8/11/2023 0 Comments Encoder profile handbrake blu ray![]() ![]() Luckily, the decode rates were often “sufficiently fast” to be able to render the output in real-time.ĭevelopments in compression don’t stop. ![]() I had to endure encode rates of about an hour for each minute of video when I first started with MPEG-1, then with MPEG-2, MPEG-4 ASP, and then MPEG-4 AVC. In the “early” days of each of these standards, it was a painful but almost necessary procedure to optimize the encoding workflow and achieve the required quality. Throughout the whole journey, I have been doing my own video comparisons, but mostly empirically by testing out several settings and seeing how I liked them. Another bump was achieved with MPEG-4/H.264 (Part 10 – AVC) which improved efficiency to the point where standard definition “near-DVD-quality” could be fit into the same sort of space as CD-quality audio. Before long, MPEG-4/H.263 (ASP) was upon us, with another doubling, enabling a lot of “internet” video (e.g. Then MPEG-2 heralded the era of the DVD, SVCD and most of the DVB-T/DVB-S transmissions, with a claimed doubling of compression efficiency. The quality wasn’t as good as TV, but it was constrained by the computing power available then.īecause of the continual increase in computing power, I watched as MPEG-1 bought VCDs and VHS quality to the same amount of storage as normally taken by uncompressed CD-quality audio. I watched as early “simple” compression efforts such as Cinepak and Indeo bought multimedia to CD-ROMs running at 1x to 2x, good enough for interactive encyclopedias and music video clips. ![]() If you do not have that time settle with compromise and you will NOT find visually that "better" yet compression for a video.Having played around with video since I had a few multimedia CD-ROMs and a BT878-based TV tuner card, video compression is one area that has amazed me. So fix the broken parts, not designing it over and over again. But we know that x264 "machine" is one of the best things out there. Unless the whole design is fundamentally wrong. ![]() Different part of an object needs to be reinforced or changed. They find a problem and try to localize it and fix it. When an engineers builds a complex machine, they do not design it from the scratch and let it "print" again. Or devide movie into clips/parts (this particular thing is where I do not understand why it did not pick up yet in general, technology is here) Or encode it separatelly and use stichable. Then Encode video again using zones, where you increase bitrate (lower quantizer or multiply bitrate). Then watch the video again, and make a timetable on a piece of paper what scenes need to be fixed and mark also degree of a problem. You encode to just highest possible quantizer for most scenes. Yes, if you want to push boundaries and pressing compression efficiency even further and not to see quality drop much, it has to be done in fazes. Any advice on how to increase encoding speed without any impact to quality or increase quality further while keeping or reducing file size would be greatly appreciated. Are they too aggressive or would they even have a noticeable impact on the final quality or file size? Should I use separate settings for film and animation or would these work equally well for both?ĭue to these settings the encoding speed is fairly slow, but I suppose that's the price for quality. My biggest concern is some of the settings that were added manually such as mixed-refs, vbv-bufsize, vbv-maxrate, and rc-lookahead. Any reason I should be going back to 16? Any settings I could change to further increase quality or reduce file size without encoding time getting really out of hand? Originally I was going to go with a Constant Quality Rate Factor of 16, but after doing some tests I decided to settle on 18 because I couldn't see a difference in quality. My settings are already very aggressive and I'm looking for some advice on whether I went too far in some cases or perhaps not far enough. I use Android based TV boxes to play back content and backward compatibility with older or low spec devices is not important. Encoding speed is not important to me, but would like it to be reasonable. I want the results to look the same as the source without any noticeable difference in quality while still reducing size as much as possible. I mostly have movies, TV shows and animations. I've spent a good amount of time trying to figure out the best settings for encoding my video collection. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |