Handbreak Resolution

[TheNewMen]

Hello
I have the movie with 544x320 px.
How increase the resolution for 480?

Thanks!

[Baldrick]

You can't. So you use another converter like xmedia recode, freemake video converter, etc.

But you wont get any better quality by increasing the frame size.

[TheNewMen]

You can't. So you use another converter like xmedia recode, freemake video converter, etc.

But you wont get any better quality by increasing the frame size.

But it will stay the same, right?

[Hoser Rob]

You can't. So you use another converter like xmedia recode, freemake video converter, etc.

But you wont get any better quality by increasing the frame size.

But it will stay the same, right?

No. All encoding makes the quality worse. Common noob mistake. My favorite is people thinking that if they reencode a 480p to 1080p they'll get bluray quality.

If you're playing the video through software there's absolutely no reason to re encode it if it works. I only reencode if it's some flaky codec version, and smplayer or vlc will handle about anything.

[Cauptain]

Hello
I have the movie with 544x320 px.
How increase the resolution for 480?

Thanks!

Get RIPBOT264, its will work.




Claudio

[hello_hello]

No. All encoding makes the quality worse. Common noob mistake. My favorite is people thinking that if they reencode a 480p to 1080p they'll get bluray quality.

I think "all encoding" might be going a little far. If not, I wish you'd mentioned that before my PC spent the best part of a week applying filtering while it was re-encoding some old DVDs, because as a result, I had the impression the encoded versions looked better. I could have saved myself a lot of time if I'd known.

If you're playing the video through software there's absolutely no reason to re encode it if it works. I only reencode if it's some flaky codec version, and smplayer or vlc will handle about anything.

Can you define "flaky"? Which codec versions have you found to be "flaky". I'd assume you can't be referring to any x264 encoded video, given the x264 encoder can't decode and is therefore not a codec as such, and given you say you can play just about anything using your PC, I'm curious as to when the flaky distinction comes into it. If the video decodes fine using a PC, does that mean any encoder settings not supported by your hardware player then make the encoder used flaky?

[TheNewMen]

Thanks to all.

[smrpix]

I think "all encoding" might be going a little far. If not, I wish you'd mentioned that before my PC spent the best part of a week applying filtering while it was re-encoding some old DVDs, because as a result, I had the impression the encoded versions looked better.

All encoding DOES lose image information. By adding filters and manipulating the image --changing contrast for example, or erasing dustspots, you can make for a more pleasant viewing experience. So your time may have been well spent. But make no mistake, you are actually degrading the image.

[theewizard]

I can't site a specific file example
but several yrs ago when converting avi files to dvd format
using virtualdub frame serving with avi scripts
with lacross resizing and re-encoding
the end product ' large frame size files' definitely looked better than the 'real time on the fly zoom/re size' produced by software players
the quality was as good as the original in the original dimensions, in some case better, when using 'deblocking' and 'sharpening'

you can't upscale a file to add NON-existing info and make it higher res, high res files have more detail info than low-res files
but done correctly, you can upscale a file with out loosing data and sharpness and have the end DVD look better when played than using strictly 'real time on the fly enlargement'

IMO changing some of the 'data' to brighten, deblock, sharpen, re size, etc is NOT degrading a video, not when the net result is much more pleasing to look at. "ENHANCEMENT" would not be used by any of us for anything, If we thought of it as 'degradation'

[hello_hello]

I think "all encoding" might be going a little far. If not, I wish you'd mentioned that before my PC spent the best part of a week applying filtering while it was re-encoding some old DVDs, because as a result, I had the impression the encoded versions looked better.

All encoding DOES lose image information. By adding filters and manipulating the image --changing contrast for example, or erasing dustspots, you can make for a more pleasant viewing experience. So your time may have been well spent. But make no mistake, you are actually degrading the image.

Well even though it's really an argument of semantics, the original statement was "all encoding makes the quality worse". It wasn't "all encoding loses image information". The first is subjective, the second.... not so much.
I guess I was simply arguing that if your one and only definition of quality is how accurately an encoder encodes the original video, then yes by definition any lossy encoding (not lossless of course) effectively reduces the quality, but while it's the only definition of "quality" which seems to be used when referring to re-encoding video in threads, I kind of doubt it's the only definition most people use would when re-encoding video themselves, otherwise nobody would ever apply any filtering at all.

You could argue that you can take the original video and apply any sort of filtering you like to improve it, and then when you re-encode the "improved" version, some of the new "quality" will be lost through the encoding process, but because quality is subjective, it could easily be argued the improvements to the original via filtering, less any quality loss when encoding, still produces a better quality output than the source.

Take the DVD encoding I mentioned in my earlier post. They were old PAL 4:3 interlaced DVDs I encoded with QTGMC doing the de-interlacing and denoising while de-interlacing to 50fps. Even after encoding, any "quality" comparison to the original would hardly be subjective, because the encoded video was smoother, slightly sharper, far less noisy, and simply looks better unless you happen to be using a definition of "quality" with which I'm completely unfamiliar.

Granted, if you're doing nothing but re-enoding, then as a general rule you'll lose quality because information is lost, but given many people use filtering of some sort when re-encoding then it's part of the encoding process. The main reason I re-encode is to reduce the file size, but there's been many times when I've re-encoded for the purpose of improving the quality. As I said though, we're probably really just arguing semantics.