Automatic Ripping Machine (2016)(b3n.org)
b3n.org
Automatic Ripping Machine (2016)
https://b3n.org/automatic-ripping-machine/
39 comments
The title has been substantially altered by a mod; the original submission was: "Automatic Ripping Machine: Headless Blu-ray/DVD/CD Ripper" (the actual page title is "Automatic Ripping Machine | Headless | Blu-Ray/DVD/CD"). No date was attached, since the project is still regularly updated: https://github.com/automatic-ripping-machine/automatic-rippi... . Mods, wherever possible, please do not change titles to provide less information; the new title, "Automatic Ripping Machine (2016)", does not convey very much.
You found this post, or just a coincidence? https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/saca3t/most_ef...
I built this with Handbrake on Windows with batch scripts 12 years ago. But anyhow good to have a Linux version. Handbrake is a real powerhouse and was a game changer.
Is handbrake that old? Wow. My ripping must go back a lot further. I remember using DVD Decrypter and VirtalDub, and spending time on doom9.net figuring out how to get better encodes. With xvid and Nero HE-AAC encoder I could squeeze a DVD onto CD, keeping 5.1 audio and "reasonable" video quality (except for long movies, or action movies with a lot of scene change). The Matrix definitely needed 2 CDs because it was so action-heavy and dark (I think xvid was terrible with darker scenes?). The 1 CD rip looked like pixelated sludge.
You should have seen the rips done stored on Real Movie files. Hillariously bad.
This really highlights how useless DRM is. Wouldn't it be nice to just be able to pay $5-$30 for a DRM-free, high quality version of a movie?
While this guide is cool, most people won't follow this guide, they'll just download what someone uploads for free.
While this guide is cool, most people won't follow this guide, they'll just download what someone uploads for free.
I had completely given up on torrenting anything and signed up for subscription services which had worked really well for years, but now I'm experiencing that so little content is available on any one service so you just can't subscribe once and see it all. I went back to torrenting this year when something I was in the middle of watching vanishes due to some corporate restructure from the streaming platform.
I used to love Netflix until they decided that my home IP address was a "datacenter IP".
After fruitless argument with them I simply stopped sending them my money and kept watching all the same stuff, on bittorrent.
Their footgun is pretty impressive.
After fruitless argument with them I simply stopped sending them my money and kept watching all the same stuff, on bittorrent.
Their footgun is pretty impressive.
Why would you expect the content to all be on one service? It's akin to expecting all your favorite shows to be on one channel.
The streaming mess of services we have now is the horror people demanded for decades: A la carte. People felt scammed by paying for bundles with hundreds of cable channels they never watched, and we have won! You can now subscribe individually to the five or six channels you want... at roughly the same total cost of your old cable subscription. ;)
The streaming mess of services we have now is the horror people demanded for decades: A la carte. People felt scammed by paying for bundles with hundreds of cable channels they never watched, and we have won! You can now subscribe individually to the five or six channels you want... at roughly the same total cost of your old cable subscription. ;)
Back when it was just Netflix almost all content was on one platform.
What we have now is a la carte but each channel costs $20/mo.
What we have now is a la carte but each channel costs $20/mo.
Yes, because Netflix was unsustainable at that price. Look at how Netflix just raised prices again this week!
Imagine how much more expensive it would be if they still paid for "almost all content"
Imagine how much more expensive it would be if they still paid for "almost all content"
The streaming mess is absolutely not "a la carte".
A la carte would be having one or more places where you can go, select a show, pay for that show and then have access to that show.
What we have now is multiple competing subscription bundles. And for many people, there are only a few shows (not necessarily the same for all people) that are interesting out of a bundle. You do not get the choice to only pay for what you want to watch, you have to pay for the entire bundle. But now instead of there existing only one universal bundle for everyone, there are multiple competing bundles.
A la carte would be having one or more places where you can go, select a show, pay for that show and then have access to that show.
What we have now is multiple competing subscription bundles. And for many people, there are only a few shows (not necessarily the same for all people) that are interesting out of a bundle. You do not get the choice to only pay for what you want to watch, you have to pay for the entire bundle. But now instead of there existing only one universal bundle for everyone, there are multiple competing bundles.
Because that was the convenience and price I am willing to pay for. I still pay for music streaming because it is like that and at a good price.
UHD blu-rays' DRM is still relatively hard to break so it's not that useless.
1. how does this bypass the DRM? That's suspiciously missing from the guide, considering other parts clearly suggests this will be used to rip commercial blu-rays
2. Why go through this trouble when you can get bit perfect copies (ie. remux) from the internet?
2. Why go through this trouble when you can get bit perfect copies (ie. remux) from the internet?
That is handled by MakeMKV, which the blog posts refers to.
https://www.makemkv.com/
"MakeMKV is a format converter, otherwise called "transcoder". It converts the video clips from proprietary (and usually encrypted) disc into a set of MKV files, preserving most information but not changing it in any way."
https://www.makemkv.com/
"MakeMKV is a format converter, otherwise called "transcoder". It converts the video clips from proprietary (and usually encrypted) disc into a set of MKV files, preserving most information but not changing it in any way."
Is makemkv doing anything different comparing to libdvdcss2 ?
It says on the about page that makeMKV is open but I couldn't find a link to a source.
It says on the about page that makeMKV is open but I couldn't find a link to a source.
MakeMKV can decrypt most of Blu-rays. libdvdcss2 IIRC is DVD only.
> how does this bypass the DRM? That's suspiciously missing from the guide, considering other parts clearly suggests this will be used to rip commercial blu-rays
The very first item in the list that's inside the first paragraph clearly mentioned the transcoder used.
The very first item in the list that's inside the first paragraph clearly mentioned the transcoder used.
Transcoding is a separate process from DRM removal
If I'm not worng . Only transcode it if you want to reduce the file size . If you do not want to touch the quality keep it as is after ripping
Raw Bluray images are insanely large and unless you absolutely _must_ have that quality, you probably want to transcode them. A single movie comes out to 30GB-80GB while you could drop it to 4GB and not notice any difference likely.
This is inaccurate. A standard dual-layer Blu-Ray disc holds 50 GB. That includes everything on the disc - including special features, vignettes, and any software. The main feature averages 15-45 GB, averaging 30 GB depending on the codec used, with your 80s independent works at the lower end and epic films at the higher end. That's why epic films will usually come split onto two discs, with the special features on the 2nd disc.
There is not just a perceptible loss in quality by transcoding, but tools like Handbrake will mangle video in subtle ways - causing a number of minor yet extremely annoying issues such as dropped frames, jerky playback, audio lip sync issues, etc. Lip sync that's off by 50ms is barely perceptible but will drive me insane. All to shave off a few GB? No thanks. Transcoding HD content is just not worth it.
It's 2022. Storage is dirt cheap. 4TB spinning rust drives are < $70. If you can afford to buy Blu Rays you can afford more storage.
"HD" content from your average streaming service is overwhelmingly compressed to hell and just poor quality. Just because it's a certain resolution doesn't mean it's HD in my opinion. Film grain is not a waste of bandwidth.
There is not just a perceptible loss in quality by transcoding, but tools like Handbrake will mangle video in subtle ways - causing a number of minor yet extremely annoying issues such as dropped frames, jerky playback, audio lip sync issues, etc. Lip sync that's off by 50ms is barely perceptible but will drive me insane. All to shave off a few GB? No thanks. Transcoding HD content is just not worth it.
It's 2022. Storage is dirt cheap. 4TB spinning rust drives are < $70. If you can afford to buy Blu Rays you can afford more storage.
"HD" content from your average streaming service is overwhelmingly compressed to hell and just poor quality. Just because it's a certain resolution doesn't mean it's HD in my opinion. Film grain is not a waste of bandwidth.
Ha ha you’d definitely notice the quality drop at 4GB unless you’re watching on a 1080p monitor that you stole from work or something.
At $13/TB (https://diskprices.com/), I think all of us can afford to keep archival copies of 50GB Blu-rays. That’s like $0.65 (and a little more for raidz) for a new release that would cost you $45 if you bought it retail.
Don’t get me wrong, making a 4GB copy is a hell of a lot better than what most people do, just letting the media slowly degrade in a cabinet until it disappears when you move.
At $13/TB (https://diskprices.com/), I think all of us can afford to keep archival copies of 50GB Blu-rays. That’s like $0.65 (and a little more for raidz) for a new release that would cost you $45 if you bought it retail.
Don’t get me wrong, making a 4GB copy is a hell of a lot better than what most people do, just letting the media slowly degrade in a cabinet until it disappears when you move.
4GB is too low. If you want quality, at least 10GB for a standard 2h movie is needed.
I think if you remove the extra multiple audio tracks and also just downscale the dts-hd or truehd tracks to ac3 5.1 you will save an insane amount of space
I was just looking for one of these two days ago, and I didn't know what to call it. I haven't purchased an optical disk in a long time, but someone sent me one. Only then did it occur to me that I didn't have an optical drive in one of the computers I currently use.
How much time would it approxmiately take to rip a DVD using this method on a 5-10 year old computer.
I know that it is vague question, but is the ballpark - a couple of minutes, hours or are we looking at days ?
I know that it is vague question, but is the ballpark - a couple of minutes, hours or are we looking at days ?
About 20-60mins per disc. DVDs are mostly 4.7GB, and the decryption takes less than a couple seconds. So the speed Ian usually how fast you can read the disc
Thanks. That is a very reasonable amount of time.
> are we looking at days
Worst case scenario, the drive can only read the disk at playback speed. So a 2 hour movie could take 2 hours. In practice it will be much faster than that.
Note that a 50GB Blu-ray that plays for 2 hours is only 56mbps on average. So you won’t be limited by decryption/disk/network speed even on a very old computer that writes to a single HDD on your NAS over 100mbps Ethernet.
If you want to transcode to make the file size smaller, don’t bother. An old computer will take ~20 hours to encode 2 hours of HD video unless you’re fine with YIFY level quality.
Worst case scenario, the drive can only read the disk at playback speed. So a 2 hour movie could take 2 hours. In practice it will be much faster than that.
Note that a 50GB Blu-ray that plays for 2 hours is only 56mbps on average. So you won’t be limited by decryption/disk/network speed even on a very old computer that writes to a single HDD on your NAS over 100mbps Ethernet.
If you want to transcode to make the file size smaller, don’t bother. An old computer will take ~20 hours to encode 2 hours of HD video unless you’re fine with YIFY level quality.
Ripping (copying) speed totally depends on your drive's speed, but for a 2-hour movie it would take no more than an hour, probably much less.
Transcoding is more time consuming, but for DVD resolution (480p or similar) it will be about the same as playback time (so 2 hr) or faster for an "5-10 year old computer" using x264+default slow setting.
Transcoding is more time consuming, but for DVD resolution (480p or similar) it will be about the same as playback time (so 2 hr) or faster for an "5-10 year old computer" using x264+default slow setting.
The total time will be dominated by the encoding phase, and the length of that step will heavily depend on the encoder and settings used. A better strategy would simply be to archive the complete decrypted disk image, which can be done in ca. 15 minutes per disc.
My problem with CDs was that many of them ended up unreadable after a couple of years. I made the mistake of backing up things on to DVDs one time. Wont do it again.
You might want to lake a look at M-DISC for backups on optical media: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC
This is mostly software. I had hoped it was going to involve automatic loading and changing machinery so you would stack a pile of discs into a hopper, press a button, and come back a few days later to find them all ripped. Oh well.
What this claims to do is essentially impossible. There are a huge number of little details that require human oversight at each stage in order to achieve a good result. This approach can only work if your standards are not exacting.
[deleted]
https://www.mankier.com/1/grip
Years later when I was burning hundreds of CDs a month for our Linux distribution (I think peak was 700 CDs a month), I implemented an "autoburn" system:
- Detect insertion of a disc. - Burn the image to the disc. - Verify the burned disc. - If it succeeded verification, eject it.
So we could just go around to the CD drives, put in the blanks, and then come back a bit later and put the ejected discs into envelopes. Any drives not flashing their activity LEDs but with the drive bay closed were bad burns.
I eventually implemented a custom verification process based largely on time required to read each block, as well as the checksum. We found that any disc with any sectors that took more than some number of ms to read, would likely fail in some customer drives. We had some discs that would verify, but would take a little, or in some cases a long time to read. Instead of 3 minutes, we had some discs that would take 30 minutes to read, but would return the correct checksum.
We tracked this down by paying our users to send us back discs that they couldn't read, to identify the failure.
Not all blank CDs were created equal. We had some media that would produce up to 50% failures using this testing. Taiyo Yuden media was consistently inexpensive but produced few if any failures.