It is really confusing and super annoying that the author keeps calls 2 totally different tasks "ripping".
First, the author calls extracting the video/audio of the movie from the Blu Ray (and circumventing the DRM) "ripping". Quote from Article "On the Blu-ray, the music video is 2:18 long. When I ripped it to the hard drive using MakeMKV, the final file size was 279MB."
But then the author also calls encoding the extracted video/audio using HandBrake or transcode-video "ripping". Quotes from the article: "I then fed this .mkv file to both HandBrake and transcode-video, running it through all 26 different conversion options. This table shows the results, sorted by ripping app first..." and "I then copied that same frame from all 26 of the ripped versions of the music video..."
No! No you didn't! You ripped the movie once, and then encoded that 26 times, each time using different options, to compare encode-time, size, and attempted to compare the output quality.
Honestly, confusing these 2 fundamental concepts makes me seriously question your entire experiment.
No the article isn't hard to understand, but it shows that the author has no clue what is actually happening under the hood. He lacks basic understanding of video encoding. His article is well written and I respect the effort, but you can't learn much from his experiments.
First, the author calls extracting the video/audio of the movie from the Blu Ray (and circumventing the DRM) "ripping". Quote from Article "On the Blu-ray, the music video is 2:18 long. When I ripped it to the hard drive using MakeMKV, the final file size was 279MB."
But then the author also calls encoding the extracted video/audio using HandBrake or transcode-video "ripping". Quotes from the article: "I then fed this .mkv file to both HandBrake and transcode-video, running it through all 26 different conversion options. This table shows the results, sorted by ripping app first..." and "I then copied that same frame from all 26 of the ripped versions of the music video..."
No! No you didn't! You ripped the movie once, and then encoded that 26 times, each time using different options, to compare encode-time, size, and attempted to compare the output quality.
Honestly, confusing these 2 fundamental concepts makes me seriously question your entire experiment.