I'm converting a Lagarith-encoded time-lapse video from 1.5Gbps to maybe half or a quarter of that bitrate but no matter what bitrate I choose, I always get 181Mbps.
It says that the "nominal" bitrate is 800Mbps, but the actual bitrate is 181Mbps (not sure what this means).
When I try CFR, even at 0 the maximum is 20.5Mbps, so that's obviously out of the question.
How do I render higher bitrate than 181Mbps?
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 39
Geez, why would you want to try and force half or a quarter the bitrate? Lagarith is lossless. x264, even at it's highest settings, compresses the hell out of a video. If you got 181Mbps out of it then apparently that's the least it'll compress. Is there something wrong with it? You don't like the way it looks? Maybe if you gave us the settings you used someone will tell you how to squeeze the very last bit of quality out of it.
Lagarith - Lossless - 2.5Gbps (6K video).
H.264 - Lossy - 181Mbps (6K video).
The former is too large a file size and the latter too low a bit-rate.
So, in my mind, something in the middle would be good.. let's say 500Mbps-750Mbps?
Only question is, how do I do that when H.264 is capped at 181Mbps?
I'm not sure using a high bitrate h.264 intermediate file is a good Idea. Have you tried working with that in your NLE? I would expect it to bog down your workflow because of the high CPU usage. Setting GOP to 1 should boost your bitrate if that's what you want.
Personally, I would rather go with I-frame Mpeg-2 in a "ts" container. Good quality and very easy to work with in NLE.There is no such thing as "Idiot-Proof".........a good Idiot will get around that every time.
When I read your first post, I made an assumption that you shot a time-laps and wanted to save it as an intermediate codec to further work with it in your video editor. Maybe I made the wrong assumption?
I don't use Handbrake, but there should be a setting in there to make it I-fame only. Maybe enter a command like keyint=1There is no such thing as "Idiot-Proof".........a good Idiot will get around that every time.
In advance tab use --force-cfr
Complete name : D:\amarec(20130829-2149).avi
Format : AVI
Format/Info : Audio Video Interleave
File size : 66.7 MiB
Duration : 2s 33ms
Overall bit rate : 275 Mbps
Writing library : VirtualDub build 34802/release
ID : 0
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High 4:4:4 Predictive@L5.2
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 8 frames
Codec ID : H264
Duration : 1s 533ms
Bit rate : 363 Mbps
Nominal bit rate : 1 000 Mbps
Width : 1 920 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 30.000 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:4:4
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 5.833
Stream size : 66.3 MiB (99%)
Writing library : x264 core 130 r2274bm c832fe9
Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=8 / deblock=0:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x133 / me=umh / subme=9 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=2 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=4 / lookahead_threads=4 / sliced_threads=1 / slices=4 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=0 / weightp=0 / keyint=10 / keyint_min=1 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc=abr / mbtree=0 / bitrate=999999 / ratetol=1.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00
Matrix coefficients : RGB
But that shows the same problem.
Your chosen bit-rate is 1Gbps but the one you received was 363Mbps. I chose 800Mbps but received 181Mbps.
He was just providing the evidence that 181Mbps isn't the max bitrate it'll produce. That's the question in your thread title. But his video is different from yours and more complex, thus allowing for a higher bitrate. There is no problem, except in your own mind.
More complex? What does that mean?
Now you're calling me delusional?
Well then, I guess I am stupid because I certainly have not found a proper answer to any one of my question.
Either way, I consider this your fault. If you can't explain a simple matter to a simple person, you shouldn't be in a position to help anyone.
Last edited by blud7; 2nd Sep 2013 at 18:06.
In your other thread I mentioned that you should upload a small sample of your source. But here's something else for you to ponder:
Lagarith has a setting called "Enable Null Frames". With that enabled, whenever the codec encounters an exact duplicate frame it will insert a "just display the last frame again" flag (a "null" frame) instead of compressing the new frame. If you don't enable that setting every frame will be compressed as a separate image. Videos with lots of exact duplicate frames (like slideshows) get much more compression with null frames enabled.
Even at CRF=0 (or QP=0) x264 defaults to interframe compression. Only parts of the frame that don't change from frame to frame are not included. So if 90 percent of the frame is the same as the last frame only 10 percent of the frame is included in the new frame. In essence the encoder says "this 90 percent is the same as the last frame, just change this 10 percent." And of course, exact duplicate frames require hardly any bits, just like lagarith with null frames. You can change this by forcing the codec to use all i-frames (keyint=1). In which case each frame is compressed as a separate image.
So if your lagarith source has lots if duplicate frames (or large areas where there are no changes), lagarith isn't set to use null frames, and x264 isn't set to use all i-frames, the x264 video simply will not be able to reach the same bitrate (or size) as the lagarith source.
So, in fact, what H.264 is doing is interface compression and by that decreasing the requirement for bit-rate and file-size drastically, where as Lagarith cannot do interface compression which is why the file size is so much larger..
But then.. why is there still a difference in quality? Like I showed, there is a difference.
My logic was, if I increase the bit-rate on the H.264, that difference would go away entirely and I'd be left with a ~400MB file that has the exact same quality as the Lagarith 1.7GB (because the lossless is wasted on it).
Since you aren't getting the expected results from your encodings nobody is going to be able to help you further until you upload some samples for analysis.
Last edited by jagabo; 3rd Sep 2013 at 07:59.
Calm down now....:banghead:
The only thing left to do is examine the real evidence.
An observation. In the same way OP stubbornly refuses to believe he can make the file do something it won't or doesn't need to, I think the rest of us are stubbornly trying to teach OP something he won't or can't learn.
Most of us who do video encoding are used to banging our heads against a problem until we siolve it. But this one may simply call for throwing in the towel.
Your best bet Track is to provide the sample requested -- otherwise you're not serious.
If you guys thought that my samples do not reflect the actual video, why didn't you just say so in the beginning?
If you're right, then the 170MB would actually have the same quality.
But how do I check this?
v1=AviSource("source.avi") v2=WhateverSource("compressed.ext") Subtract(v1, v2) Levels(112,1,144,0,255) # 8x amplify differences