VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and copy Ultra HD Blu-rays and DVDs! Or rip iTunes movies and music! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
Thread
  1. Hello,

    The question I have is simple. What difference is there between the output from DVDFab 9's MKV CRF 20 and the output from Handbrake on MKV CRF 20? For DVDFab, I have all "acceleration" shut off, it's only using Software encoding for all of it. I'm curious if it's doing anything differently than Handbrake would on the same settings? I am getting really quick encoding times in DVDFab too (<1hr). My hardware is an Intel i7-4790k "Devil's Canyon," 32GB of RAM, doing the encode onto the same HDD so as not to allow any latency/reading bottlenecks. Normally Handbrake would take me about 3-4x as much encoding time.

    How come one is faster than the other? Is it because Handbrake has more "tuning" it's during the encode? If there was no difference, I should see approximately the same encoding time.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by hogger129; 24th Dec 2015 at 14:55.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Central Germany
    Search PM
    Neither DVDFab nor Handbrake are "encoders". But both may use x264, so both will probably mean the same by "CRF 20". Still, the bit rate or quality level control is not the only parameter. It is well possible that one converter GUI uses x264 with a fast set of options, and another converter GUI prefers a slower set of options instead, maybe even does more filtering before even feeding the x264 encoder with video. If you can't grab the exact command line options set of both tools, you can't compare them. Not by comparing the CRF value alone.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    West Texas
    Search PM
    LigH.de has it right. DVDFab cuts corners anywhere possible to speed things up. One thing I noticed in their output is number of reference frames. They use only two, even when making a Blu-ray copy, not an MKV or MP4.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Thanks for the information guys. So it seems like Handbrake/Vidcoder or BDRB is the proper way to go if I care about quality.
    Quote Quote  
  5. There is a 100 fold difference in encoding speed between x264's fastest (--preset ultrafast) and slowest (--preset placebo) presets. In addition, settings can be further customized for particular purposes. So if both are using x264 the difference in speed is mostly the settings that were used. MediaInfo shows the x264 Encoding Settings if they are in the file's metadata. So you can see for yourself what settings were used.

    In general, with CRF encoding the slower the preset the smaller the file. Visual quality also increases with slower presets. Ie, there's no free lunch.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    In general, with CRF encoding the slower the preset the smaller the file. Visual quality also increases with slower presets. Ie, there's no free lunch.
    Is that so? A smaller file means more compression so I cannot understand that this will increase visual quality?
    I always thought the opposite was true...
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by PeterNL View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    In general, with CRF encoding the slower the preset the smaller the file. Visual quality also increases with slower presets. Ie, there's no free lunch.
    Is that so? A smaller file means more compression so I cannot understand that this will increase visual quality?
    I always thought the opposite was true...
    You would be right if everything else was equal. But at the slower settings x264 uses more of the codecs features to both increase quality and reduce the bitrate. Ie, it's not just slow for the sake of being slow. It's spending more time looking for more compression and better quality.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    Originally Posted by PeterNL View Post
    Originally Posted by jagabo View Post
    In general, with CRF encoding the slower the preset the smaller the file. Visual quality also increases with slower presets. Ie, there's no free lunch.
    Is that so? A smaller file means more compression so I cannot understand that this will increase visual quality?
    I always thought the opposite was true...
    You would be right if everything else was equal. But at the slower settings x264 uses more of the codecs features to both increase quality and reduce the bitrate. Ie, it's not just slow for the sake of being slow. It's spending more time looking for more compression and better quality.
    Learning every day!
    Thanks Jagabo.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Thanks for the help guys. I ended up settling for disc-based backup and I decided to go with BDRB. I didn't realize up until now it could back up DVD's of my family vacations as well, thought it was only for BD backup. IMO the quality is much better than with DVDFab.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    IMO the quality is much better than with DVDFab.
    If you're actually backing up rather than converting, and with family movies you shouldn't be converting, the quality should be identical.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    My primary use of dfab , is to copy DVD to my hard drive backup
    I have other software's for compressing encoding, if I wish to rip and store in mp4
    I normally avoid mkv format for my own uses
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads