Log in

View Full Version : x264 crf HD vs SD


SamNeal2001
30th July 2012, 03:34
Why does:
--preset veryslow --tune film --level 4.1 --crf 20
look exceptionally great at HD resolutions, but terrible at SD resolutions?

Dark Shikari
30th July 2012, 03:37
Most likely because you're watching the SD version upscaled to your full screen resolution, so all the artifacts are going to be magnified dramatically.

Bloax
30th July 2012, 04:34
You could also think in another way, in SD - there are less pixels for the same amount of "space" compared to HD, so the artifacts at SD take up more of the actual space compared to HD.

Though I haven't experienced terrible results at --crf 20.

SamNeal2001
30th July 2012, 04:38
Maybe "terrible" is the wrong word. But it doesn't look NEARLY as good in SD as it does in HD. Results are only satisfactory.

sneaker_ger
30th July 2012, 07:47
As the others said: because of the resolution. x264 will use a much higher bitrate for the HD version at the same CRF and also artefacts would be less visible because of the smaller blocks (when displayed on the same screen).

ajp_anton
31st July 2012, 21:34
Same "per pixel" quality results in higher "per frame" quality when there are more pixels per frame.

Sagittaire
6th August 2012, 10:06
It's Simple:
- Pixel number for HD is 5X higher
- Size file for HD is 3-4X higher

If you want compare HD and SD advantage, don't make encoding at same quality/pixel level (aka quantizer aka crf mode) but at same size level.

nm
7th August 2012, 17:53
It's Simple:
- Pixel number for HD is 5X higher
- Size file for HD is 3-4X higher

If you want compare HD and SD advantage, don't make encoding at same quality/pixel level (aka quantizer aka crf mode) but at same size level.

If you mean encoding HD at 5x the bitrate of SD, that logic would only increase the quality of HD encodes compared to SD ones, which is the opposite that the original poster wanted.
If you mean encoding HD at the same bitrate as SD, that would lower the quality of HD videos way too much.

Sagittaire
7th August 2012, 22:39
If you mean encoding HD at the same bitrate as SD, that would lower the quality of HD videos way too much.

No, there are good compromise to find at each file size. absurdes exemples: HD encoding at 10 Mbps will be better in most case that SD encoding at 10 Mbps. HD encoding at 1 Mbps will be worst in most case that SD encoding at 1 Mbps. That mean that at each bitrate for each source, there are optimal definition.

With good filtering, with good source, with H264, you can make high quality encoding at 720p and 1 Mbps with really better visual quality than 480p at 1 Mbps.