VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Thread
  1. Hi!
    I've recently purchased an media player and I want do backup my dvd collection.
    I was wondering, is it better to convert dvd and use 720x400 resolution (no resize)
    or is it better to lower it down to 624x352 perhaps?
    Lower resolution will have higher bits per pixel using the same bitrate but I'm
    not sure is it better video quality overall.

    I'm using Handbrake for conversion (x264/MP4 - RF18 setting)
    Do I need RF 17 if I choose 720x400?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date: Mar 2008
    Location: United States
    Search Comp PM
    The constant rate factor retains the same quality regardless of the resolution.
    I would use the bigger size.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Resolution is a part of picture quality. Otherwise we would all reduce our videos to 1x1 pixel and encode losslessly. And every time you resize a digital image you lose some image quality. Of course the tradeoff is up to you. If you want smaller files use a smaller frame size. If you don't mind larger files use larger frame sizes. I usually keep the source file's frame size (only cropping away large black borders) and use AR flagging.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Thanks! I didn't know that crf retains the same quality regardless of the resolution. Good to know.
    I've decided to use 720x400 (720x304).
    Quote Quote  
  5. One thing to keep in mind about CRF. Though the quality is the same regardless of frame size, as the frame gets smaller the defects get larger if you view the video full screen. So a 320x480 video viewed in a window as 320x240 pixels, and a 640x480 video viewed in a 640x480 window, will appear the same quality (aside from the size difference), the 640x480 video will look better if both are enlarged to full screen. Not only will it be less clear but other artifacts will be larger.
    Quote Quote  
  6. I don't use anamorphic encoding as not all hardware players support it (ie TV media players, Bluray players). So I resize to square pixels instead, but I resize "up" rather than resize down. For 16:9 DVDs that'd be something like 854x480 (NTSC) or 1024x576 (PAL) before cropping, which should help to retain more detail, while also increasing the file size for a given CRF value. I don't think Handbrake lets you resize "up". I'm pretty sure Vidcoder will.

    If you need to de-interlace, set the de-interlacing type to Bob and the output frame rate to a constant 59.94fps (NTSC). You won't regret it.
    Quote Quote  
  7. all gurus already well said
    The constant rate factor retains the same quality regardless of the resolution.
    I would use the bigger size.
    means sufficient bitrate, not tool low!
    I usually keep the source file's frame size (only cropping away large black borders) and use AR flagging.
    allocates more bitrate to motion video, less wastage.
    make sure you maintain proper aspect ratio.
    If you need to de-interlace, set the de-interlacing type to Bob and the output frame rate to a constant 59.94fps (NTSC). You won't regret it.
    if your target is hardware player make sure it supports 59.94fps.
    personally I maintain same framesize at high bitrate (my hardware player do not like border-less), and avoid downscaling as well as upscaling.
    Quote Quote  
  8. There's a couple of little comparison encodes here which I made as a result of a discussion in another forum. anamophic v spline36 resize
    720x576 vs 1024x576. The resized "up" encode is sharper when running full screen on my TV, at least when stopping each on identical frames to compare them. It's not a massive difference so maybe not something you'd always notice when watching the encodes in a "normal" manner. The effect is probably more pronounced for PAL than it would be for NTSC as there's more resizing involved. And of course it'd depend on the resizer used when re-encoding.
    Quote Quote  
  9. I have tried software resizer and BD/TV remote zoom button for 720x480 contents, I liked result of hardware zoom by pressing zoom button. It's may be my personal liking, but, I am happy with it.
    Quote Quote  
  10. I wasn't referring to "zooming" as such, but rather displaying video fullscreen.
    ie A video with a 16:9 aspect ratio should fill an entire 16:9 screen whether it's 1280x720, 1024x576, 720x576, 700x396 etc. At least it does by default for me. I think the TV or Bluray player here might have an option to display video using it's "original size", but by default they resize to fullscreen.

    Resizing "up" from anamorphic to square pixels with a sharpish resizer can provide a little additional sharpening regardless of the resizing method used to resize the video "the rest of the way" to fullscreen. Have a look at the samples I linked to. You probably don't even need to run the video fullscreen to see one is sharper than the other. When I select a sharper resizer in MPC-HC (which I don't normally use), open each encode and let MPC-HC resize the anamorphic encode to 16:9, the "resized up" version still looks a little better to me even just displaying them on my CRT PC monitor. If I use a softer resizer in MPC-HC there's a greater difference. Try pausing each encode on identical frames in the last second or so and switch between them while comparing the sharpness of detail on the wall or the door frame etc. You'll see what I mean.
    Quote Quote  
  11. The resizers used by your graphics card, media player, and/or TV will make a difference too.
    Last edited by jagabo; 16th Jan 2014 at 06:46.
    Quote Quote  
  12. I'm not a fan of sharpening as a general rule, and very occasionally "resizing up" the way I do, results in an encode which looks a little too sharp to me, once it's resized again to fullscreen, but mostly I think it's a good thing.
    About the only time I've thought it looks a little "too sharp" is when the original DVD video appears to have been sharpened in the first place, which doesn't seem to happen very often. In those rare cases, a softer resizer while encoding would fix that.

    As I said earlier, for PAL resizing the width is increased considerably, whereas for NTSC it's not increased as much, so "resizing up" mightn't have a noticeable sharpening effect, but I've not compared resized vs anamorphic NTSC encodes.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads