Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 9th March 2018, 14:39   #1  |  Link
wendyjreichert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 2
HEVC for old video

Hello,
I am trying to find good settings for encoding old tv shows (currently xvid encoded from dvd rips) from the 1960s-1970s. I know lossy-lossy compression is not optimal, but I'd still like to use it. Some of these are way too large and need reencoding. What are good settings I can use to shrink the filesize without losing too much quality? The reason I ask for this specific type of video is that it was shot at lower quality, and so some quality-preserving features will add cpu time and filesize to preserve details that do not exist.
I could use staxrip (though I'd need more thorough guidance to navigate all those options), handbrake, ifme, or most other software (depending on the best).
Thank you all very much for the advice!
wendyjreichert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th March 2018, 08:53   #2  |  Link
Weyoun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 12
CRF 20, slow or slower preset. With low quality lossy video, it's not worth the time, effort, and electricity to fine tune.
Weyoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2018, 17:28   #3  |  Link
Neillithan
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 125
I do not recommend CRF for x265 at all. Results for me have been quite bad, as some frames get absolutely starved of bits resulting in really low quality. x265 is extremely aggressive, and will starve certain frames of bits more than it should.

I've had fantastic results by doing a 2-pass encoding, with fast first pass, and depending on the content, grain tune enabled.

My suggestion: Create your own comparison, and see if the time saved by using CRF is worth it. In my tests, the time saved was NOT worth it, as 2-pass was the only encoding method that resulted in acceptable bitrate distribution.

I'd post a sample video to prove, but I'm too lazy.
Neillithan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2018, 14:02   #4  |  Link
Sp00kyFox
Registered User
 
Sp00kyFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 77
CRF is equivalent to a 2pass-encoding with the corresponding bitrate. you literally just waste time doing 2pass if you're not trying to target a specific file size. if you're not sure which CRF value is appropriate for the video content in question you can always do a compression test beforehand by using a simple test script with SelectRangeEvery().
Sp00kyFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2018, 14:17   #5  |  Link
Sharc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,320
Is your "old video" interlaced?
If so, you should deinterlace or bob-deinterlace it first. I wouldn't recommend to use x265's interlaced mode.
For keeping everything interlaced I would go for x264/MBAFF anyway.
Sharc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th March 2018, 22:52   #6  |  Link
wendyjreichert
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
I do not recommend CRF for x265 at all. Results for me have been quite bad, as some frames get absolutely starved of bits resulting in really low quality. x265 is extremely aggressive, and will starve certain frames of bits more than it should.

I've had fantastic results by doing a 2-pass encoding, with fast first pass, and depending on the content, grain tune enabled.

My suggestion: Create your own comparison, and see if the time saved by using CRF is worth it. In my tests, the time saved was NOT worth it, as 2-pass was the only encoding method that resulted in acceptable bitrate distribution.

I'd post a sample video to prove, but I'm too lazy.

Thanks, this is working pretty well.
wendyjreichert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th March 2018, 18:18   #7  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 2,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neillithan View Post
My suggestion: Create your own comparison, and see if the time saved by using CRF is worth it. In my tests, the time saved was NOT worth it, as 2-pass was the only encoding method that resulted in acceptable bitrate distribution.
I believe you reported this in another thread too. I did some testing myself and could not reproduce it. With CRF values that gave similar bitrates the rate control was very similar to 2-pass. I really wonder what is so different about your content or other settings?
__________________
madVR options explained
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
hevc, old video, x265

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.