Xvid vs x264 -- Bit Rate: 1900 kbps -- Same quality but smaller x264 file?

[kingaddi]

I am planning to re-rip and encode my DVD (NTSC) collection to x264. My current DVD rips are encoded using the following specification: Xvid, 720x480, Bit Rate: 1900kbps.

My question:

From what I have researched, x264 is a better compression format. If I encode my rips with the same specifications, namely the bit rate set at 1900 kbps. Will the results be the exact same quality as the Xvid but a smaller file?

[poisondeathray]

I am planning to re-rip and encode my DVD (NTSC) collection to x264. My current DVD rips are encoded using the following specification: Xvid, 720x480, Bit Rate: 1900kbps.

My question:

From what I have researched, x264 is a better compression format. If I encode my rips with the same specifications, namely the bit rate set at 1900 kbps. Will the results be the exact same quality as the Xvid but a smaller file?

No, the filesize should be the same , but the quality should be better if you used decent settings

Filesize = bitrate x running time

So if you have same bitrate, it will be the same filesize


But most people don't use set bitrate based encoding, they use quality based encoding (CRF)

[kingaddi]

I am planning to re-rip and encode my DVD (NTSC) collection to x264. My current DVD rips are encoded using the following specification: Xvid, 720x480, Bit Rate: 1900kbps.

My question:

From what I have researched, x264 is a better compression format. If I encode my rips with the same specifications, namely the bit rate set at 1900 kbps. Will the results be the exact same quality as the Xvid but a smaller file?

No, the filesize should be the same , but the quality should be better if you used decent settings

Filesize = bitrate x running time

So if you have same bitrate, it will be the same filesize


But most people don't use set bitrate based encoding, they use quality based encoding (CRF)

Hmmm. My reasoning for using a set bitrate is too ensure the size of my file. I like having my files at around 1.5GB

[poisondeathray]

Hmmm. My reasoning for using a set bitrate is too ensure the size of my file. I like having my files at around 1.5GB

And what's your reasoning for that? Because it's flawed

Content complexity dictates how large a file should be. Lots of action, noise, motion is harder to compress. For example a slow moving drama will be much easier to compress than an explosive action movie of the same length . If you were to use the same bitrate on both, the drama will have "wasted" bits, but the action movie will not have enough and look comparatively bad

Your next homework assignment is to read up on "constant quality" encoding and CRF I want a full report by 10AM Monday

[mammo1789]

From what I have researched, x264 is a better compression format. If I encode my rips with the same specifications, namely the bit rate set at 1900 kbps. Will the results be the exact same quality as the Xvid but a smaller file?

and how is that possible same bitrate and different size ( same size same bitrate but quality may differ from mpeg2 mpeg4 or h264)

Your next homework assignment is to read up on "constant quality" encoding and CRF I want a full report by 10AM Monday

If you use setting for cq of 19-20 (it ranges from 50-0 50 lowest 0 highest quality aka uncompressed ) you will get almost exact quality as dvd source and much smaller size way way better than xvid copy

edit: O and i see that you post the similar question for same mater on this tread https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/348644-Overall-Bit-Rate-Bit-Rate-with-Respect-to-Qu...y-and-Filesize don't do that I think that admins should merge this into one tread

[FulciLives]

One nice thing about using x264 is that if the DVD is 16x9 WS anamorphic then you can make your encode the same way. In other words you don't have to use 1:1 pixel resizing. That's very helpful in terms of image resolution quality (assuming you have a 16x9 WS display).

BTW what is your target device? Do you plan on playing these encodes back on some sort of media player or a computer or an Android/Apple Tablet etc.

[deadmeow]

I prefer using a set 2 pass bit rate, I have always found I could get better quality at lower file sizes this way, but some will swear by constant quality. The one upside to constant quality/crf is that it only requires one pass, but on the other side you can do a fast/turbo pass on the 1st pass of a 2 pass bit rate.

Most of my comparison between constant quality vs 2 pass bit rate has come when encoding music videos that I ripped from DVD's. I always notice I get more detail at a lower file size using 2 pass bit rate, than crf/constant quality.

You also may want to experiment with the bit rate, as you can get more quality at a lower bit rate in h264 vs xvid, but if you have enough drive space for storage, then there is no reason to encode to a lower bit rate.

[kingaddi]

From what I have researched, x264 is a better compression format. If I encode my rips with the same specifications, namely the bit rate set at 1900 kbps. Will the results be the exact same quality as the Xvid but a smaller file?

and how is that possible same bitrate and different size ( same size same bitrate but quality may differ from mpeg2 mpeg4 or h264)

Your next homework assignment is to read up on "constant quality" encoding and CRF I want a full report by 10AM Monday

If you use setting for cq of 19-20 (it ranges from 50-0 50 lowest 0 highest quality aka uncompressed ) you will get almost exact quality as dvd source and much smaller size way way better than xvid copy

edit: O and i see that you post the similar question for same mater on this tread https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/348644-Overall-Bit-Rate-Bit-Rate-with-Respect-to-Qu...y-and-Filesize don't do that I think that admins should merge this into one tread

I know.... I am actually trying to delete that thread. How should I go about getting it deleted?

[kingaddi]

One nice thing about using x264 is that if the DVD is 16x9 WS anamorphic then you can make your encode the same way. In other words you don't have to use 1:1 pixel resizing. That's very helpful in terms of image resolution quality (assuming you have a 16x9 WS display).

BTW what is your target device? Do you plan on playing these encodes back on some sort of media player or a computer or an Android/Apple Tablet etc.

Target devices are a Computer and PS3

[FulciLives]

Well the PS3 is very capable of handling just about any bitrate you throw at it, which is nice, but it has a many restrictions in terms of what type of files you can play back (which does suck).

I usually make a M2TS file. This is basically a MKV with x264 video and AC-3 audio but muxed into a M2TS file instead of a MKV. At least that is one way to look at it. Problem is, on the PS3, a M2TS can only have one audio file (which must be AC-3) and doesn't support soft subtitles.

You can also make a AVCHD which is basically x264 video with AC-3 audio (although DTS will work but is technically out-of-spec) and this supports soft subtitles. However you can't crop the video (whereas you can with M2TS files).

So just make sure you are aware of the PS3's limitations so you know how to re-encode your stuff accordingly.

Here's what I normally do:

1.) Video with no subtitles and one audio stream
Re-encode with handbrake to a MKV file (cropping OK if needed) making sure to re-encode audio to AC-3 if needed. Afterwards use tsMuxeR to make a M2TS from the MKV

2.) Video with multiple audio streams and/or with subtitles
Re-encode with handbrake to a MKV file (no cropping) and make sure to use AC-3 or DTS audio. Afterwards use tsMuxeR to make an AVCHD format output for burning to a DVD-R or DVD+R DL etc.

Sometimes if I have a video with subtitles but only one audio stream (and only one subtitle stream) then I'll make a M2TS and burn in the subs.

That's really about your choices when it comes to the PS3

[manono]

1.) Video with no subtitles and one audio stream
Re-encode with handbrake to a MKV file (cropping OK if needed) making sure to re-encode audio to AC-3 if needed. Afterwards use tsMuxeR to make a M2TS from the MKV

That's really about your choices when it comes to the PS3

Yes, kind of. I use MKV2VOB to repackage it into an MPG container. Works well on the PS3.

[FulciLives]

I think I used that ages ago when I very first got my PS3 but it seemed wonky and didn't seem to work well but that was a long time ago so maybe it works better these days?

Does it allow for multiple audio or DTS or soft subs?

[manono]

Does it allow for multiple audio or DTS or soft subs?

DTS and soft subs. Or so it says, although I've never tested either myself. I don't think it allows multiple audio tracks.

[hello_hello]

I prefer using a set 2 pass bit rate, I have always found I could get better quality at lower file sizes this way, but some will swear by constant quality. The one upside to constant quality/crf is that it only requires one pass, but on the other side you can do a fast/turbo pass on the 1st pass of a 2 pass bit rate.

Most of my comparison between constant quality vs 2 pass bit rate has come when encoding music videos that I ripped from DVD's. I always notice I get more detail at a lower file size using 2 pass bit rate, than crf/constant quality.

I'd have to hunt for it, but I recall an x264 developer posting over at doom9 a fair while ago, and he said according to his tests if the final bitrate is the same, CRF and 2 pass encoding produce virtually identical quality. In fact I think he said CRF encoding actually has a slight quality edge, but something so minor you'd need to have OCD to care.

I'm wondering why you're seeing more detail using 2 passes? Are you using the same encoder settings either way?

Because CRF encoding only requires a single pass you should be able to use a slower x264 speed preset and/or slightly lower CRF value than you would when running 2 passes, and while total encoding time might then be similar, I'd assume the quality of the CRF encode would have to be better.

[Slipster]

...

[deadmeow]

My comparing of CRF and 2 pass bitrate comes from ripping many music DVD's full of various 5 minute music videos. Sometimes ripping to mpeg is okay, but not if it needs to be cropped.

I found I could get higher quality at lower file size using 2 pass bit rate. I usually leave the speed on slow, but its still fast enough, and I realize now I could slow it down more for CRF and maybe get a higher quality encode in similar time as a faster speed 2 pass, but I haven't tested that.

Consistently I found CRF in some cases, gave me unacceptable encodes, so I always went back to 2 pass bitrate. And in trying different bit rates and quality rates, 2 pass always beat CRF at a lower file size. But I am pickier about music videos that I will watch over and over many times as well.

For me personally I encode everything at 2 pass bit rate when I want quality and to archive something, but when I want speed, and a quicker encode, and quality is less important, I will go with CRF. 2 pass bit rate is more predictable for size, and quality, CRF is good for speedier encodes, and no reason why it can't have good quality as well.

In the end it is subjective, just experiment and find out what works the best.

[hello_hello]

Well after being involved a little in a couple of discussions in other threads I've concluded Slipster is fairly rational/sane, so I wouldn't argue with his findings without first testing them for myself.

I'm not of course deadmeow, trying to imply you're not also rational/sane or that what you're saying is wrong..... but as I've almost always encoded for a particular quality rather than file size, after switching from Xvid to x264 encoding..... no more endless running of compression tests and multiple passes etc..... the joy of discovering CRF encoding was so overwhelming.....
So I can't say I've done much in the way of CRF vs 2 pass encoding comparisons. I did try a few at one stage, but that was using a fairly high quality CRF value and then using the resulting file size for a 2 pass encode. I couldn't see any significant difference then, but I've not done the same using "squish the file size down as much as possible" type bitrates. Maybe I should try it for myself one day soon.....

[Slipster]

...