VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Thread
  1. This was inspired by the other thread where the poster asked about a lower quality 1080p or a higher quality 720, so I decided to do a test. Attached you will find 2 files, one of the files is x264 with the "slower" preset and tune film at 1920x858 and 4000kb/s, the other file is x265 with the "superfast" preset at 1280x572 with the bit rate a bit lower at 3800kb/s, mainly because x265 undershot the target bit rate by 200kb/s.

    Please view them at full screen, there's no sound, the source was 3840x1714 73mb/s Tears of Steel and when deciding which one your prefer do it from the point of view of a consumer, in other words assume you had a membership to a paid content site, like Hulu or NetFlix and for a fee of $20 a month you were allowed to download 20gb of content each month, DRM free, which of the two would you feel gave you the better "bang for the buck".

    I also did SSIM and PSNR tests on each against the source and after a sufficient number of people have shared their preference I will post what the tests say is the better quality file.

    Thanks for participating.
    Image Attached Files
    • File Type: mp4 2.mp4 (351.89 MB, 75 views)
    • File Type: mp4 3.mp4 (332.54 MB, 114 views)
    Quote Quote  
  2. I don't even have to look at them. I prefer the x264 encoding because all my devices play h.264. Only the computers play h.265.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    It's also not an apples to apples comparison. Worthless.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    If a choice between 720p x265 or 1080p x264 at the same bitrate ever comes up you can be sure something has gone terribly wrong somewhere down the line.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Complete waste of time. The bitrates are similar but you used a different encoder so there's nothing to say the 720p encode must be lower quality. Plus I can't be bothered downloading 700MB worth of files when I already know if I had to choose between a lower resolution and more compression artefacts I'd go for a lower resolution every time.

    I used a noisy video and an unnaturally low bitrate so the difference would be more noticeable, and none are especially pretty, but I wonder if anyone will claim the 1080p video looks better because it's a higher resolution? I ask because the "other thread" sophisticles mentioned inspired me to do so. Obviously the 1080p version has much more picture detail.

    Why two 720p versions? The first used the same encoder settings as the the 1080p version but that's not completely fair because there's less video to encode and it therefore doesn't take as long. So I figured for the 720p version a second encode using a slower x264 speed preset would even that out a little.
    And for fun I threw in one at 540p. Mainly because it helps show resolution isn't the only thing determining picture detail. Stop the 540p and 1080p versions on the last frame, run them fullscreen or maximised and switch between them.

    Edit: I forgot to convert the colours for the 540p version, in case anyone wonders why it looks a tad different (green might look a bit brighter, depending on the player being used).
    Image Attached Files
    Last edited by hello_hello; 11th Feb 2015 at 06:01.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    This was inspired by the other thread where the poster asked about a lower quality 1080p or a higher quality 720, so I decided to do a test. Attached you will find 2 files, one of the files is x264 with the "slower" preset and tune film at 1920x858 and 4000kb/s, the other file is x265 with the "superfast" preset at 1280x572 with the bit rate a bit lower at 3800kb/s, mainly because x265 undershot the target bit rate by 200kb/s.
    Two different encoders, very similar bitrates, yet x264 CRF vs x264 with "insert your preferred settings here" at a similar bitrate still eludes you?? How odd.....
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    one of the files is x264 with the "slower" preset and tune film
    According to MediaInfo the x264 file wasn't made with the slower preset. The settings used were similar to superfast or veryfast with --tune=film: ref=1, deblock=1:-1:-1 / me=dia / subme=2, trellis=0...
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    one of the files is x264 with the "slower" preset and tune film
    According to MediaInfo the x264 file wasn't made with the slower preset. The settings used were similar to superfast or veryfast with --tune=film: ref=1, deblock=1:-1:-1 / me=dia / subme=2, trellis=0...
    I just realized that I had posted the wrong one, I did several of them, it doesn't matter since you guys don't like the test I see no reason to post the correct one.
    Quote Quote  
  9. you designed this to be an academic discussion, pretty much no practical reasons or very little are present to investigate, for myself I would not encode for a computer only for now,..., and in 5 years live transcoding could be possible (not for UHD yet but anyway), so you guys want to be "progressive" but at the same time it is lost in trans... encoding
    Last edited by _Al_; 11th Feb 2015 at 09:31.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    Encoding speed is all I can think of...

    How long did each take to make?
    Quote Quote  
  11. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    So many people miss the point of compression.

    Lossy compression is unfortunately a necessary evil but obviously should be minimized as much as possible.

    For many it is about compressing the maximum amount while maintaining a minimum video quality instead of compressing the minimum amount while still being able to play the video.

    The mindset of some is incomprehensible.

    Perhaps they should put a note on each video they compress:

    "While the video quality is mediocre I take great pride in getting a marvelous compression rate!"

    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Search Comp PM
    I use QTGMC in lossless placebo mode for pretty much everything interlaced, my x264 settings are slightly higher than "Very Slow" with CRF set at 16, the FLAC encoding settings I use with MakeMKV means it takes about 4 hours to rip each Blu Ray, I've spent countless hours trying to get chapters into my MKVs in EXACTLY the right spots and all my Blu Ray rips are stored on my RAID6 drive in their original codecs...

    I'd wonder about the kind of people who'd find the subject of this thread useful.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    So many people miss the point of compression.

    Lossy compression is unfortunately a necessary evil but obviously should be minimized as much as possible.

    For many it is about compressing the maximum amount while maintaining a minimum video quality instead of compressing the minimum amount while still being able to play the video.

    The mindset of some is incomprehensible.

    Perhaps they should put a note on each video they compress:

    "While the video quality is mediocre I take great pride in getting a marvelous compression rate!"

    So all those years we've been watching web videos or even cable TV, now portable devices we had miss the point and should not do that at all? Remember DivX, those folks should suck it up and download 8Mbit over dial-up internet, Or I remember way back mailing my family 1MB wmv videos, should I do not do that as well?
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    So many people miss the point of compression.

    Lossy compression is unfortunately a necessary evil but obviously should be minimized as much as possible.

    For many it is about compressing the maximum amount while maintaining a minimum video quality instead of compressing the minimum amount while still being able to play the video.

    The mindset of some is incomprehensible.

    Perhaps they should put a note on each video they compress:

    "While the video quality is mediocre I take great pride in getting a marvelous compression rate!"
    You're right about the mindset of some being incomprehensible. For instance, your need to post meaningless generalisations that don't really have anything to do with the topic is somewhat hard to understand.
    I'd be willing to bet for many of us it's about compressing the maximum amount while maintaining maximum quality. Or at least very high quality. Where do we fit into you theory?

    Perhaps I should put a note on each video I compress:

    "While the video quality is very high I take great pride in knowing newpball will decide it looks bad because it doesn't fit some preconceived notion he has regarding bitrate and resolution and if I post a sample to prove otherwise he'll just ignore it."
    Last edited by hello_hello; 12th Feb 2015 at 03:48. Reason: spelling
    Quote Quote  
  15. Originally Posted by sophisticles View Post
    I just realized that I had posted the wrong one, I did several of them, it doesn't matter since you guys don't like the test I see no reason to post the correct one.
    Anyone who's spent ten minutes encoding video knows you can't compare two completely different resolutions in respect to quality when resolution isn't the only difference between them. And when they don't even use the same encoder.... I've no idea what you were tying to prove. Aside from the fact you obviously could offer some some encodes at the same bitrate using x264 CRF and x264 with "insert your preferred settings here" but you decided not to for pretty obvious reasons.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern California
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    [I'd be willing to bet for many of us it's about compressing the maximum amount while maintaining maximum quality. Or at least very high quality. Where do we fit into you theory?
    That's a how to 'have your cake and eat it' theory. It does not work!

    Lossy compression should always be done because there are no alternatives, and the amount should obviously always be minimized to as little as possible. Why anyone would disagree with this simple thing is beyond my comprehension.

    If you burn a standard DVD you have to use a certain amount of lossy MPGEG-2 compression as the disk is limited in space, but obviously not more than necessary. If you make a DVD from a high quality source and you have 30% free space left over you really failed. If you have a very high resolution video and your hardware cannot keep up with reading it you have to compress, hopefully lossless but if that does not work you have to do lossy compression. If you have to stream, that is if there are no better alternatives, you would have to compress as well.

    Lossy compression is necessary to overcome some constraint, it could be a maximum file size, the speed in which a storage medium can deliver, streaming bandwidth. It is done out of necessity not done out of some sort of a coolness.

    If you do not have such constraints but some harebrained idea that 'well 1GB is just too large' you just reduced the quality of your video unnecessarily.

    Ideally a video would be compressed lossless, the same as with images. But we are not there (yet) there are too many constraints. But what we should do, or at least those who are quality-conscious, is to minimize lossy compression.



    Last edited by newpball; 11th Feb 2015 at 14:10.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Quality can have different dimensions.

    Where have you been ten - fifteen years back, were you even born? You did not need to give somebody 8Mbit, 50min and 30% was empty? Trust me, they would not care even if it was 4Mbits. All they wanted to see was a message. So doing it even now, I'm failing miserably perhaps.

    Focus on reality, or quality of message!, not delivery box, Youtube is prove how things work, I'm happy for a 360p tutorial how to change a stupid recoil spring in lawn mover, in 30 year model (made to last or designed to be fixed) not needing to buy new lawn mower. Perhaps you have not done so far too many deeds to realize things like that. Man that guy reading you perhaps is feeling guilty and stupid now.

    And movies .... , I said it before, there is about 100 people encoding the same movie every day at the same moment, it is entirely up to them what they get out of it, whatever reason ... some decide to encode 16 ref frames, some 1080p with 2GB, it is up to them ... btw, those guys should downscale but reading you and similar posts they think they have to keep quality because they keep 1080p, HD wouldn't you say .... it is always, always better to downsize if there is not enough bitrate ...
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    [I'd be willing to bet for many of us it's about compressing the maximum amount while maintaining maximum quality. Or at least very high quality. Where do we fit into you theory?
    That's a how to 'have your cake and eat it' theory. It does not work!
    How can it not work? That's what CRF encoding is all about. You pick the desired quality and tuning and the output is maximum compression for that quality (options that decrease encoding speed aside). Sure you can fiddle with settings a little and maybe squeeze out a tad more compression, but that's pretty much how it works. So whether I choose CRF15, CRF18, or CRF27, how have I not achieved maximum compression for the specified quality? And if I pick a low CRF value, how have I not achieved maximum compression for a very high/transparent quality? Have you actually re-encoded any video yourself?

    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Lossy compression should always be done because there are no alternatives, and the amount should obviously always be minimized to as little as possible. Why anyone would disagree with this simple thing is beyond my comprehension.
    Your ability to comprehend aside, there's going to be a point where increasing the bitrate no longer increases the perceived quality, or where any bitrate increase would be well past the point of diminishing returns.

    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    If you burn a standard DVD you have to use a certain amount of lossy MPGEG-2 compression as the disk is limited in space, but obviously not more than necessary. If you make a DVD from a high quality source and you have 30% free space left over you really failed. If you have a very high resolution video and your hardware cannot keep up with reading it you have to compress, hopefully lossless but if that does not work you have to do lossy compression. If you have to stream, that is if there are no better alternatives, you would have to compress as well.
    I don't really know what you're on about there. Do people re-compress losslessly? What would be the point?

    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Lossy compression is necessary to overcome some constraint, it could be a maximum file size, the speed in which a storage medium can deliver, streaming bandwidth. It is done out of necessity not done out of some sort of a coolness.

    If you do not have such constraints but some harebrained idea that 'well 1GB is just too large' you just reduced the quality of your video unnecessarily.
    Who's referred to coolness? Your argument has nothing to do with to the "high quality" I referred to. You're debating something else entirely. I hope you're having fun pretending a different point was made and arguing with yourself.

    Originally Posted by newpball View Post
    Ideally a video would be compressed lossless, the same as with images. But we are not there (yet) there are too many constraints. But what we should do, or at least those who are quality-conscious, is to minimize lossy compression.
    No, for those who are quality conscious the goal is to minimise quality loss, or even improve on it a little. That doesn't mean minimising compression or we'd all be encoding with an mpeg2 encoder. It's funny in a way. Only recently you offered one of your irrational rants regarding mpeg2 being used for HD video and today you're all about minimising compression.

    I could offer examples where I've encoded video and the encoded version has looked better than the original due to filtering, even when I haven't used a particularly low CRF value, and doing it at a lower resolution, but I don't want to be the cause of your ears filling up with sand again. QTGMC for de-interlacing would be typical of that. I'm not just referring to improving quality with filtering when re-encoding DVD video though, but when re-encoding Bluray video as well. It's so obvious to me your arguments are irrelevant to my personal encoding I'm not sure I can find a way to explain it. It's like having to explain to someone that grass isn't pink.

    You do realise that as a general rule in forums, the strength of a persons argument is indirectly proportional to the likelihood they'll try to emphasise it with a silly picture?
    Image Attached Files
    Last edited by hello_hello; 12th Feb 2015 at 09:39. Reason: spelling
    Quote Quote  
  19. Maybe at the loss of fine detail stage now, but overall probably still better than the original.
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote