingly enough, the release of v0.9.0 also has a solution for this problem: keep the file squished at 720x480 and just tell the software program (VLC, QuickTime, etc.) to stretch it out to 853x480 as it plays it.

By the way, anamorphic output has been around longer than 0.9.

Seems relevant. [edit because of your edit ] Check the release notes if you're interested in when it arrived.

[MichaelLAX]

Seems relevant.

As for "he started it" territory remark - well, it only seems to be getting more relevant! Very Happy

I wouldn't like you to think I was angry when I wrote this. I'm not. I'm simply very, very tired of this, and I'd like you to realise why you're tiring me out.

You have received considerable help from those whom you now routinely complain about.

The key to getting by on any forum: be civil, and don't be lazy. So long as you make an honest effort, ignorance will be forgiven - mine always is. PuzZLeR has had no difficulty in working this out; if there have been any harsh words towards him (which I don't recall) then they've been taken in good humour.

Let's examine this thread, shall we?

1. Initial query (you).
2. Succinct answer.
3. Longer explanation.
4. Your second post.

Now, I read those answers. They're quite good. If there's something you didn't understand in either answer, that's what the HandBrake Guide is there for. You could have asked for clarification of a specific point. What you actually do is quote dynaflash out of context, and make it abundantly clear that you have not done any research.

5. Further prompting (me).

By this point, I have realised that you've not read the Guide. Since this should be the first step before bothering other people for help, I tersely tell you to go and do it. I also answer your direct question.

6. Someone kindly does your work for you.

Puzzler here gives you a very good, quick summary of the page I told you to read. Note that he also tells you that it's an excellent page which explains it well, and that you should go and read it.

7. I give in to temptation and have a dig at you.

I stand by that post. Your unwillingness to read the Guide before bothering others demonstrates immense laziness.

8. Puzzler tries to take the sting out of my post.

Probably a good thing. However, it doesn't stop the thread degenerating, sadly, as apparently you don't like being called lazy. Sugested solution: don't be lazy.

I am not an administrator, and hold no formal rank nor commit privileges in this project. My views are my own and not those of the hard-working team here. In fact, I've probably gone way down in their estimation for this.

Perhaps a simple "Thank You" will suffice...

[s55]

OK, OP Q has been answered. Thread going O-T, Thread Closed.

[PuzZLeR]

@sr55:

Forgot to lock the car door!

[rhester]

I didn't forget. Thread closed.

To all (both involved directly and observing): This sort of nonsense will not be tolerated in the future. Providing free support to the general public who generally lacks the courtesy of even making a half-hearted attempt to find answers on their own is hard enough, dealing with outright insulting behavior is quite another matter.

I am stating this publicly now so there is no doubt of my extreme lack of tolerance for this. Next time, there will be no public reply, merely removal of accounts with prejudice.

Enough said. Further discussion on this matter is not welcomed, so don't even think of starting another thread to respond.

Rodney