2014-05-11, 00:26
I'm not compressing at the moment. I have $500 saved. I think I am going to use it to build a faster computer.
2014-05-12, 12:13
On my old projector (720p @ 96") 720p was great, on my newer one (1080p @ 96") they are quite lacking. I use to compress but then I decided the hours of encoding to have something that was inferior if even just slighty was a waste.
It was touch and go for space a few years ago when HDD prices went up but now they have come back down and capacities have improved it's not that bad.
It was touch and go for space a few years ago when HDD prices went up but now they have come back down and capacities have improved it's not that bad.
2014-05-12, 14:41
So you don't compress anything? I compressed another movie of mine and it went from 20GB to 7.5GB. Quality loss is not even noticeable unless you compared it side by side.
2014-05-12, 15:15
Well if you compare them side by side and there's a difference then there is a noticeable quality loss. These things are very highly subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Do what is best to your eyes on your setup, taking into account your tolerance for encoding time and hassle, and your hard drive budget. There is no right answer.
2014-05-12, 22:28
If you have the high preset mode selected you can shave off some encoding time by deselecting the Decomb filter on blurays. All blurays should be progressive scan on the main title so its not needed.
I'm totally for compressing. Its amazing how far a 3 terabyte drive can go if you handbrake everything. Some movies come in at a 45 gigabyte file size and have way more data than the eye can detect. There is really no reason for a movie to be over 20 gigabytes at two hours. just 15 years ago people were watching vhs and were happy. The worst encoder knowing nothing can still do better than that with handbrake and a bluray rip.
I'm totally for compressing. Its amazing how far a 3 terabyte drive can go if you handbrake everything. Some movies come in at a 45 gigabyte file size and have way more data than the eye can detect. There is really no reason for a movie to be over 20 gigabytes at two hours. just 15 years ago people were watching vhs and were happy. The worst encoder knowing nothing can still do better than that with handbrake and a bluray rip.
2014-05-12, 22:59
I hope the 10-15GB rips I'm doing will look nice on a large projector. On a 60 inch 1080 TV they look beautiful. But how will they look on a 135 inch I have no idea.
2014-05-13, 05:56
(2014-05-12, 15:15)nickr Wrote: Well if you compare them side by side and there's a difference then there is a noticeable quality loss. These things are very highly subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Do what is best to your eyes on your setup, taking into account your tolerance for encoding time and hassle, and your hard drive budget. There is no right answer.
Quoted for Truth.
2014-05-13, 08:01
Not all bluray are progressive. There are interlaced ones also.
2014-05-13, 08:33
(2014-05-13, 08:01)mrhyde1969 Wrote: Not all bluray are progressive. There are interlaced ones also.BBC are (in)famous for it.
2014-05-13, 08:40
(2014-05-12, 22:59)GAMER101 Wrote: I hope the 10-15GB rips I'm doing will look nice on a large projector. On a 60 inch 1080 TV they look beautiful. But how will they look on a 135 inch I have no idea.
720p re-encodes, 1080p re-encodes and uncompressed all look very similar on my 50" plasma from 11 feet away. At 96" from 11 feet away there is an obvious difference between 720p and 1080p re-encodes without the need for comparison.
A 1080p re-encode vs an uncompressed one at 96" isn't really obviously unless you compare.
A while ago when I use to compare sometimes it was obvious, sometimes they looked pretty much the same.
Quality is my priority when it comes to movies.
Like nickr says, do what is right for you and your situation.
2014-05-15, 19:02
(2014-05-10, 19:01)GAMER101 Wrote: Kick-Ass 2 finished compressing. Came to 6.11GB. Original was 24.8. I can't even tell the quality loss on my TV. How is that possible handbrake is able to do that?
Blu-rays are typically much bigger than they need to be. Many titles have 30+ Mbps which is an abundance of bitrate. I've authored Blurays and tbh you cannot really see a difference between a 15Mbps encode and a 30Mbps encode for most material....but we just throw bits at it anyway to keep consumers happy. You've got a big disc so you may as well use it.
That's not a bad thing (throwing bitrate at it), it means you almost never see any compression artifacts on Blurays. But from a re-encoding perspective, it means you're starting with something that already has way more bitrate than it needs. So there is a lot of scope for compression without too much quality loss.
2014-05-18, 11:23
(2014-05-10, 23:55)thrak76 Wrote:(2014-05-10, 23:53)Piers Wrote: 1) x264 profile is set to high at L 4.0 or 4.1
Handbrake adjusts the profile automatically (if auto is selected), dependent on the other options chosen, which is probably the best route. I've never seen it choose anything other than 4.0 or 4.1 while using the High Profile preset.
I've not used Handbrake so am not aware of settings it chooses - personally I don't trust applications to decide how best to encode my video or audio content, CLI is the best way to go but obviously more time consuming and not for everyone.
