(no subject)
Feb. 8th, 2020 05:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
psipsyStarting on the Big Rip project! Sort of. More like checking the feasibility of it.
Ripping is one thing, compression is another. A direct rip of a 100-minute movie from Blu-Ray at 1080p resolution takes up about 17-18GB and is done in a matter of minutes. Could I leave it at that? Sure, but processing several hundred discs and leaving them uncompressed would fill up my server fast, and the next thing I'd know, I'd be filling whole racks with hard drives, and none of the files would be portable. So I'm running Handbrake to squish them down. I've known that rendering video is very processor-intensive, so I'm using the most powerful one I have here: A computer with an i7-4770k, a quad-core chip with hyperthreading (so it can pretend it has 8 cores), running at 3.9GHz, water-cooled so it doesn't overheat and throttle itself.
How is that going?
First attempt: I tried making an mkv file with the x265 codec. The only thing I got out of that was running my processor at 100% for over 6 hours, only for something to barf and cause the computer to reboot. Right then, no more of that cutting-edge silliness for now. At least not until I poke around in the settings again.
Next: A more reasonable .m4a file, with a filesize of about 4GB. Took a little over an hour. Good, but maybe I can do better.
Back to .mkv, using the older x264 codec. Processing seems to take about the same amount of time. File size is now down to about 2.2GB. The results seem to be watchable. Alright, that's a good start, I'll take it.
DVDs are a different matter. They're inherently a lower resolution (480 lines) so there are way fewer pixels to juggle around. A 1 hour video takes a few minutes to rip, and then maybe 10 minutes to render into a 500MB file. I think for that, I could be a bit more generous with the file size.
All told, this is a task that benefits from having a fast processor with a lot of cores, and hyperthreading helps. Is it something that would justify me going out and doing a whole new computer build centered around this purpose? Not by itself, no. Would it be a consideration if I were doing a new build? Absolutely yes. Could I justify the $4k for a 64-core ThreadRipper? Ehhhhhh no.
I think, if I'm going to be doing this more, I'd either need to be really choosy about which titles I import, or do more tweaking in the settings. And for some titles, it would be legitimately faster to find torrents of them and download those. At least with those, someone else's computer already did the heavy lifting.
Ripping is one thing, compression is another. A direct rip of a 100-minute movie from Blu-Ray at 1080p resolution takes up about 17-18GB and is done in a matter of minutes. Could I leave it at that? Sure, but processing several hundred discs and leaving them uncompressed would fill up my server fast, and the next thing I'd know, I'd be filling whole racks with hard drives, and none of the files would be portable. So I'm running Handbrake to squish them down. I've known that rendering video is very processor-intensive, so I'm using the most powerful one I have here: A computer with an i7-4770k, a quad-core chip with hyperthreading (so it can pretend it has 8 cores), running at 3.9GHz, water-cooled so it doesn't overheat and throttle itself.
How is that going?
First attempt: I tried making an mkv file with the x265 codec. The only thing I got out of that was running my processor at 100% for over 6 hours, only for something to barf and cause the computer to reboot. Right then, no more of that cutting-edge silliness for now. At least not until I poke around in the settings again.
Next: A more reasonable .m4a file, with a filesize of about 4GB. Took a little over an hour. Good, but maybe I can do better.
Back to .mkv, using the older x264 codec. Processing seems to take about the same amount of time. File size is now down to about 2.2GB. The results seem to be watchable. Alright, that's a good start, I'll take it.
DVDs are a different matter. They're inherently a lower resolution (480 lines) so there are way fewer pixels to juggle around. A 1 hour video takes a few minutes to rip, and then maybe 10 minutes to render into a 500MB file. I think for that, I could be a bit more generous with the file size.
All told, this is a task that benefits from having a fast processor with a lot of cores, and hyperthreading helps. Is it something that would justify me going out and doing a whole new computer build centered around this purpose? Not by itself, no. Would it be a consideration if I were doing a new build? Absolutely yes. Could I justify the $4k for a 64-core ThreadRipper? Ehhhhhh no.
I think, if I'm going to be doing this more, I'd either need to be really choosy about which titles I import, or do more tweaking in the settings. And for some titles, it would be legitimately faster to find torrents of them and download those. At least with those, someone else's computer already did the heavy lifting.
no subject
Date: 2020-02-09 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-02-10 03:31 am (UTC)Currently, 1TB drives cost about $40, maybe double for someone feeling feisty enough to go SSD. The current "sweet spot" is 8TB, which can be had for as low as 160, so $20 per TB.