Handbrake alternative or filesize calculator?

[JZL]

I guess I haven't used/updated Handbrake in forever because the version I just installed doesn't have target filesize anymore.

This was the main reason for using it, to shrink to a certain size and re-encode video into mkv.

Suggestions? Is it hard to calculate filesize based on the bitrate, or one of the programs pre-sets?

 

[ShaidarHaran]

I guess I haven't used/updated Handbrake in forever because the version I just installed doesn't have target filesize anymore.

This was the main reason for using it, to shrink to a certain size and re-encode video into mkv.

Suggestions? Is it hard to calculate filesize based on the bitrate, or one of the programs pre-sets?

When I have used Handbrake to re-encode video files with new settings (usually to insert more reference frames to fix an issue with playback on Apple TV) I have a source file (MKV) which I can pull bitrate from first. Using Plex or VLC you can get this information about a given file. Once you have it, you can calculate the bitrate you need to use to reach a desired filesize. After doing this, take this bitrate and enter it into Handbrake on the "average bitrate" line. Minutes/hours later you have your file!

 

[vitocorleone]

I guess I haven't used/updated Handbrake in forever because the version I just installed doesn't have target filesize anymore.

This was the main reason for using it, to shrink to a certain size and re-encode video into mkv.

Suggestions? Is it hard to calculate filesize based on the bitrate, or one of the programs pre-sets?

I'm curious why a specific file size matters if you aren't burning it to disc.

 

[@md_Guy]

Reason why I've moved to StaxRip.. more control/options.

 

[DigitalDemon]

I'm curious why a specific file size matters if you aren't burning it to disc.

I am also wondering about this, as target file size is probably one of the worst methods to encode with.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

I am also wondering about this, as target file size is probably one of the worst methods to encode with.

I actually switched to using this method (rather than the constant quality mode with its arbitrary value slider). That mode can take several tries before you arrive at a final file similar in size to the original. I don't want smaller files, I want as close to original quality as possible and then if I need a smaller file (i.e. lower bitrate) to stream at a lower quality to say a remote client or perhaps a less powerful local client that can be handled by my server.

 

[DigitalDemon]

I actually switched to using this method (rather than the constant quality mode with its arbitrary value slider). That mode can take several tries before you arrive at a final file similar in size to the original. I don't want smaller files, I want as close to original quality as possible and then if I need a smaller file (i.e. lower bitrate) to stream at a lower quality to say a remote client or perhaps a less powerful local client that can be handled by my server.

If you want OC just remux into a mkv container. Re-encoding to the same file size just wastes time and quality. Not to mention the bitrate over-provision on proper blurays is also a huge waste of space when being stored locally. ISO rips are great, until you have to store 4000+ of them.

 

[{WOR}lock]

The problem with targeted filesize encoding is that it forces the video encoder to play it conservatively with bit allocation, which can be offset somewhat with 2-pass encoding but that's the old way of doing encoding and generally you won't get results as good using 2-pass than you would with constant quality mode.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

If you want OC just remux into a mkv container. Re-encoding to the same file size just wastes time and quality. Not to mention the bitrate over-provision on proper blurays is also a huge waste of space when being stored locally. ISO rips are great, until you have to store 4000+ of them.

I only do this with Handbrake when the MKV has playback issues on some devices due to insufficient reference frames. I actually stopped doing it awhile back and just don't use those clients (Apple TV) anymore. I've found that Xbox One and several models of Roku handle large MKVs better.

Storage isn't an issue with hard drives being as cheap as they are now, and capacity continuing to grow. It could become an issue with UHD Blu-ray though.

 

[DigitalDemon]

Storage isn't an issue with hard drives being as cheap as they are now, and capacity continuing to grow. It could become an issue with UHD Blu-ray though.

Well if you have the money then yeah, but a good encode profile shrank my collection from around 175TB source to a little over 50TB, which is a bit more manageable and still perceptually non degraded

As for UHD, still waiting for h265 to mature, as its pure garbage at the moment.

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Well if you have the money then yeah, but a good encode profile shrank my collection from around 175TB source to a little over 50TB, which is a bit more manageable and still perceptually non degraded

My collection isn't that large, I've stopped and started this project many times over the past 7-8 years, often even selling my library at points. Only the last 2-3 years have I seriously started building a collection again so I'm at about 1000 discs now. I've got most of what I want at this point, I could see that growing to maybe twice the size if I start seeking out obscure titles and with hard drive sizes continuing to grow and room for 6 more hard drives in my Corsair 900D, I'm set for quite awhile.

As for UHD, still waiting for h265 to mature, as its pure garbage at the moment.

What do you mean? I've got about 20 UHD Blu-rays and after buying a couple crappy upscales I use realorfake4k.com to find out if a title is worth purchasing. Now I've got titles in my library that look night and day better than standard Blu-ray (ex: Star Trek Into Darkness).

 

[vitocorleone]

175TB source to a little over 50TB, which is a bit more manageable

All of my media put together totals 2.5 TB and I hardly watch, listen or view more than a small percent of it on a regular basis. Out of curiosity, why do you want so many movies and TV shows?

And, to keep it techie, what's your storage solution(s)?

I'm hard pressed to pony up the $450 it'd take to double my storage from 3TB to 6TB in my NAS. I can't imagine the $$ it'd take to store 50TB formerly 175TB!

 

[0091/2]

All of my media put together totals 2.5 TB and I hardly watch, listen or view more than a small percent of it on a regular basis. Out of curiosity, why do you want so many movies and TV shows?

And, to keep it techie, what's your storage solution(s)?

I'm hard pressed to pony up the $450 it'd take to double my storage from 3TB to 6TB in my NAS. I can't imagine the $$ it'd take to store 50TB formerly 175TB!

How many TB of that isn't porno? Do tell what your storage solutions are.

 

[DigitalDemon]

What do you mean? I've got about 20 UHD Blu-rays and after buying a couple crappy upscales I use realorfake4k.com to find out if a title is worth purchasing. Now I've got titles in my library that look night and day better than standard Blu-ray (ex: Star Trek Into Darkness).

I mean that h265 currently has limited practical usefulness to non commercial users like us. H265 does very well encoding 4k resolutions, but efficiency gains diminish very rapidly at smaller and smaller resolutions. The other issue is that proper encode profiles to get that great efficiency means absolutely insane encoding times. What takes my encoder a couple of hours to churn out a great x264 encode takes days to get a better result on h265. Though x265 is coming along very nicely to be a good codec for uhd rips.

All of my media put together totals 2.5 TB and I hardly watch, listen or view more than a small percent of it on a regular basis. Out of curiosity, why do you want so many movies and TV shows?

And, to keep it techie, what's your storage solution(s)?

I'm hard pressed to pony up the $450 it'd take to double my storage from 3TB to 6TB in my NAS. I can't imagine the $$ it'd take to store 50TB formerly 175TB!

Some people collect toys, cars, etc. I collect blu-rays and cds. While I have netflix, I am not a fan of purchasing (renting) streaming media.

Current storage solution on the server is eight 10TB HGST helium drives, until my new server gets completed which will hold 12 of them. No raid, since these are considered cold drives once full, the vmdk container gets backed up offsite and online. With the backup and spare drives, that's about 10k in drives. Original ISO and Flac rips are stored on remote tape libraries.

 

[vitocorleone]

Some people collect toys, cars, etc. I collect blu-rays and cds. While I have netflix, I am not a fan of purchasing (renting) streaming media.

Current storage solution on the server is eight 10TB HGST helium drives, until my new server gets completed which will hold 12 of them. No raid, since these are considered cold drives once full, the vmdk container gets backed up offsite and online. With the backup and spare drives, that's about 10k in drives. Original ISO and Flac rips are stored on remote tape libraries.

Wow. VERY nice. I know some other people with somewhat similar storage capacity, give or take a couple 10 terabytes here or there. For the most part, they all tend to run customized server software. Thanks for answering my question, too.

I merely have 2 2xbay NAS, one for backups (1.5TB), one for media (3TB) and everything else. All my music is mp3 and all my videos are in mkv containers, 95% of which are x264 encoded. I back up the NAS to a USB drive I store offsite and also to the cloud - all encrypted, of course.

 

[DigitalDemon]

Wow. VERY nice. I know some other people with somewhat similar storage capacity, give or take a couple 10 terabytes here or there. For the most part, they all tend to run customized server software. Thanks for answering my question, too.

Luckily I don't have to spend much money if any, as my group of 'friends' wisely invested in bitcoin mining at inception.

I merely have 2 2xbay NAS, one for backups (1.5TB), one for media (3TB) and everything else. All my music is mp3 and all my videos are in mkv containers, 95% of which are x264 encoded. I back up the NAS to a USB drive I store offsite and also to the cloud - all encrypted, of course.

Encryption is good, as all major consumer cloud backup providers hash match stored data, which walks a fine line between good de-duplication strategy and violating consumer privacy.

 

[Talon_262]

Well if you have the money then yeah, but a good encode profile shrank my collection from around 175TB source to a little over 50TB, which is a bit more manageable and still perceptually non degraded

As for UHD, still waiting for h265 to mature, as its pure garbage at the moment.

Here I thought my 12TB in live storage on my media server and the 20TB in my offline backup box was something else...

 

[JZL]

I'm curious why a specific file size matters if you aren't burning it to disc.

I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that my answer may tend to incriminate me.

Just trying the constant quality pre-sets in Handbrake, the file-sizes are a lot smaller than I expected. I might try StaxRip.

So constant quality > 2-pass? Hmm.

 

[{WOR}lock]

So constant quality > 2-pass? Hmm.

Elaborating on that a little, if all you are doing is using a bitrate calculator to get a target filesize and then using 2-pass to get an analysed distribution of bits allocated on the second pass then yes in a lot of cases testing has shown it does end up looking worse than going with a constant quality encode at a reasonable bitrate.

However, if you are putting some effort in to your encoding settings, tweaking them per source and you have a good understanding of how those settings work. Then you could end up with a 2-pass encode that looks better than a constant quality encode with a smaller filesize.

The reason why constant quality is popular is because people generally create some templated settings and re-use them, or even apply them to batch jobs.

 

[DigitalDemon]

Yep. With CQR, I literally now only have 2 profiles, with only minimal tweaks, like if the source is telecined or has changing aspect ratios, etc. I can usually start ripping within a minute. With 2 pass vbr, I was manually tweaking and testing every title, took forever.

Don't be fooled by small file sizes though. CQR filesize is dependent on source quality and complexion. I have movies that are nearly the same length, with some being 3-4GB, while the others are tipping 20GB. Encode a film like John Wick, you will get great efficiency and a small filesize while something like Highlander will produce a massive file, while both having the same visual quality.

If you want to try and manage filesize with CQR, what you do is find the most brutally complex clip you can find with proper source (a chapter from a bluray movie), that is consistent in complexity and an easily calculable length (5 or 10 minutes, hopefully no or little seconds). Encode it at your desired settings and review the file size. This will be a guide for your worst case scenario. Do the same thing with a superbly clean source, like a pixar or anime film, and that will be a guide for your best case scenario. From there you can reasonably work out what to expect from your collection and adjust your encoding profile to suit your desired quality and or space requirements.