Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bdecided
I think it's worth pointing out that the differences aren't really that great - especially where there isn't that much high frequency content in your original.
I know there are differences, but you've got to put it in perspective.
Cheers,
David.
|
Well, the reason I posted this frame in particular is because the x264 codec always has trouble with details in really dark areas. I wanted to show how it dealt with it in the HD encode as opposed to the 704x396 one. Obviously, it's the higher bitrate that allowed more details to be captured in the encode, but there was a significant amount of extra pixels to work with... So, I dunno, I guess this also boils down to opinion. I feel that it is worth it, though I still doubt I will be encoding in HD, lol.
EDIT: If you compare the actually video footage, you'd also see how much smoother the HD encode looks due to the fact of how much less jittery lines there are. Practically none compared to the non-HD encode.