2006-10-22, 06:09 | Link #182 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Age: 54
|
Quote:
So, if you mean that a source which leads to a good xvid encode in 175 doesn't gain much with a 233 h264-encode, you have a point. But there are enough examples where 175 xvid is borderline - and there, 233 h264 may be perfectly justified. Quote:
Last edited by Mentar; 2006-10-22 at 06:10. Reason: Explanation for the 183-h264-encodes |
||
2006-10-22, 21:26 | Link #183 | |
キズランダム
Join Date: Apr 2003
|
Quote:
The HQ/SHQ comment was referring then to the H264 233mb encodes of my above statement. |
|
2006-10-23, 06:32 | Link #185 |
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 37
|
A somewhat related topic... this is the output I got from x264 when encoding Night Head Genesis ep 10:
Code:
avis [info]: 704x400 @ 23.98 fps (35720 frames) x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities MMX MMXEXT SSE SSE2 3DNow! x264 [info]: slice I:208 Avg QP:13.12 size: 264990:00:00 x264 [info]: slice P:7694 Avg QP:15.03 size: 5922 x264 [info]: slice B:27818 Avg QP:16.04 size: 708 x264 [info]: mb I I16..4: 25.5% 35.1% 39.3% x264 [info]: mb P I16..4: 6.2% 6.3% 3.0% P16..4: 37.7% 7.2% 3.9% 0.3% 0.2% skip:35.3% x264 [info]: mb B I16..4: 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% B16..8: 10.7% 0.4% 0.9% direct: 1.0% skip:86.8% x264 [info]: 8x8 transform intra:39.9% inter:58.0% x264 [info]: direct mvs spatial:96.0% temporal:4.0% x264 [info]: ref P 74.7% 11.6% 5.3% 1.9% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% x264 [info]: ref B 82.4% 9.6% 3.0% 1.4% 0.8% 0.7% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% x264 [info]: kb/s:380.1 encoded 35720 frames, 4.64 fps, 381.08 kb/s Full framesize (704x400), full framerate (23.976), not blurred to hell. Final output size (with ~19 MB of audio): 85 MB. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "compressibility".
__________________
|
2006-10-23, 07:16 | Link #186 | |
Translator, Producer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 44
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2006-10-23, 09:26 | Link #187 | |
Two bit encoder
Fansubber
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Age: 39
|
Quote:
On the other hand, how low can you go? \o/ I'd be interested to see how small it would be at say an average QP of 18-20.
__________________
|
|
2006-10-23, 10:02 | Link #190 | |
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Code:
source() removegrain(mode=1) temporalsoften(3,3,5,15,2) hqdn3d(2) aa(edge=true) Crop(4,2,-4,-2) Lanczos4Resize(704,400) I'd say the compressibility is mostly because 90% of the show is about the two brothers standing around and looking angstily at stuff. :>
__________________
|
|
2006-10-23, 12:28 | Link #194 |
Excessively jovial fellow
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 37
|
... at strength 2? I wouldn't say so. It's great at removing fluctuations without killing detail, at least at low strengths (at >=4 or so it's much less nice in that regard, but I still like it a lot for general noise removal).
__________________
|
2006-10-23, 17:00 | Link #196 | |
Panda Herder
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: A bombed out building in Beruit.
|
Quote:
I wouldn't consider hqdn3d(2) more then mild for most tv sources. |
|
2006-11-16, 09:27 | Link #198 |
My E-Penis > Your E-Penis
Fansubber
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Age: 38
|
what i'm gonna say is maybe redundant, but the general level of replies (like always) is so low, that i won't bother reading the previous posts.
i think you can distinguish different cases. - Good source ( for example DVD or decent HD sources ): I would go for quality. that means, if people usually encode DVD/HDTV sources at higher filesizes, for example 233meg, i would make the h264 encode bigger than the Xvid, so we can squeeze as much detail out of the source as we can. Because if you want an xvid at the same quality, you would need a larger filesize for Xvid than for h264. - Decent source ( some digital TV sources etc. ): I would encode at about the same filesize. Or bigger h264. - Shitty source ( usually bad TV sources ): Considering the fact that you can't really get any considerable advantage from encoding at larger filesizes, go for the smaller size. H264 might be an awesome codec if used correctly, but it can't do magic, it can't save a shitty source. This is however only true if, like me, you value quality over filesize.
__________________
|
2006-11-16, 14:08 | Link #200 | |
Infie
Fansubber
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
|
I type(say) it once and I'll say it again, the encode will never be the equivalent of the source...even if you filter it up a lot and use h.264 it still will lose somewhere along the video. You can only manipulate with what you have. By gaining quality somewhere(if ever) you'll lose somewhere to.
Quote:
|
|
|
|