Extracting Blue Ray movie to hard drive

digitaldreams · 22 Mar 2018 at 10:34

I'm throwing out my bluerays and player as now playing movies from a hard drive attached to my Toshiba. Only one I notice has no file on the HD now so need to rip it before throwing.

The program I've used created an mp4 that looks great on my ultra4k monitor yet on the TV its blotchy, frequent areas where the colour is corrupted and all dark areas seem to flash every second or so !!!.

Is there a program to simply extract the large blueray stream file direct to pc without trying to convert ?. I've noticed in the past that you can rename these to mp4 and they play perfectly on the TV.

Thanks in advance

kkelly · 22 Mar 2018 at 15:37

Makemkv / handbrake

xs2man · 22 Mar 2018 at 16:29

Yeah. As above. MakeMKV for extracting the movie. Handbrake is for encoding it to make the file size smaller. Might take some time fiddling with handbrake to get the quality to file size ratio you desire though.

digitaldreams · 22 Mar 2018 at 18:52

Thanks, will try makemkv

xs2man · 22 Mar 2018 at 20:52

Didn't realise auto-correct messed up my first post. Edited now.

Just remember that Bluerays, and more specifically, 4K content can be HUGE when you take a 1:1 rip. For example, the full 4K, HDR, Dolby Vision, HDR10 rip of Star Wars - The Last Jedi, comes in around 62GB. If you want a good, transparent (looks identical to the original rip) encode though, you can get that down to around 31GB. Obviously 1080p is smaller, so the straight Full HD rip might be around 38GB, whereas you could get it encoded to around 18GB pretty transparent, or maybe as low as 10 GB if you still want good quality, but are willing to sacrifice some bitrate in the picture.

MakeMKV will only rip the disc to it's original bitrate. Essentially a 1:1 copy. So the resulting files are large. You will need to encode through Handbrake or similar to get the file sizes down to a more manageable level.

jpaul · 22 Mar 2018 at 21:04

thinks he's talking about regular 1080p blu-ray - if he was ripping 4k then would be using dowloaded aacs keys he would not have an issue -
but even 1080p are large 1:1 rip. 20-30GB

Maybe the existing mp4 rips / re-encodes are too low a bit rate, and you just need to increase the bitrate or change encode parameters ..
what is an example mp4 file size for a particular disc.

digitaldreams · 23 Mar 2018 at 21:32

Used makemkv trial to rip the file then DVDFab to halve the size (uses much faster CUDA if you're lucky).

Thanks guys.

TheMightyTen · 27 Mar 2018 at 08:56

I tend to prefer Hybrid for the re-encoding these days, it has native 10-bit video pipelines which is extremely useful to some of the stuff I do, Handbrake to this day still does not have it everything is stepped down to 8-bit even if you use the 10-bit x265 encoder :rolleyes:

aardvark · 27 Mar 2018 at 12:56

I use dvdfab for everything -it rips and converts fine and is really fast. At 20,000kps quality it takes 8 minutes to rip a 2 hour movie with a 970.

jpaul · 27 Mar 2018 at 14:13

was using dvdfab to access the unencrypted blu-ray , and then staxrip to encode it;
although the cuda/hybrid capability is fast I had read it cannot produce PQ of same quality if you want high compression -
20000kb/s => 13GB for a 90min movie ? (/8 * 60 * 90 / 1024^2) that is big

EYEREX · 28 Mar 2018 at 15:19

I normally rip with MakeMKV and then optimise via Plex which is running on PC (not using as server just use to convert) before i upload on to Raspberry Pi running the Plex server

Blu-ray ripping is a bit of a nightmare sometimes as did the Friends box set and the files are all over the place lucky someone has done a script that re-names plus put them in the right order plus the The Hunger Games has so many dummy files

MissChief · 28 Mar 2018 at 15:32

This is only legal if you still have possssion of the actual discs, right? If you throw/give away/sell the discs then you're breaching copyright laws AFAIK? Of course IANAL.

x-st · 28 Mar 2018 at 15:42

MissChief said:
This is only legal if you still have possssion of the actual discs, right?

Actually I thought that circumventing DRM to rip discs (CD's/DVD's/Blu Ray's) was re-made illegal after the high court changed their minds in 2015. Doesn't matter if you own them or not.

xs2man · 28 Mar 2018 at 15:56

x-st said:
Actually I thought that circumventing DRM to rip discs (CD's/DVD's/Blu Ray's) was re-made illegal after the high court changed their minds in 2015. Doesn't matter if you own them or not.

I don't get the arguments at all really. A quote from that article...

UK Music estimated the new regulations, without a compensation scheme, would result in loss of revenues for rights owners in the creative sector of £58m a year.

£58m a year? From where? People who have bought a physical copy are very unlikely to then purchase a digital copy also (I do, on some occasions, where I buy a mix cd, and the digital release has separate tracks too, but I suspect I am well in the minority on that one). Many BR's for example, come with a digital copy included too. So where is this extra revenue coming from?

Seems, to me at least, the argument against ripping a private, personal copy is a very weak one. It was still illegal to distribute that digital copy, whether that be between friends or family, which is perfectly fair enough. But there is unlikely to be very much, if any, actual money lost to the artist, from someone ripping a personal copy of their physical purchase.

x-st · 28 Mar 2018 at 16:09

xs2man said:
I don't get the arguments at all really.

Even the court discussion seemed confused -

The facts relevant to this issue are that on 1st October 2014 Section 28B became effective. From there on, upon countless occasions, no doubt running into many millions, natural and legal persons performed acts of copying which were lawful under the law as it then stood. Evidence before the Court demonstrated that many people were never aware that private copying was even illegal. Other evidence indicated that many individuals refrained from copying for the very reason that they were aware that it was illegal. Indeed, the Claimants relied upon evidence (summarised in the Judgment paragraph [257]) to the effect that one of the most common reasons that people gave for not copying was that there was a current law against copying. It is therefore quite possible, and indeed probable, that very substantial numbers of persons commenced copying because they had become entitled in law to do so. They perfectly reasonably changed their conduct and relied upon the new law as a justification so to do.

The Claimants seek now to unravel the past and undermine the expectations of all those who believed that they were acting reasonably and lawfully or (irrespective of belief) now were so acting. They wish, in principle, to restore a cause of action against those same persons. This is an unattractive proposition, not the least because many of the Claimants’ own members take the view that (the hitherto unlawful) personal private copying actually benefitted the market for content which expanded in consequence; and because they recognise that personal private copying is a practical and reasonable reality, and because in further consequence there has been no practice of using the Courts to enjoin or seek other monetary relief against infringers. An important and unusual characteristic of the facts of this case is that a major impetus for change which led to the adoption of the Regulations was a widespread acceptance that the law had fallen into disrepute.