Not sure how you go about that, but it’s faster to rip and encode single episodes, than rip, split (horribly) and then encode.
It’s absolutely, positively better to rip/encode single episodes than deal with how Plex handles them if they’re not single episodes.
In my opinion.
With MKVToolNix you can easy split by chapters and with HB or Mediainfo you can find out where you have to split it.
For me the job is not done when I am finish with ripping the DVD. After that I have to do other tasks like set the correct audio track or find out there are forced subtitles etc. And all of these steps have to be run automated.
Not to my knowledge. All you can do is supply the overall preview thumb of the episode in a sidecar jpg. https://support.plex.tv/articles/200220717-local-media-assets-tv-shows/
If you are of the enterprising sort, you could edit the the chapter markers in the file and move them.
But that is not only tiresome, but also misguided if you are actually using those chapter markers to jump to a scene.
Now that you mention it - In Xmedia Recode - and maybe Handbrake - time line adjustments can be made. Perhaps a frame or two each way could do some good - I’m not that ‘inclined’ but somebody might be…lol
In Handbrake you can adjust before the encode - with XR you can adjust after:
Hey admin_wilmaw
Thanks for your reply.
Yes for me is really the quality important.
For example I ripped with MakeMKV a single episode and the file size was 1.6 GB, With HB and a high bitrate or a low RF I can make a file which is bigger as 3 GB. But at this point I don’t know I get really a better quality or its just wasitg of space?
Is there a threshold where we can say, higher as this will not increase the quality.
Thanks and best regards Buhli
@JuiceWSA, @OttoKerner, Thank you very much for your posts. I will check, maybe I can do something against this black thumbnails and if not, its not the end of the world
MKVtoolnixGUI also has a chapter editor.
Ma post was hidden? lol, however…
@Buhli So what MakeMKV does is just remuxing (like packing to another container) the original video. There you get the exact same quality. Since this matierial is already lossy compressed, any further transcoding is most likely going to loose some quality. But if the quality is still high enough you might not note that.
It is hard to give you any general threshold. There are people saying they don’t want higher compression at all. They would recommend trying to achieve the exact same file size after transcoding. My personal guideline is for SD Material (480p, 576p) a bitrate of about 3000 kbit/s. 1080p movies about 10 Mbit, 4K about 30. I always run a test transcode with that setting and review the result. This works well if you have a good eye for difficult spots. For a start, you can simplify this by doing an encode with very low settings like those of JuiceWSA and search for artifacts and compare quality directly (but not only with 2 images you look at one after the other, but with an Image Diff Checker for at least 10 scenes, light, dark, colorful, with fast movements, etc.). But that takes a lot of time.
When you say an episode has 1.6 GB only, are we talking about DVD?
Edit: ah sorry, found it. So I don’t think you will notice any better quality when going over that 1.6G. But it may be possible.
If you are actually not really interested in all that technical stuff, and don’t wanna invest too much time into it but you don’t want to loose ANY quality and space is really no problem: I recommend to just transcode with about the same bitrate as the source has. Especially with DVD this is probably the easiest way. They don’t take up much memory anyway.
I don’t agree with Juice’s advice either, but all he says is that HE doesn’t notice a difference to higher bitrate and that he advises to make samples and have a look yourself.
So I wouldn’t call it BS, just not applicable to everybody.
Yep.
I have to deliver material upstream.
I can’t see any improvement above 3250Kbps for HD, so I use 3750Kbps and call it a day. It goes upstream or locally like it’s tail feathers are on fire - and everybody from Canada to Australia says it looks fine. I need one version.
It may not work for you, but if you refuse to make some tests and check - you’ll never know. I suggest making some 240 Second Previews (for the 1004th time), dropping them in an Other Videos Library and playing them back on everything you have.
If your eyeballs refuse to see any material unless it has the bit rate you think it should have - by all means jack it up through the roof. Suit yourself.
I will tell ya that for DVD material you CAN make bit rate restrained 2 pass encodes with my settings that look better than the source, but again, if your eyeballs refuse to look at it - Placebo the heck out of it and let’s move on to something else.
Yes maybe you are right, but he makes general recommendations and explains that you only have to compare a few pictures to see if it is ok. He implies that you could see almost any difference in quality in almost any picture. He also completely ignores the setup used. And here is the bullshit. My most favourite example is Game of Thrones, Season 7, where the BluRay version can be encoded at a bitrate of about 5 Mbps using this method. 95 % looks absolutely good. But there are few scenes in a dark cave and here you see at 5 Mbit/s a mixture of nothing and a firework of compression artifacts. The hints he gives may still be ok if you just want to use as little memory as possible. But here was explicitly asked for quality. So these tips just hurt.
It is like someone asks on how to encode music to get best quality and WSA says: For me, mp3 with 128 kbit works perfectly well…
How can I find out which bitrate has the source? When the source has a MPEG2 codec, can I take the same bitreate even when I use a H.264 codec?
There is a tool called MediaInfo. It will tell you.
Same bitrate: yes, under a few conditions. In general H.264 can reach much smaller files with same quality. BUT: In principle, this statement is based on Master Material. You do not have this. You only have the already heavily compressed DVD (MPEG2). If you encode from MPEG2 to H.264, the difference is much smaller. Most likely you could still achieve something here if you cared about storage space. But since you say you want the best quality, storage space doesn’t matter. And DVD takes up very little space anyway. So why bother? Just use the same bitrate.
Might look good when watching on your mobile phone or on an old small TV with a distance of 2 m or so. Ok for you, but dont call it quality content. I am sitting directly in front of a calibrated 150" projector screen. Distance 3 m. Such a low bitrate is just hurting on that setup.
Ah oaky, this tool I’m using already to get a few informations.
But when I open my ISO file I can see there are many different bitrates values.
Printscreen:
Under the Video part I see a bitrate from almost 10’000. Should I really use this? that is almost three times more as you recommend for dvds.
Thanks and best reagards Buhli
Lol, just the average Joe’s home cinema 
Maximum bitrate can be drastically different from average bitrate.
If you want to maintain a certain quality, you need to vary the bitrate. The required bitrate for a certain scene in a video is depending on the amount of detail and movement in that scene.
(called “constant quality”)
If you go for a target bitrate, you’ll have to expect that quality can be poorer in scenes with heavy movement and lots of detail.
(called “constant bitrate”)
Juice is recommending the latter approach, while I prefer the former.
“constant bitrate” is in theory better suited for a streaming application.
Got me
You just do not get it. A sample is worth nothing! You can see major quality problems not in every picture. You can send me 1000 great looking samples when there are 5 mins in the movie looking like crap. It’s not that difficult to understand isn’t it?
But hey at least you are discussing with me now, instead of just reporting my post questioning your statements.
Guys, agree to disagree and move on 
