BD RB Beta released! - now at version 0.37.08 (April 23rd, 2011)

Sophocles:

I've been terribly busy - so I am finally replying...

I have almost always used AviSynth 2.5.8 - never had any trouble that I could attribute to it. I have had 2 or 3 failed encodes in over 150-200 attempts - I have lost track long ago. I never really tried to find out what caused my failed encodes - back then I was very native about the whole encoding process - still am - but I do know more now; if I have another failure - I'll probably try to track it down - and post it too.

My feeling is that the Vista operating system may have something to do with failures - it's just a guess, but Vista has many problems; many applications seem to have troubles (if only fleeting) with it. I personnally have had several different issues caused by the Vista system - now that I use Win7 x64 - no troubles at all.

This includes no failed encodes under Win7 too.

Hope your doing well - regards to you and Yours (a special Hello...)

 

Hello everyone. Sorry for this newbie question, but I just want to make sure I have my settings right in BD Rebuilder before I waste a blank BD.
I believe I pretty much have the program figured out except for the audio settings. What I want to do is back up to a BD25 and keep the HD audio. So I've selected "Keep HD Audio for BD25 encoding" and also "Do not convert DTS to AC3". Is this correct? Also, what about the "Do not reencode AC3" option? Should I leave it unchecked, and also what will happen if it is checked?
Thanks for your time and help, and forgive me if I have posted in the wrong place.

 

Always test a re-encode before burning to insure that all is well by playing it back and scan through the chapters. This way you will catch any audio issues.

You can check the audio type by loading it in BD RB. When I re-encode to a BD-25 I generally keep the one that applies but your settings should work just fine.

That depends on the sound track of the movie and type of burn media you're targeting. If for instance you're targeting a BD-9 and it has a 640kbs sound track then depending on the length of the movie it might be worth keeping, but if you're targeting a BD-5 then you would do well to drop it to 448 kbs. since you're choosing to go with BD-25 re-encodes you might as well target the best quality soundtrack whatever format it's in. If for some reason you have a BD movie and its highest quality is 640kbs track then you do not want to re-encode AC3,

 

@Sophocles, thank you for the response. So if I understand you correctly, if I want to keep the HD audio track, then I would want to leave the "do not reencode AC3" option unchecked. I would also want to select the "do not convert DTS to AC3" option?
By doing the above I would maintain the uncompressed HD audio track?
Sorry that I am just a little confused.

 

carlvo


Sorry for the late reply but I've been a busy-bee lately at both work and home (and a little time to do a little physically challenging bike riding). You seem to have a grasp of what you need to do. I also use the "do not reencode AC3" for when the AC3 audio bitrate is 640kbs.

 

Have any of you tried this software with new 6 core CPUs yet? I'm curious as to how much time these CPUs will save on encoding, or is this actually worth the buy yet?

 

No but I've been looking at it. To answer your question, some parts of BD RB will only run single threads such as would occur during prepare and rebuild phases. During the re-encode phase X264 will use all 6 cores and you should see significant improvement against another AMD comparable core by core 4 or 2 core processor. Against an Intel I7 and depending on clock speed the benefits would be less noticeable and little if any would be gained at all against a really fast quad. That being said the AMD 6 core is wonderfully priced and is probably dollar per dollar the best bang for the buck, but that's just me making an educated assessment.

 

Just a few quick questions. All of my bluray copy's that did a re encode have a divx logo on the bottom right corner of the screen for a few seconds when first played. I have divx plus HD installed on my machine. Does this mean bd rebuilder is encoding them all in divx? Is there any problem with this? I worried that if I ever stick the disk in a player that doesn't support divx it wont play. I mostly play them on the ps3 so not really a problem and they also seem to play fine on a sony bluray player. If it is using divx are there bluray players that dont support it? And is it possible the few failed video encodes I got were from divx issues?

 

I seem to recall that only trial copies of Divx leave a watermark. DiVx HD I believe uses H.264 which they obtained from MainConcept when the acquired them. It seems to me that you've somehow BD RB selected H.264 used by DiVx instead of X.264 which is BD RB's default encoder. Whether it works or not is really hit and miss since some settings will probably work on both and some won't. My advice would be to go into your BD RB folder and delete the INI file (a text file labeled BDREBUILDER),and redo setup. You could of course remove Divx and try it again. Whatever you decide be sure to the result back before burning.

 

.....

 

Well I just installed my new 6-Core AMD chip yesterday and here are some stats I can share. I did the movie "Boogie Nights" for my test movie. The beginning file is 32.59GB and BD-RB is shrinking it down to 22.66GB. I ran this movie through first with my stock phenom940 4-core CPU and then removed the CPU and replaced it with the 1055t 6-core CPU.

QUADCORE 3.0ghz = 2hours 47 minutes / start temp was 41c and load temp was 59c
HEXACORE 3.5ghz = 2hours 26 minutes / start temp was 23c and load temp was 41c

Granted, the clock difference is higher, and you see a 13% increase in time. I think the bigger picture lies in the max load temperatures. When running the quad core, the encoding had all 4 cores maxed out at 100% the entire time BD-RB was running.

When switching over to the Hexacore CPU, all 6 cores never went over 70% load. This chip has the ability to run around the 4ghz speed as well, but I haven't been able to get it stable enough to run yet. 3.5ghz is a pretty safe speed at the moment. Being that all 6 cores on the CPU are being utilized at a lower temperature, is a major plus in my book. The quad core is still a nice contender in the $120-$150 range. But for a $200 CPU, the new hexacore has some nice overclocking potential with 30% lower temperatures. I am running with a Zalman 9500 Cooler just in case you were wondering. The stock cooler is too noisy for me.

If any of you have any info on getting this chip stable above 3.5ghz point me in the right direction. I have been scouring different sites, and have found a few people who have done it. But for some reason, I can't get it up that high.

 

It could be a windows memory allocation problem, a hard drive problem, or more likely a combination of all of those things. Your scores just don't seem right to me and the 70% usage suggests that something is chocking your processors.

Try this if you have more than one HD in your system. Defrag them both then set the source on one drive and the destination on the other.

Update your motherboard bios to latest version because the current bios probably predates hex cores.

AMD's Hex core if I recall correctly can throttle things if given the chance in your bios so turn off any power saving modes or other switches and let it run all out.

Then try things again just with the hex core only and post your results but give a screen shot as well. This is important to me because I'm looking at a build although I already have 4 computers running. LOL

 

I will try defragging both drives and try again. I updated the bios first thing, because the motherboard would not see the CPU. So most people that are buying the new hexacores will have to flash their bios first.

I will keep doing the same movie with different clock speeds to see if I can get better results. The first generation chips are posting lower temperatures then normal. So my chip is most likely running at 51c instead of 41c. Regardless, this thing out of the box is running 8-10c cooler with the exact same cooling.

My only issue with heat is, my ambient room temps are 85-90 because my system is out in my garage......lmao. So my temps will go down later this year.

My turbo boost for the AMD chip is disabled, so there is no issue there. I am running all 6 cores at the same speed, so I will not be using their turbo boost option. So I have that part taken care of already.

 

However you assume that you're running things just right something is out of order because X264 encoder uses far more than 6 cores and I have straight from an X264 developer that every core will run it at almost 100%. If your observation of 70% on all six is right then something is awry, and that can be worked out.

 

Okay Soph,

I defragged both drives and lowered my clock speed down to 3.36ghz. It lowered my encode time to 3hrs and 28 minutes. It still never went over 69%. Here is a screen shot.


[07:25:38] BD Rebuilder v0.34.02 (beta)
- Source: BOOGIE_NIGHTS
- Input BD size: 32.59 GB
- Approximate total content: [02:35:35.576]
- Target BD size: 22.66 GB
- Windows Version: 5.1 [2600]
- MOVIE-ONLY mode enabled
- Auto Quality: Good (Very Fast), One Pass
- Audio Settings: AC3=1 DTS=1 HD=0 Kbs=640
[07:25:39] PHASE ONE, Encoding
- [07:25:39] Extracting A/V streams [VID_00000]
- [07:58:00] Reencoding: VID_00000 (1 of 1)
- [07:58:00] Collecting video information
- Source Video: VC-1, 1920x1080
- Rate/Length: 23.976fps, 223,830 frames
- Bitrate: 18,667 Kbs
- [07:58:00] Reencoding: VID_00000, Pass 1 of 1
- [09:54:27] Video Encode complete
- [09:54:28] Reencoding audio tracks (if req'd)
- [09:58:26] Multiplexing M2TS
[10:26:15]PHASE ONE complete
[10:26:15]PHASE TWO - Rebuild Started
- [10:26:15] Rebuilding BD file Structure
[10:53:12] - Encode and Rebuild complete
[10:53:12]JOB: BOOGIE_NIGHTS finished.

 

binmax

I wouldn't have lowered the clock speed unless you were getting really high temperatures. Something still seems not right about this, but without being there it only leads to frustration. LOL

The screenshot was posted by Dark Shikari who is an X264 developer from a test done online probably at Anandtech. Look at how well it's doing against some of the fastest quad core processors around. It's less than 5 frames behind a 3.33 GHz i7 975 while running at a lower clock speed and actually beating an i7 860. In my view it would be realistic to reach speeds approaching the i7 975 with higher clock speeds and that's a processor that sells for $979 at Newegg. I'm going to have to research this a bit with some contacts. Good luck!

 

I lowered them for this test only. I noticed that the CPU was unstable when running the PRIME95 benchmark when running above 3.5ghz. I see that my encode was running at 31FPS so this is inline with your picture when the CPU is slightly overclocked. I will bump the speed back up to 3.5 and see what FPS I can get. Why does the developer that you are talking seem to think that the x264 encode will max out the six core. I guess I just don't understand. Some reviews online are saying this CPU can hold the 4ghz speed, but I haven't been able to reach it. Maybe I will call around my local computer stores and see what they say.

 

edit

 

binmax


When you do it and if you haven't already tried, disable Dynamic Performance Boost.





edit to remove quotes

 

Edit out for repeat