View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
As jagabo said, Handbrake simple doesn't let you resize "up".Originally Posted by THRobinson
Why are you using the "custom anamorphic" option? Unless you need to for a reason, all you're doing is risking messing with the aspect ratio. "Anamorphic none" = "square pixels". You can still select modulus 8 (although I don't know why you would), but if "keep aspect ratio" is checked Vidcoder will automatically adjust the height when you adjust the width (or the other way around), so it's always resizing correctly for you.
If you select mod2 you can always choose a mod8 or mod4 width manually, but by letting the height be mod2 if necessary the resizing can be as accurate as possible. A mod2 height won't matter at all.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 42 of 42
-
Last edited by hello_hello; 8th May 2014 at 10:31.
-
I'm a little OCD about sticking to exact an 16:9 aspect ratio if I can. The closest square pixel 16:9 resolutions to NTSC are 864x486, or 832x468 (assuming straight 16:9 resizing is correct). I'd mostly tend to go with the second option and resize down a little. Especially if I'm cropping some of the original resolution away anyway. You can't crop an odd number of pixels using Handbrake as you can with Avisynth, but if you were to crop like this, you could resize to 832x468, have a perfect 16:9 output aspect ratio, and the resizing distortion would be 0%. Lots of ways to do it, but don't be scared to crop a couple of extra pixels if it helps to resize more accurately. Especially if you're resizing to mod8 dimensions.
[Attachment 25050 - Click to enlarge] -
Ya... seems that way... I chose none, keep aspect ratio and modulus 16 which goes to 720x400. Few pixels off from 16:9 which I think is 720x405 (I know 405 won't work)... modulus 8 brings it out to 720x408 but I read somewhere mod16 is prefered.
Got a test running now. All I can say is I hope once I finally get something I am happy with... when I start ripping season 2, I hope the preset I make works.
-
Mod16 is pretty much a limitation left over from the dark ages. Some older hardware may have problems playing non-mod16 video but I'm referring to Xvid/AVI capable DVD players etc. I've never had a problem playing x264 encoded video because it's mod2. My PC's video card decodes it, both the media players built into to the two TVs in this house happily decode it, the Bluray players decode it...... if you wanted to be totally safe you could stick to a mod4 width. Mod8 is unnecessary. The height doesn't matter.
Handbrake defaults to mod16 but it still won't resize "up" so you might have to wait for it to drag itself into the current century anyway. Vidcoder defaults to mod2 and I just realised when resizing to square pixels (anamorphic none) it doesn't even bother giving you a mod option any more. You simply adjust the resizing in increments of 2.
So sorry.... I've been advising to pick mod2 when resizing with "anamorphic none" and Vidcoder because I assumed it was the same as Handbrake. My bad....
If I want 16:9, I don't resize to a width of 720 as you can't resize to exactly 16:9 that way. I go with 704x396 instead as it's exactly 16:9. The width is mod16 and the height is mod4 so you'll have no playback problems. Each to their own level of OCD, I guess......Ya... seems that way... I chose none, keep aspect ratio and modulus 16 which goes to 720x400
Last edited by hello_hello; 8th May 2014 at 13:28.
-
Ah so not really a problem then since old XviD/AVI DVD Players, won't play MP4 anyways.
I was trying to upsize the video since was recommended to stick with the 480px height... not sure if I lose any quality or not... the small details like mod2, mod4, etc I'm not sure if makes any quality difference or not. Having the 16:9 off by 5px though I don't think I'd see a difference... especially since the auto crop is deleting 2px off the right side and top of the image (small black line for some reason on the DVD) so I think after all is said and done I should be ok.
I'm liking Handbrake... but I miss a few key features in VidCoder so probably switching back.
For example, in VidCoder I can have a preview screen open with a still image which HandBrake doesn't have so very hard to not only custom crop, but, in the case of the DVD ripping, I don't know which chapters are the start of an episode. Each episode on this disc has 3-4 chapters so need to look at the preview image to know which ones to queue. Also, no file/bitrate calculator for choosing a destination size. Plus... no way to upsize and force a 1/1 ratio of course.
But... for whatever reason, maybe the High Profile preset has different settings between the two apps, but, choosing High Profile and making a few tweeks... I swear the quality came out better using handbrake than with VidCoder even though I think I changed the same settings. Though there was some confusing getting tff working... may be the difference since not sure I got it running in VidCoder. Not 100% certain what it does, was just told it should help. -
Ya, saw it here... and in another forum someone mentioned it as well for interlaced DVDs
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/344902-Detelecine-decomb-issues/page2
In handbrake I just added tff into the one field and shows up in the parameters list on mouseover... but I had deinterlace set to slow so, not sure if overrides it, does in addition to it, or what but, the quality is better so finally settled on a preset and ripping the season to my media server.
I finally settled at 1250kbps 2-pass, and "slower" for the speed. About 228MB which is exactly where I wanted to be size wise.
-
If you deinterlaced you don't want to encode interlaced (tff, or bff).
-
Ahh...... I didn't think Handbrake supported interlaced encoding. Or at least I couldn't get it to work when I tried it, but obviously it does.
As jagabo said though, if you enabled the de-interlacing/decomb filter you shouldn't enable interlaced encoding.
I remember years ago running my first Xvid encodes of a TV series. I think I went with 350MB per episode. Then I noticed some were really good quality while others were a little less so, and one or two were downright average..... and I've never encoded while aiming for a particular file size since.I finally settled at 1250kbps 2-pass, and "slower" for the speed. About 228MB which is exactly where I wanted to be size wise.
At the moment I'm in the process of re-encoding an old BBC series. Each episode is pretty much the same length and I've used the same filtering each time and de-interlaced to 50fps. I've resized them all to 640x480 and used CRF18. So far, including audio, the file sizes have ranged from 322MB to 551MB with an average of 405MB (or the bitrate has ranged from 1414kbps to 2431kbps), but at least they're all the same quality. I'm happy with that but if I wanted to reduce the average file size I could use CRF19 or CRF20 each time, or even reduce the resolution a little, or some combination of the two, but at least they'd still all be the same quality. Encoding to the same file size while the quality varies instead.... well each to their own.....
And these days x264's CRF encoding makes quality based encoding nice and easy. No need to run compression tests and 2 pass encoding like back in the Xvid days. You do realise that if you run a CRF encode, make note of the bitrate, then use that bitrate for a 2 pass encode they'll both be encoded in the same way? For CRF encoding you pick the quality while for 2 pass encoding you pick the file size. That's really the only difference. Well aside from the fact CRF encoding is faster because it doesn't require 2 passes.Last edited by hello_hello; 8th May 2014 at 19:46.
-
About the only reason to limit yourself to ~228 MB files is if you are burning the files to CDs (3 files per CD). As was pointed out, you may find that some episodes aren't getting enough bitrate and some are getting more than they need. If you use a high bitrate you'll be wasting space on many of the files. If you use a low bitrate many of the files will look bad. Unless you have some other reason to use 2-pass VBR encoding it's better to use CRF encoding. That way you always get exactly the right bitrate and the quality you want.
Last edited by jagabo; 8th May 2014 at 20:52.
-
Ah, see... I went online to find information out but, never found what I was after. I found a few posts and in another forum was told to use tff, but, didn't know that it was a one or the other deal.
Bitrate wise, I tried a few at CRF23 which got the size down around 235MB each for about 3 episodes, checked and the bitrates were pretty much all the same so figured just set a bitrate. The goal was (given my finite amount of space) to keep the total under 20GB for the series of about 85 episodes. So under 235MB per file. It's simply a space issue... plus as previously mention early in the posts, I've seen a lot of great rips of TV series that were 22min long and around 225MB so figured it was an attainable goal.
I have the series now, old avi TVRips, under 20GB but horrible quality... 4:3 video with black bars and such so, bought the series and hoping to simply switch the old with the new and not make a big dent in drive space difference.
But... having done so many tests the past 3 days, I'm not against a few more. Maybe I'll re-rip the the first 3 episodes again, try CRF at around 22-23 and see how it looks. As well I guess with and without tff... unless having tff on it bypasses deinterlace? -
I find there's a lot less variation in bitrate with old TV episodes because they are often pretty noisy (video noise equals motion and detail -- as far as video compression is concerned) because they're often made from studio video tapes, even if they were originally shot on film. So the amount of action/motion in each episode has less of an effect on bitrate. Newer stuff often results in a 2x or more difference in bitrate between the "slower" episodes and the high action ones. Reducing noise is a good way to reduce the amount of bitrate needed. A little noise reduction might reduce the bitrate requirement by half.
Quote
