Avidemux: Which width resize options to choose?

[DB83]

Sure. If you only wanted to watch these videos on a typical 1920*1080 monitor, I see no real advantage in sticking to a height of 1080. I download ALL my youtube stuff, and other sources when I have the option, at 720 pixels (and when I do encode that is what I typically choose) and with such a monitor visual quality is fine. And the potential HDD saving can be susbstantial.

[mayazir]

Sure. If you only wanted to watch these videos on a typical 1920*1080 monitor, I see no real advantage in sticking to a height of 1080. I download ALL my youtube stuff, and other sources when I have the option, at 720 pixels (and when I do encode that is what I typically choose) and with such a monitor visual quality is fine. And the potential HDD saving can be susbstantial.

I always prefer to keep 720 and not 1080 but we talk about the old series which are provided in not real HD quality, so I try to take care and keep the quality as possible that's why I chose the 1920x1080 option when I downloaded them.
I try to crop and resize but do it with minimal losses.
If it were only the black sides issue, I would keep all videos as they are, but the incorrect aspect ratio is a problem I can't ignore.

[DB83]

Quality at download level is typically linked to bitrate so you only have a larger file for potential viewing on a larger screen.

Now it is also known that downloads can be restricted at bitrate - I have seen 1080 vids as low as 2000 kbps whereas I would expect 720 at 3000 kbps and 1080 at 5000 kbps . So you really must inspect the video with the utility I suggested to satisfy that you were not 'fooled' by selecting the larger frame size.

[mayazir]

Quality at download level is typically linked to bitrate so you only have a larger file for potential viewing on a larger screen.

Now it is also known that downloads can be restricted at bitrate - I have seen 1080 vids as low as 2000 kbps whereas I would expect 720 at 3000 kbps and 1080 at 5000 kbps . So you really must inspect the video with the utility I suggested to satisfy that you were not 'fooled' by selecting the larger frame size.

This was the original file:


[Attachment 76001 - Click to enlarge]

This is an already edited file.


[Attachment 76000 - Click to enlarge]

[DB83]

Yes (I was suggesting 5000 for 1920*1080) so 4037 for 1440*1080 is reasonable. And you will also note that you actually have a 4:3 video.

Ok. That's all from me for this day.

[mayazir]

You could also try HEVC (x265), should be fully compatible with devices newer that 6 - 7 years.
Should give some savings on size vs. a similar x264 quality
Set it up like this:

See these results:

This is the original video, as it was downloaded from ViX.com
1,3 GB video file and the overall bitrate of 4324


[Attachment 76011 - Click to enlarge]

This is the same video, but x264 + crop + swsResize:
1,2 GB video file and the overall bitrate of 4024


[Attachment 76010 - Click to enlarge]

This is the x265 video (your suggested option) + crop + swsResize:
616 MB (!! wow !!) video file and overall bitrate 2020


[Attachment 76009 - Click to enlarge]

But they are the same quality!
So, now I must remake all 300+ video files I previously made
But it worth it

[davexnet]

You could also try HEVC (x265), should be fully compatible with devices newer that 6 - 7 years.
Should give some savings on size vs. a similar x264 quality
Set it up like this:

This is the x265 video (your suggested option) + crop + swsResize:
616 MB (!! wow !!) video file and overall bitrate 2020


[Attachment 76009 - Click to enlarge]

But they are the same quality!
So, now I must remake all 300+ video files I previously made
But it worth it

You tell me. If you can, put it up on a big screen and compare them.
x265 is supposed to be especially suited to HD material, but I've used it even
on DVD rips and had good results

[mayazir]

You could also try HEVC (x265), should be fully compatible with devices newer that 6 - 7 years.
Should give some savings on size vs. a similar x264 quality
Set it up like this:

This is the x265 video (your suggested option) + crop + swsResize:
616 MB (!! wow !!) video file and overall bitrate 2020


[Attachment 76009 - Click to enlarge]

But they are the same quality!
So, now I must remake all 300+ video files I previously made
But it worth it

You tell me. If you can, put it up on a big screen and compare them.
x265 is supposed to be especially suited to HD material, but I've used it even
on DVD rips and had good results

I opened them both with 200% zoom, I cut the part with the face, it looks the same in both images.
https://forum.videohelp.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=76014&stc=1&d=1704430717

[davexnet]

Which is which? You should really be comparing the same frame.
Sometimes x265 gets criticized that it makes people look plastic due to the way it smooths details.
But your source doesn't have much detail to begin with.

Have a look at these three, see if you can see what I mean

[mayazir]

Which is which? You should really be comparing the same frame.
Sometimes x265 gets criticized that it makes people look plastic due to the way it smooths details.
But your source doesn't have much detail to begin with.

Have a look at these three, see if you can see what I mean

HEVC (x265) + crop + swsResize
Mpeg4 AVC (x264) + crop + swsResize
Originally downloaded from ViX

[mayazir]

Have a look at these three, see if you can see what I mean

It is difficult to say something because the video itself is not 100% real, but animated.

[davexnet]

Have a look at these three, see if you can see what I mean

It is difficult to say something because the video itself is not 100% real, but animated.

It's such a slight difference, different sources may exacerbate the issues more than others.
My best advice, take a close look at different scenes in your videos, may be do a few more tests,
then decide.
Are you familiar with Avisynth? You could code a simple script to put the two videos
next to each other and look at the same frame from each at the same time

[mayazir]

Have a look at these three, see if you can see what I mean

It is difficult to say something because the video itself is not 100% real, but animated.

It's such a slight difference, different sources may exacerbate the issues more than others.
My best advice, take a close look at different scenes in your videos, may be do a few more tests,
then decide.
Are you familiar with Avisynth? You could code a simple script to put the two videos
next to each other and look at the same frame from each at the same time

I can check it only on my laptop, I also can take screenshots and compare them using close zoom.
Do you want to say, I could have a problem with the x265 format?

Can you check them on your devices?
HEVC (x265) + crop + swsResize
Mpeg4 AVC (x264) + crop + swsResize
Originally downloaded from ViX

[mayazir]

Have a look at these three, see if you can see what I mean

Are you familiar with Avisynth? You could code a simple script to put the two videos
next to each other and look at the same frame from each at the same time

No, but I can open 2 files with a normal player, I use a VLC player, and sync both videos.
I usually do it to see the difference, it is not so difficult to sync 2 players.
I didn't notice any plastic effect on x264 and x265 files.

[mayazir]

Ok, I already read that HEVC x265 is a paid codec for Win 11, and being a paid codec it can be not accepted by many devices.
It can be some kind of Bluray

[davexnet]

I took a look at them on the TV and my computer monitor. To me, the x264 retains very slightly more high frequency details
and is closer to the source - but you have to look for it, It's not really noticeable in normal viewing.
Look at the scene starting at 13:36, look at the flat parts, the walls, the wooden cabinets - to me it looks as if x264 retains
slightly more of the texture. But this the trade off for the big size advantage, and I'm not really surprised.

[mayazir]

I took a look at them on the TV and my computer monitor. To me, the x264 retains very slightly more high frequency details
and is closer to the source - but you have to look for it, It's not really noticeable in normal viewing.
Look at the scene starting at 13:36, look at the flat parts, the walls, the wooden cabinets - to me it looks as if x264 retains
slightly more of the texture. But this the trade off for the big size advantage, and I'm not really surprised.

Ok, since I'm not going to organize public movie events on a huge screen, so a 17-inch laptop monitor and perhaps in the future a medium-sized smart TV is enough for me.
But there is another problem, because the x265 is NOT so common, since I found out that it is not open source, it may not be available on smart TVs or tablets. Probably have to make it in x264

Weird thing, but some relatively modern series on ViX also have a 4200 bitrate but the image quality is indeed 4k.
For example, this one is 4200 bitrate.


[Attachment 76042 - Click to enlarge]

And this one is 5600 bitrate


[Attachment 76043 - Click to enlarge]

I think I better learn more about the topic

[Alwyn]

Ok, I already read that HEVC x265 is a paid codec for Win 11, and being a paid codec it can be not accepted by many devices.

x265 is only the particular encoder; H265 or HEVC is the codec. I have not come across a modern device (TV, phone, computer) that will not play H265/HEVC files. Perhaps Microsoft software players won't play HEVC without paying for the decoder, but virtually everything else will.

[mayazir]

Ok, I already read that HEVC x265 is a paid codec for Win 11, and being a paid codec it can be not accepted by many devices.

x265 is only the particular encoder; H265 or HEVC is the codec. I have not come across a modern device (TV, phone, computer) that will not play H265/HEVC files. Perhaps Microsoft software players won't play HEVC without paying for the decoder, but virtually everything else will.

Microsoft is not a problem, they say it will cost 1 USD, so it is not a problem.
I was not sure about Smart TVs, tablets, and other devices.
What a dilemma... Ok, I will do it in HVEC x265.

The funniest thing is I usually "watch" movies in the background while working... and if I would just download all these series from somewhere, I would not care about the quality, but doing it myself, the inside perfectionist tries to do the best...

[mayazir]

You could also try HEVC (x265), should be fully compatible with devices newer that 6 - 7 years.
Should give some savings on size vs. a similar x264 quality
Set it up like this:

Ok, I started all from the beginning and I see a weird thing:

Episode 1: from 1,21 GB to 573 MB = 0,211
Episode 2: from 1,33 GB to 730 MB = 0,182
Episode 3: from 1,20 GB to 651 MB = 0,184
Episode 4: from 1,25 GB to 648 MB = 0,192
Episode 5: from 1,16 GB to 644 MB = 0,180
Episode 6: from 1,23 GB to 622 MB = 0,197

Why the compression % is always different if I keep the same configuration?


[Attachment 76097 - Click to enlarge]

[DB83]

No two videos are identical. Encoders must allow for movement etc.

[mayazir]

No two videos are identical. Encoders must allow for movement etc.

ok, thanks