Optimum x264 encoding settings

[zammil]

Hi guys,

I usually downsize videos using x264 encoders.i use two pass encoding which is is done with xvid4psp. but it is taking a lot of time.These are the settings i generally use .is it because of the settings i use or is it just the x264 encoder is slow by nature.i would like to get settings which will provide maximum quality with minimum time consumed

[mgh]

settings used-reduce reference frames and bframes to 3, and reduce subme to 7- should reduce encoding time substantially with negligible effect on quality

[PuzZLeR]

Let me suggest you use constant quality instead of two passes. It should cut your time almost in half.

I believe doing two passes today is a waste of time unless, and only if, a specific bitrate is desired.

As well, I too will highly recommend you reduce bframes and reference frames to 3. Other than maybe animation, I personally have never seen a benefit to more.

I'm also wondering what preset is default on this GUI (don't use it). x264 has 10 settings that can go from Ultra Fast to Placebo. The closer to Ultra Fast the faster the encode no doubt.

[zammil]

but i want my video to be of a particular size .i think it's not possible using constant quality.

[PuzZLeR]

but i want my video to be of a particular size .i think it's not possible using constant quality.

No it's not possible with constant quality because all different sources will deal with different results.

But that's what's so beautiful about it.

I mean, are you going to encode a talk show with the same bitrate as you would an action flick, which would demand more? Either your talk show will have overkill bitrate, or your action flick will have many annoying artifacts depending on what bitrate you choose if it's the same for both.

Do we have the same clothing size for all humans? This would be just as ridiculous for video.

I guess maybe I can suggest a different way of thinking instead. Why do you care about a specific file size? Why don't you instead care about a certain quality? And keep in mind, constant quality will not bloat your file, it will give you the minimum bitrate for the quality you ask of it.

If you do want to experiment, a crf value of 18-21 is a good starting point.

Most experienced users love constant quality from what I see. You can do what you want my friend, hopefully I've opened your mind to a new philosophy in video encoding.

[poisondeathray]

You're using slow 1st pass . 1st Pass is mainly for frametype and bitrate allocation , and slow settings provide negligible benefit and make it waaay slower.

ME Range of 64 is overkill. "Placebo" settings use 24, and that is usually overkill.

Check your encode logs to see if you actually use that many consecutive b-frames or reference frames. On those particular sources, if they are not used, you're only wasting time.

[zammil]

so if i use constant quality will the resulting video be of smaller size than source.one more question puzzler. i have seen HD movies of 800 MB onwards which are ripped from Blurays of 25 and 40 GB almost identical with source.so if they can encode to such low sizes.is it not possible that i can also do it??

[poisondeathray]

i have seen HD movies of 800 MB onwards which are ripped from Blurays of 25 and 40 GB almost identical with source.so if they can encode to l such low sizes.is it not possible that i can also do it??

If it was a well made blu-ray , this is impossible

Unless you have very bad eyes / poor judgement, or the blu-ray was an upscaled source from SD, or it's very smooth animation with no gradients.

[PuzZLeR]

so if i use constant quality will the resulting video be of smaller size than source.one more question puzzler

Ask away, no problem.

This is difficult to answer, and it depends what your Source is. But the rule of thumb is that: the lower the number of CRF, the higher the file size (and closer to the Source in quality).

Most would agree that 18-21 is a good starting point because it shouldn't bloat the file and should look very much like the Source. Anything over 24 starts to look kind of horrid IMO.

But anything under 15, although looks good, starts to get very big, even exponentially big, in file size with very little benefit (this would be an asymptote in Mathematics). If, for example MPEG-2/DvD is your Source, and you use crf=10, I would expect your final file size to be bigger than your Source, but will still be lossy, and look only slightly better than a much smaller file size at crf=16.

Experiment first with different numbers. But when doing so change your thinking from "What is the highest bitrate I will accept to get as much quality as possible?" to instead "What is the lowest quality I will accept to save as much bitrate as possible?".

[txporter]

i have seen HD movies of 800 MB onwards which are ripped from Blurays of 25 and 40 GB almost identical with source.so if they can encode to l such low sizes.is it not possible that i can also do it??

If it was a well made blu-ray , this is impossible

Unless you have very bad eyes / poor judgement, or the blu-ray was an upscaled source from SD, or it's very smooth animation with no gradients.

It's been a long time since I have torrent'd anything, but I remember most files called 'HD' were actually SD transcodes of an HD file. That is the only way that I can think of to get files that small from blu-rays and have them look ok.

[PuzZLeR]

i have seen HD movies of 800 MB onwards which are ripped from Blurays of 25 and 40 GB almost identical with source.so if they can encode to l such low sizes.is it not possible that i can also do it??

If it was a well made blu-ray , this is impossible

Unless you have very bad eyes / poor judgement, or the blu-ray was an upscaled source from SD, or it's very smooth animation with no gradients.

It's been a long time since I have torrent'd anything, but I remember most files called 'HD' were actually SD transcodes of an HD file. That is the only way that I can think of to get files that small from blu-rays and have them look ok.

I notice this very much on YouTube too.

Alot of "HD" content on the 'Net currently is very misleading.

[krohm]

sorry to jack the thread but its of a similar vein, trying to convert with x264 and came out with a smaller file than the original. im wanting to preserve the quality as much as possible, read a site that advised some settings and changed a few round and now have a 30% bigger file.. settings i changed are....


encoding mode- constant
crf- 12
subme- 9
me- multi hexagon
me range- 64
reference frames- 6
b frames- 6
prediction mode- auto
adaptive b frames- optimal
b-pyramid- normal
weighted p frames- smart analylsis

pretty sure thats everything of relevance that is in there.. i just want to convert all my internet video to x264 without loss of quality so i can edit them frame to frame with totalvideoredo before loading everything into a final editor and putting it all together. not worried about size as have many terrabytes. if i convert all these vids with these settings i wont lose quality but when i edit them into smaller clips, load them into an editor and put everything together another encoding will lose quality again right.. but not noticeably... this could be the downside to my original conversion and why i should try and get a similar sized file, each time losing as little as possible...

to load these x264's plus all the other footage i have to adobe im going to need to use avisynth correct... to load them into premiere... so if i have the scripts for each format i should be ok with loading them all in??

[PuzZLeR]

First of all crf=12 is way too low a value IMO. Try something higher in number. I would start with crf=18, then 19, 20, etc. Keep in mind, the higher the number, the lower the file size and quality.

***EDIT: Adjusted for a correction in the last paragraph.

Other than that, I don't see anything else in your settings that will increase file size much.

i just want to convert all my internet video to x264 without loss of quality

You will lose quality no matter what crf value or bitrate you use.

i just want to convert all my internet video to x264 without loss of quality so i can edit them frame to frame with totalvideoredo before loading everything into a final editor and putting it all together. not worried about size as have many terrabytes.

Do you want to edit before or after encoding? I would suggest you do it before, assuming your Source is editable, because, even though VideoReDo is working on a H.264 editor, it's still going to be a bigger pain to edit them after you convert to x264.

if i convert all these vids with these settings i wont lose quality but when i edit them into smaller clips, load them into an editor and put everything together another encoding will lose quality again right.. but not noticeably...

Again, let me suggest crf=18. Yes, it's lossy, but shouldn't be very noticeable.

to load these x264's plus all the other footage i have to adobe im going to need to use avisynth correct... to load them into premiere... so if i have the scripts for each format i should be ok with loading them all in??

I would suggest you do your edits beforehand. This way it's easier to cut, etc. Then when done, drop it into your x264 encoder and go. You'll have less processing time in encoding later.

I don't use Adobe editors, so I'm not familiar. But common sense does dictate that when you do your final encode, which would be with x264 in this case, complete all edits first, or set them up in your script if your encoder/editor supports it.

[deadrats]

so if i use constant quality will the resulting video be of smaller size than source.one more question puzzler. i have seen HD movies of 800 MB onwards which are ripped from Blurays of 25 and 40 GB almost identical with source.so if they can encode to such low sizes.is it not possible that i can also do it??

you have figured out a dirty little secret, the movie studios and authoring houses are all thumb sucking morons, complete and utter buffoons, that's why they waste their time and money encoding movies to 30+ mb/s bit rates using 40-70 grand h264 encoders, but the script kiddies that use free open source tools to transcode the movies down to 800 mb for a 1080p are the true geniuses that know what they're doing.

seriously if you have actually seen a full 90 minute 1080p transcode down to 800mb that you thought was identical to the source blu-ray then i suggest you put down the bottle of jim bean, remove your coke bottle lens glasses and get the cataract surgery you so desperately need.

and for the record, using 6 consecutive b-frames and 8 reference frame is absurd beyond belief, i suggest you download some professionally encoded hi def movie trailers (or a true blu-ray) and analyze the video stream using media info, i guarantee you won't find any that use more than 2 b-frames and 1 reference frame.

[jagabo]

Using h.264 compression for an intermediate file isn't a good idea. Unless you use CRF 0 (lossless mode, very big files) and all I frames, or at least very short GOPs.

[krohm]

First of all crf=12 is way too low a value IMO. Keep in mind, the lower the number, the lower the file size and quality.

well, those settings gave me a 1.2 gig file output from a 720mb file. the file size doesnt matter but it will give me a larger file size when i up that crf, which i will.

will lose quality no matter what crf value or bitrate you use.

yes but surely not noticeable? the 1.2gig output from the 720mb file really looks good, im sure it will look slightly better with the upped crf..

Do you want to edit before or after encoding?

essentially, after encoding, considering my predicament i think ild rather edit them up all before final editing.

i have so many different formats of non DVD/HD/BD so im wanting to encode them first, watch everything and edit everything i need to, then put all the small edited clips together in a final edited project in adobe or something. i figured converting the non HD/BD lesser quality footage would be just an easier way before editing up the final project. i have about 50 different formats so to be able to edit them all is next to impossible as no editor is able to load everything. simpler to convert all the various formats to one format, edit them all up. then focus on editing all the BD footage in premiere while loading all the non HD/BD edited clips.

I would suggest you do your edits beforehand.

how? i have 50 different formats and no editor will load all of them to be able to edit them all. thats why i need to convert all these so i can simply edit them all up in totalvideoredo and put them all together later in premiere or something. im just trying to streamline the process

ive asked before on here various ways i can start this project and im always referred back to command line software that ive not been able to get working. thats not a simple process. i have so much video and in so many different formats i just figured the easiest way is to convert them all as losslessly as possible, edit them to make smaller clips with totalvideoredo, then start loading all those clips plus the BD footage i have in premiere to put it all together.

if someone can help me through the process an easier way then im all for it. but atm i have so much material to work with this is seemingly the only simple way i can go about this. any further feedback would be massively appreciated



i also have a questions regarding captured streamed hd and sd footage where the only good footage is if i use a 13mb constant data capture? anything less even if capturing SD is noticeable poor. if the file outputs are massive. i can just edit them up and encode later right? if the files are massive i will still be able to encode them at a later date without losing heaps of quality. i figure to capture in the highest quality i can and then edit and encode later right??? probably should be asking this in the capture section.. using a haupauge HD PVR btw..

[krohm]

Using h.264 compression for an intermediate file isn't a good idea. Unless you use CRF 0 (lossless mode, very big files) and all I frames, or at least very short GOPs.

well, see above.. im kind of lost for what to do if not doing this. the quality seems quite excellent with the above mentioned settings. these are mostly net documentaries and such anyways so the quality isnt superb to begin with. how noticeable will it be. this 1.2gb file seems pretty good and im going to encode it again with a higher CRF so should be even better. these high data file sizes are they going to affect the final encoding process??

[poisondeathray]

this 1.2gb file seems pretty good and im going to encode it again with a higher CRF so should be even better. these high data file sizes are they going to affect the final encoding process??

Higher CRF results lower quality, smaller filesize . When you get to CRF 0, it's lossless. But if you are using lossless, there are faster, more compressed lossless codecs.

[krohm]

puzzler just wrote the opposite, thats why i thought 12 was a good starting point.. i mean should i be using lossless for these types of files. i just need something i can load into totalvideoredo and clip these net documentaries up quickly and easily. then load all of the clipped footage to premiere and work out how to load BD's with avisynth, edit them, and put all the edits together and make a final product then output that.. that is the end goal...

[poisondeathray]

Why waste time and lose extra quality? Why bother with totalvdieoredo? If you're using premiere, just trim the clips in there. It's a full function editor

If you're going in/out of multiple programs (again why) , but for whatever reason, use a lossless codec if you have the HDD space.

If you want to use a fast lossless codec (fast encode and decode), ut video codec. Configure the # cores in the configuration as your CPU . It's the fastest multithreaded lossless codec . Huffyuv would be another option

[krohm]

because i cant load all the clips into premiere.. so i should get all the scripts i need for avisynth and then load all the video i have to premiere, clip them in there and compile in there... you've advised this before but it is a fairly steep learning curve and probably need some direct assistance rather than forum postings... you on msn maybe, maybe i could get some real time assistance... shoot us a pm if u interested.... ild even pay at this point!

[poisondeathray]

what clips can't you load ? Premiere CS4/5 can accept BD .m2ts natively (if h.264 or mpeg2 blu-ray, if VC-1 then you're out of luck and would have to use avisynth or some other method)

Only if you're editing clips that can't import natively, then you could covert to some intermediate format like ut video codec for import. Otherwise what you're doing doesn't make too much sense.

Although you can , you don't need avisynth for importing . Avisynth import doesn't work too well in CS5 either (64-bit avisynth is buggy and the plugin is buggy)

I think you're making this a lot harder than it is.

[krohm]

im sure i am, i have premiere pro 4 but it seems easier to edit these clips frame to frame in totalvideoredo then i can work on premiere later once ive clipped everything up. so you think i should just clip them up in premiere and those that i cant i need to load via avisynth. i have a lot of BD that i need to edit so will have to use avisynth to load them so am still needing to use it anyway. i just know im not going to be able to do this without some serious assistance.

[PuzZLeR]

It must have been a long day at work. I did edit and correct my last post as shown. The following is correct:

The higher the value of CRF, the lower the file size and lower the quality compared to the Source.
- or conversely -
The lower the value of CRF, the higher the file size and higher the quality compared to the Source.

My apologies.

[PuzZLeR]

so if i use constant quality will the resulting video be of smaller size than source.one more question puzzler. i have seen HD movies of 800 MB onwards which are ripped from Blurays of 25 and 40 GB almost identical with source.so if they can encode to such low sizes.is it not possible that i can also do it??

you have figured out a dirty little secret, the movie studios and authoring houses are all thumb sucking morons, complete and utter buffoons, that's why they waste their time and money encoding movies to 30+ mb/s bit rates using 40-70 grand h264 encoders, but the script kiddies that use free open source tools to transcode the movies down to 800 mb for a 1080p are the true geniuses that know what they're doing.

seriously if you have actually seen a full 90 minute 1080p transcode down to 800mb that you thought was identical to the source blu-ray then i suggest you put down the bottle of jim bean, remove your coke bottle lens glasses and get the cataract surgery you so desperately need.

Well, here is the bind the movie houses are in I suppose.

Alot of content out there has SD Source, and not just older stuff. There's little need for HD on a number of projects such as documentaries, interviews, sitcoms, etc. As well, have you ever seen a music video collection, or "best of" that is available in HD? Please, let me know, I'd be interested (not live, but MTV type clips).

Personally, I'm a big fan of the "gray area" of blu-ray, which is SD content in H.264 - more efficient format on a much higher capacity disc (for SD Source). For example, you can literally put 5-10 seasons in SD of a 22 minute sitcom, or even 500-1000 HQ music videos, all in DvD quality and all on only one disc.

But, my point is, as long as DvD is alive it won't happen with much frequency because a BD disc sold that is "not in HD" will likely tick off the average consumer despite the obvious advantages. So the movie houses will either release such content as DvD "sets" (which can be more profitable), or release upscaled HD versions of them on BD. Both of these scenarios are highly inefficient and wasteful IMO.

So if a Source is SD -> encoded HD -> and a "script kiddie" that knows what they're doing encodes it back down to SD, there could be little difference to the eyes, even if you're sober.

and for the record, using 6 consecutive b-frames and 8 reference frame is absurd beyond belief, i suggest you download some professionally encoded hi def movie trailers (or a true blu-ray) and analyze the video stream using media info, i guarantee you won't find any that use more than 2 b-frames and 1 reference frame.

Depending on profile/bitrate, bframes=6, ref=8, may not even be BD compatible. And I agree, there's little reason to use that many. I find 3 and 3 meets all my needs.

I've seen some slight benefit on some animation due to the flat backgrounds, but, meh, I couldn't bother. The higher processing and risk of incompatibility wouldn't be worth it anyway despite any tiny benefit.

[poisondeathray]

im sure i am, i have premiere pro 4 but it seems easier to edit these clips frame to frame in totalvideoredo then i can work on premiere later once ive clipped everything up. so you think i should just clip them up in premiere and those that i cant i need to load via avisynth. i have a lot of BD that i need to edit so will have to use avisynth to load them so am still needing to use it anyway. i just know im not going to be able to do this without some serious assistance.

If you are more comfortable with that method (pre trimming clips in another application), go ahead

For blu-ray , you could even use tssniper to cut clips (again, VC-1 is the only type that is going to give you problems)

CS4 has an interlaced chroma bug with progresssive h.264, so it makes sense to convert to a lossless intermediate through a different decoder first

Start a your own thread instead of hijacking one , and you will get your help

[PuzZLeR]

@Krohm: I've followed the ensuing discussion, and honestly, I agree too that you're making it harder on yourself in the attempt to make it easier.

If I'm not mistaken, you're looking for an all-in-one type of solution, but unfortunately video is complex.

If you have that much of a variance in Source types, you won't get away with good results for all with the same method/tools for all. I speak from experience. Many years ago I use to use VideoStudio for everything, including the final encode to DivX. Good editor, workable results, but not without its inherent headaches.

Today I would do things quite differently for different Sources, DV, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, QT, etc, etc, etc...

The only "all-in-one" I would suggest is an intermediate lossless, and/or highly editable video format. This is what most here would do in your situation for an "easy solution".

[krohm]

ill start a new post ild like to pm yourself and pdr, hopefully i could get one of you on msn to talk me through some of the processes your suggesting.. so far it seems im either converting the bd to lossless format, or loading them with avisynth. and with the non BD footage i either convert losslessly and edit, or load into premiere and edit them. pretty much thats what i was trying with these above 264 settings. just so its easy to edit them in totalvideoredo. just can frame to frame edit really easily output them easily. can i still just do that if i crank the crf down and leave all other settings...? there wont be too much of a loss of quality or are you still advising to use a lossless or do it in premiere. the bd footage is a whole nother issue but need to address both. maybe ill just start a new post and go from there..