Larger or smaller frame size, which is better?

[ericdunn]

Hello!

When encoding a video, which produces a better picture, larger or smaller frame size (e.g. 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720)? My guess is a larger frame size will since it has more pixels. Am I right or wrong?

Also, in order to get a better clearer picture, what other factors should I take into consideration?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

Eric

[johns0]

Depends on the source you are using,if its 1080p to begin with and is original high quality then 1080 is best with high enough bitrate depending on the type of video,if a video has been encoded to 720p then there no reason to upscale it to 1080 because the resolution has been lost from its original 1080 if its a movie file.

[jagabo]

When encoding a video, which produces a better picture, larger or smaller frame size (e.g. 1920x1080 vs. 1280x720)? My guess is a larger frame size will since it has more pixels. Am I right or wrong?

Here's a little thought experiment for you. Reduce the frame size to 1x1 pixels. How good will the picture quality be?

On the other hand, higher resolutions require more bitrate in order to maintain quality. A 1920x1080 movie squeezed down to 716 MB to fit on a CD won't look very good. Reducing the frame size to 640x360 will probably look better.

If you're watching on a standard definition TV you won't see much difference between 1920x1080, 1280x720, or 720x480 because the TV is the limiting factor.

[Hoser Rob]

Actually even with an HDTV if you're sitting more than about 2.7 times the screen diagonal from it, and have average 20/20 vision, you cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. That's based upon pixel size, the angle subtended by the pixel, and the size of the receptors in the retina.

As mentioned, there's no point in encoding to a larger pixel count. You can't put in information if it's not there.

Other factors in quality? You may not like the answer. It gets pretty complex. especially with h.264, which is the best format now.

Video format standards were not developed for people like you and I who want to rip/convert dvd and br with free programs, but by pros and for pros. Newer standards like h.264 don't just have better compression. They have a lot of added encoding features.

Those extra options give you way better quality. But they were designed for people who really know what they're doing. There's no simple way to use them.

They also greatly increase encoding time. If you just start with advanced h.264 settings it'll take 3 times longer. And it gets much longer. You may spend more time encoding a dvd than watching it. Serious video pros use high end computers with cascaded processors and such. You don't find those in ordinary computer stores.

If you don't want to deal with that sort of compexity, and don't mind spending the money on hard drives, you may want to consider using something like makemkv, which doesn't reencode at all, or just ripping to dvd/br files and playing that in software.

[Cornucopia]

Actually even with an HDTV if you're sitting more than about 2.7 times the screen diagonal from it, and have average 20/20 vision, you cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. That's based upon pixel size, the angle subtended by the pixel, and the size of the receptors in the retina...

The exception to this is stereo 3D, where it can be proven/demonstrated that higher (horizontal) resolution improves depth perception.

Scott