Fair Use and SBC

Fair Use is sooo cool. I've been using Flask with DivX fast and have been pretty happy with the results but FU blows Flask away in quality. Flask has been easy and was fine for a 12 inch laptop or a 32 inch composite TV but has always looked a bit blocky in a quality 17 inch monitor. I just did my first movie on FU and it turned out great. The only blocky part was a night time moon shot where the sky was all dark dark blue. Some of the sky was a little blocky if you looked really close. At any reasonable viewing distance the whole thing looked great.

I highly recommend trying FU but must warn that sound is a real pain to do compared to Flask and that since FU is doing 4 times the work it is taking about 4 times as long (10-12 hours on a 1.3G CPU). Also FU needs the disk to be in as it does its own special rip. So far it will <b>not</b> work with a rip on a hd or your own mpg2 home movies on a hd.

Trying Nandub SBC on a rip tonight.
12 answers Last reply
More about fair
  1. you see Lakedude, as I told you. FU really gives you better Quality compared to Flask and you get the file size you want right the first time, very important for me. so the extra time it takes to do the 4 streams is relative since you can end up doing it more than 4 times in Flask.
    Sound is quite tricky, I agree. but once you know how to do it right it's no big deal. I've done about 20 DVDs using FU so far and had never problems with the sound. no sync or other problems. I followed doom9's GraphEdit guide.
    actually for me it's an advantage that the sound has to be done in a separate step since I do most movies with an english and also with a german soundtrack.

    let me know about your experience using SBC! didn't have the time to try it yet but I'm quite keen to see the quality it does on 1CD rips since most people in doom9's forum say its the ultimate in DivX quality.

  2. The total amount of time it takes to use NandubSBC is less then FU but because you run it twice more user input is needed. In other words you can't set it up to run all night and have a finished product. This is my excuse for not having results yet. Pass 1 is done but pass 2 is still cooking. I already prefer FU if it can be used because Nandub makes you guess at a final size by picking bitrates like Flask. As you know FU lets you pick file size very closely for max quality. The only reasons I'm using Nandub are: 1) the challenge and 2) I don't have the original DVD so FU wont work.

    Until recently I did not have the knowledge or skill to use FU or Nandub but lots of reading has paid off. I would still use Flask if you are a beginner. In fact I will still use Flask if I'm in a hurry or not so worried about quality.

    I was trying to remember who told me about FU so anyway thanks you were right. Until just lately I would't have been able to figure FU out. Doom was talking about SBC and for a long time I thougt it was a codec like DivX so I'm running around trying to find SBC codec(duh). Any way thanks again. FU is going to be the bomb when sound is included.
  3. Ok it is done, or rather as done as it is going to get. Just got The Cell redone with Nandub and I aint happy with it. First of all it is 800M without sound so if it is going to fit on one disk then I gotta redo everything (in pass 2). Secondly the sky and sand that was blocky with Flask at the beginning of the movie is still blocky with Nandub. I believe that even FU would show some blocks but FU would have stuck to the preset final size and would have fit on one disk. Nandub may deliver the best quality but I am not anal enough to screw with it enough to make it work correctly.

    My vote goes to FU for quality and Flask for ease of use and time savings. Nandub is not for me.......

    Ok as I'm writing this I'm double checking the quality of the Nandub version vs the Flask version and the Nandub version does look a lot better. Nandub did not get rid of all the blockyness but it is much better then the Flask version. Flask usually works pretty good but on The Cell the sky and sand looks like peep. Nandub is looking better but I still say it is not worth all the extra trouble.
  4. i did the cell with FU and it looks good. total size = 805 MB. fits perfectly on mirror max 90 min cd-r's. as for the audio, i jsut use flask and the bmpeg plugin to make an mpa file only (deselect video and all multiplexing). that file is always too quiet and 300 ms too long. so i use a batch process in dart pro 98 to resample the audio and incrase the volume 400%. it's quick (4 minutes for the cell on my comp - for resample and volume). end result, great video, and great audio that is perfectly in sync, and all easily done.
  5. mrtj

    Thanks for the easy sound tips.

    Do you know a way to use FU from a rip? My original got er broken.
  6. no i dont. i want to be able to do the same for my rips of <cough>broken</cough> dvd's as well, as well as future broken ones. :) nah, i want to do that with captures i have. some eps of shows need the sbc treatment, and FU would be so much better (meaning easier) than nandub.

    i hope there'll be a future ver of FU that can take motion-jpeg avi's as a source. i just cant seem to get nandub to work properly. :(
  7. It is offical. I hate Nandub. I'm still f@#%ing around with a rip of The Cell and ain't got it right yet. The first ND version was too big. The second was all goofy with a diagonal line in the picture and lots of stripes. For the third I cut the resolution way back to reduce file size and played with some of the millions of controls and it turned out too big also. FU lets you pick file size and is mostly all automatic (except sound). I love FU and hate ND! The Cell ND version 4 is cooking now. It better fit on one disk or I'm giving up. I already have a Flask version fitting on one cd but the quality is not so good. FU! . . FU! . . FU!
  8. check out the SBC forum on doom9.net.
    a lot of people post their settings there. maybe you're lucky and someone did a SBC rip of 'The Cell' and posted the right settings.

    BTW: thanks for trying NanDub and sharing the experience. I know now that I wont try it myself as I don't have too much time in the moment and I'm now convinced that FU is doing a great job for me.

  9. 4th version turned out even bigger. Musta moved something the wrong way. For version 5 I moved the same controls the other way and got a slightly smaller file but the dam thing is still around 800M. I can't quit now because the thing has become a quest. Must make it work.
  10. oh, let me know if you get it to work. and how you got it to work. i dont think i can get it to work on mine cos of the divx version i have. i use 3.2 where nandub works with 3.11alpha i think. i like 3.2 cos i dont have to choose between high and low motion codecs.
  11. Version 6 is cooking and I bet it works this time. Nicky Page had said someting about <b>not</b> changing the bitrate and using other controls to modify file size. Well this time I used a profile from dooms forums and the bitrate was lower in the profile. This may seem like the thing to do first but Nicky had me convinced not to mess with it. Anyway I bet this one works. With a bitrate of 1000 I was getting a file of about 800M so now the bit rate is 763 and should come in on one disk.
  12. I am an id10t. Nandub is a lot better than I have been giving it credit for. It is not easy to use but it can do a lot. For example earlier in this thread I said that since it was 2 pass it couldn't be set up in advance to run both passes. Correction: It can be set up to run 2 passes one right after the other without extra input.

    I have also said that I liked FU because it lets you pick a file size. Well Nandub has a bitrate caculator that gets you pretty close too.

    Lastly Nandub works with rips where FU needs to do its own. This is no big deal if you have the disk but on an old rip Nandub is the way to go.
Ask a new question

Read More

Multimedia Apps