Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

handbrake.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 181 posts

Re: HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

#101

Post by feld »

rockdoe wrote: post #62
pmarreck wrote: post #33

I just downloaded it for the first time in a while 3 days ago and noticed that H.265 exists and compresses twice as well at the same quality level... how in the hell did I miss that? (VLC will play them). I did a test on a full-rez MKV and worked great

H.265 only compresses twice as much as H.264 in marketing materials, or when not comparing to x264. It is trivial to change the defaults to give half the bitrate but you will not get the same quality.

I just saw bluray rips of the same show on Usenet. x264 = 2.5GB, x265 = 600MB.

I'm not certain the scene releasers with reputations to maintain are going to release terrible quality rips.

Re: HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

#103

Post by mortenjorck »

bsharitt wrote: post #27

HandBrake is one of those pieces of software that I've never even had to consider looking around to find something slightly better, it's always done what its supposed to with no fuss. A while back I wanted to rip a DVD my kids got so they could watch it on their tablets and downloading HandBrake was such a no brainer that I entirely forgot that I don't have an optical drive built into any of my computers anymore befo…

I keep Handbrake around even without optical drives - although it's been a few years since I last ripped a disc, it's still easily the best general-purpose encoding tool I've used. Nothing else really approaches its combination of reliable, high-quality output, fast performance, and uncluttered UI.

Re: HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

#104

Post by tdkl »

77pt77 wrote: post #95
pulse7 wrote: post #41

HandBrake found me a defective RAM module on my PC: it freezed in the middle of video conversion - every single time on exactly the same video position. After further investigation I found the "bug" in my RAM...

Best way to find memory problems is intensive multi-threaded video transcoding and intensive compiling (say installing gentoo).

Or you know - running memtest86[1].

[1] http://www.memtest.org

Re: HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

#105

Post by dahart »

pulse7 wrote: post #84
dahart wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine bunches of possibilities. Paging can make things hard to predict, especially when multiple programs are allocating memory, but it doesn't make the system non-deterministic, nor does it make hitting the same physical address impossible. One possibility is that he didn't restart the program between retries, and the memory in question was already allocated. Another possibility is that he only ran handbrake…

Maybe my Handbrake installation was broken because of defective RAM - I don't know exactly... anyway: I found the problem was RAM and now it works...

Yeah! Bad bit baked into the executable is a strong possibility.

Re: HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

#106

Post by mschulze »

feld wrote: post #102
JshWright wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verifying a downloaded file doesn't require a cryptographically secure hash function...

well it does require one that can't have collisions. otherwise what's the point in "verifying"?

There is no hash function that can't have collisions by definition.

Re: HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

#107

Post by chrisper »

pulse7 wrote: post #84
dahart wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can imagine bunches of possibilities. Paging can make things hard to predict, especially when multiple programs are allocating memory, but it doesn't make the system non-deterministic, nor does it make hitting the same physical address impossible. One possibility is that he didn't restart the program between retries, and the memory in question was already allocated. Another possibility is that he only ran handbrake…

Maybe my Handbrake installation was broken because of defective RAM - I don't know exactly... anyway: I found the problem was RAM and now it works...

It's actually scary how much (unpredictable and maybe undetectable) stuff can happen due to bad RAM.

Re: HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

#108

Post by javajosh »

germinalphrase wrote: post #86
aw3c2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rest assured that there are archivists ripping their discs losslessly somewhere in the dark corners of the internet. Hidden because the copyright mafia will otherwise ruin their lives.

I once knew of a group like this. eventually, thy disappeared - but it was the most wonderful way to access otherwise unavailable arthouse and experimental cinema. I miss it.

I'm curious: how did they meet? Secure irc?

Re: HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

#109

Post by _joel »

tdkl wrote: post #104
77pt77 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Best way to find memory problems is intensive multi-threaded video transcoding and intensive compiling (say installing gentoo).

Or you know - running memtest86[1]. [1] http://www.memtest.org

Indeed, I'm also a fan of http://www.advancedclustering.com/products/software/breakin/ - use it for soak testing systems before giving them real load

Re: HandBrake 1.0.0 Released

#110

Post by aianus »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #98
NelsonMinar wrote: post #60

I'm a little surprised they aren't signing their MacOS releases. It's even documented on the download page, "We are not currently able to sign the HandBrake downloads". I wonder if it's a philosophical choice or a legal one? It seems like a failure of Apple's Gatekeeper though: either because such a popular app is not able to be signed, or because it's not signed and yet so many people run it anyway.

> I'm a little surprised they aren't signing their MacOS releases. Do any small developers actually do this? It seems entirely useless from a security prospective. You go through an expensive process so that at the end it can "verify" that the binary was signed by an individual the user has never met who may not even live in the same country and for all anyone knows is perfectly willing to sign ransomware, or who has…

> If you don't actually know and trust the party who makes the software then the signature is worse than useless

Not true. The signature only needs to mean "we've verified the author's ID and he lives in a country that enforces the law". Then if he ships and signs malware, he can be sued and/or charged criminally.

Post reply on HN