![]() Remuxing is the process of moving the content of a video from one container to another, which will drastically reduce the size of the files during the process. Both are processes in video editing, but both serve different functions. Remuxing is very different from encoding. For this reason, remux is the perfect choice for people who simply wish to enjoy the movie without the extras. This is because the extras have been taken out of the videos themselves, and only the main content remains. Remuxed videos often take much less storage space than the original videos. In a sense, when you are remuxing a video, you are just changing the content from one container to another. Remuxed videos are often transformed from one format to another, such as from BluRay to MKV, without losing any data in the process. ![]() It would be nicer to have everything in iTunes though.Remux refers to a kind of video, where the quality remains lossless even after it has been processed. I then use an HTPC or a WDTV for playing back the MKVs. But I have remuxed my old HD-DVDs to MKV (keeping the original video encode and only converting the audio losslessly to multichannel-FLAC). Hence, for Blu-ray I keep using the physical discs. ![]() Then, as you mentioned, the lossless audio codecs used on BD are not supported either (in fact, the ATV unfortunately does not support any lossless multi-channel codec as far as I know )įor me personally, I have decided that the losses due to transcoding are just too big. In those cases just remuxing is not an option. Quite a few older and some new releases use the VC-1 video codec, which is not supported for playback by the ATV. a 7-ft projection screen is more revealing than a 45-inch TV).Īnother thing to keep in mind is that the codecs used on Blu-ray may not be compatible with the ATV. Of course, it also depends on the size of your display how visible encoding artifacts are (e.g. lots of film grain) are harder to encode, thus there is a higher risk of introducing additional encoding artifacts when you transcode. Movies with a high amount of entropy (e.g. ![]() The quality loss due to transcoding depends a lot on the source material. I wish it supported HD audio, as I now pass through the hd audio files when transcoding (future proofing them for now). Are there any cases where remuxing would make more sense than transcoding?Īs a side note, I do stream my collection from iTunes to a third gen Apple TV. I seem to be stuck between choosing a slightly smaller quality gain for almost 2x the size. I was wondering if anyone has any experiences with remuxing, or has any opinion on the subject (difference between it and transcoding). They looked very similar, but the Handbrake looked slightly more saturated. I tried a comparing a 40gb remuxed blu ray compared to a 20gb compressed handbrake file. I am wondering if I am missing out on quality by not remuxing the files using something like Subler, especially if I have the storage space (I have the power to transcode these movies, so that's not a concern). However, I am upgrading to a 48TB raid to store my collection (28 more than I currently need, leaving me quite a bit of room to expand by collection). I usually am able to get a pretty good quality conversion, with very little perceivable quality loss. I use the slow x264 preset as well as a constant quality of RF 18. For years now I have been converting my blu ray collection to MKV files (using MakeMKV) and then transcoding them to smaller mp4 files (using Handbrake).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |