H264 File Size versus Quality

[SCDVD]

I have a new PS3 and one of the things that I am using it for is streaming video from my PC. I have a number of movies that are 700 MB XVID files. They look decent but they are a little soft on a 50" plasma screen. Since the PS3 supports H264, I am considering doing all future movies that I convert in H264 to take advantage of its higher resolution versus file size. I'm looking for guidelines with respect to file size versus quality with H264. Is there a bit rate (file size) that the PS3 starts to choke on? I know it takes more processor power to play H264 so I presume there are practical limits to avoid overwhelming the player. I am using an Ethernet connection so I don't have a wireless bandwidth problem. I'm looking for good video quality but not necessarily the best possible since there is a file size versus quality consideration. I would like to keep the file size relatively small - around 1 GB or so.

I am using Fair Use Wizard to do the conversions and I have been pleased with its performance with XVID files. At present I don't have an H264 Codec on my PC. The H264 selection is grayed out in Fair Use Wizard. Is there more than one H264 Coded to choose from? If so, which is the best choice and where can I download it?

[Baldrick]

You need the full version of fair use wizard to do h264 encoding or use http://download.videohelp.com/download/FU-Setup28.exe (it contains a banner toolbar but you don't have to install it).

But you wont notice any big difference between H264 and XviD if your source is "just" DVD.

[edDV]

I have a new PS3 and one of the things that I am using it for is streaming video from my PC. I have a number of movies that are 700 MB XVID files. They look decent but they are a little soft on a 50" plasma screen.

A little soft at 700 MB on a 50 inch screen? You have to be kidding.

General expectation for h.264 (and divx/xvid/wmv) is near equivalent performance at half DVD bitrate. That would be ~2.5 to 3.5 Mb/s. Down from there it is up to what you can tolerate.

[SCDVD]

You need the full version of fair use wizard to do h264 encoding or use http://download.videohelp.com/download/FU-Setup28.exe (it contains a banner toolbar but you don't have to install it).

But you wont notice any big difference between H264 and XviD if your source is "just" DVD.

I have the full (paid) version. I will take another look at it when I get home. Maybe I didn't notice the H264 enable function when I took at quick look at it last night.

[poisondeathray]

I'm not familiar with fair use wizard, but I just wanted you to know that PS3 can only play AVC Level 4.1, and max 3 b-frames - so you'd have to change this in the configuration

There many several free ways to do this too, here's a guide for 3 methods with pros/cons to each method
http://www.digital-digest.com/articles/PS3_H.264_Conversion_Guide_page1.html

Cheers

[SCDVD]

A little soft at 700 MB on a 50 inch screen? You have to be kidding.

At my normal 15 ft. viewing distance; yes a little soft. If I stick my nose into the TV as if it were a big monitor on my desk or something, it obviously looks too soft. The movies that I have are ones that I own on DVD or a few BlueRay discs. When I want to watch them in their "full glory", I play the disc itself.

I chose 700 MB XVID files at the time I had a 32" SD Sony CRT TV. I found that 700 MB was sufficient at the same 15 ft. viewing distance. I use 2-pass max quality to encode with Fair Use Wizard.

[SCDVD]

I'm not familiar with fair use wizard, but I just wanted you to know that PS3 can only play AVC Level 4.1, and max 3 b-frames - so you'd have to change this in the configuration

There many several free ways to do this too, here's a guide for 3 methods with pros/cons to each method
http://www.digital-digest.com/articles/PS3_H.264_Conversion_Guide_page1.html

Cheers

Thanks, that is very helpful information.

[PuzZLeR]

I too haven't used FairUse Wizard, but about H.264, you're correct on its processing demands. Keep in mind, that you don't need the extensive features of the standard which allows 16 multiple reference frames, b-pyramids, and other b-frame insanities.

To be safe, use a QuickTime compatible profile, which uses no more than 3 b-frames and is tame in other parts too - you can't go wrong ever on PC playback that way. Another now is a blu-ray preset, which is very similar to the QT one, and will be the most common format a few years from now. Neither at level 4.1 will choke your PS3.

Stay away from PSP or iPod profiles which use a watered down version of H.264 and will be bad quality on a big screen. Only use those for portables. (But even so, I don't waste resources encoding to H.264 for portables when MPEG-4 ISO is just fine.)

To get the quality at a certain bitrate, as you know, there is no answer since every video clip is different. It's like trying to fit the exact clothing size on every human being.

Use the CRF function to do your thinking for you. You only need one pass and it will give you the lowest file size possible for the quality you ask of it, which is guaranteed. The lower the value, the better the quality and bigger the file size.

CRF = 18 is considered near-lossless encoding, so anything less may be overkill. However, most people are happy with CRF=20 or 21. Experiment to see what you like.

[vhelp]

General expectation for h.264 (and divx/xvid/wmv) is near equivalent performance at half DVD bitrate. That would be ~2.5 to 3.5 Mb/s. Down from there it is up to what you can tolerate.

Yeah, I think that users are encoding their H264 videos too low on account of old divx/xvid
encoding practices and low bitrate strategies, etc.

So far, I haven't seen any user-h264-encoded videos meeting quality expectations. And the
ones that I have been attempting at are about the only ones I feel don't apply to this (bias)
opinion of mine. In other words, I am seeing H264's name/application/usage go in vain.

-vhelp 4647

[guns1inger]

Yeah, I think that users are encoding their H264 videos too low on account of old divx/xvid
encoding practices and low bitrate strategies, etc.

So far, I haven't seen any user-h264-encoded videos meeting quality expectations. And the
ones that I have been attempting at are about the only ones I feel don't apply to this (bias)
opinion of mine. In other words, I am seeing H264's name/application/usage go in vain.

-vhelp 4647

I have always felt the same about Xvid/Divx. The old fashioned and now arbitrary choice of the CD as a basic unit of measure for file size is so restrictive, and puts quality well below file size in the priority list. I encode Xvid at around 10MB per minute of running time for SD TV shows at 640 x 480 and find it acceptable. This gives me a bitrate of around 1240 kbps video, plus 128 kbps stereo MP3 audio. I am finding, for H264, that I am still using around the same bitrate, if not slightly higher, but getting increased quality for it. If only more devices played it.

[PuzZLeR]

Some good points were raised in the last two posts.

The mindset in the past with DivX/Xvid was about a compressed alternative at a very small file size, so it can squeeze through the 'Net and fit perfectly on a CD, as long as the quality was bearable. The mindset today with H.264 isn't about squeezing and saving every little bit - it's about tremendous quality at a bearable file size. Quite the opposite I'd say.

That's why I use quality based encoding now. Not only is it only one pass, but trying to "fit" a movie on a CD is an outdated ritual anyway when storage was different back then. Keep in mind, those 700MB DivX/Xvid movies floating around were encoded for size and delivery, regardless of whether or not the quality was any good - quite worthless assets in my opinion.

And keep in mind, when the CD's final specs were established some 25 years ago nobody chose that capacity because it was the perfect size to fit a DivX/Xvid movie on it years later...

[Midzuki]

Still, I'm afraid the incompetent releasers will not stop themselves
from being incompetent only because recordable DVDs are as cheap as
recordable CDs nowadays --- especially if we consider that AVC is much more
difficult to be mastered than MPEG-2 or XviD.

[John]

I dont think i will ever go back to divx xvid, been using h264 for a couple of months and have been blown away with the quality. ive even redone some of the stuff i had done, as you said, I also found it a bit soft on my 42"
its no longer about file size its now about the quality. ive stopped using my dvd player because i can get better results with a h264 film than i can with a dvd upscaled.
I havnt tried fairusewizard yet, been using handbrake with excellent results.