Why do I lose more quality when I encode 4K compared to 1080p?.

[F3low]

Hello,

I usually download and encode 1080p videos to HEVC 10-bit CRF 23 preset slow and same resolution, I found that those settings give a good balance between file size and quality. The thing is I noticed that when I download a 4k video and encode it to 1080p using those same settings there's a noticeable loss of quality but smaller file size compared to if I download the 1080p version of the video and encode it to HEVC, therefore I have to lower the CRF to 18 to retain more details.

Is there an explanation for that?.

[Sharc]

Same CRF for different sources or versions of the same movie does not mean same visual quality or same compression. You can only compare the quality at the same file size, means you will have to adjust the CRF for each source accordingly, or use 2-pass encode to hit the same file size for comparison.
Another reason could be that the 4k version is just an upscaled version of the 1080p 'original', or that your downscaling algo smoothes (blurs) the picture slightly.

[Taurus]

Sharc;1902022, or that your downscaling algo smoothes (blurs) the picture slightly
Yeah, this is what I thought of...
Some of the up/downscalers soften the image to a noticable degree.
Tell us how's your workflow.
And some settings in x265 might also blur your downscale.
As long as we dont know about your workflow, it's only guessing...

[F3low]

Yeah, this is what I thought of...
Some of the up/downscalers soften the image to a noticable degree.
Tell us how's your workflow.
And some settings in x265 might also blur your downscale.
As long as we dont know about your workflow, it's only guessing...

I don't think that the 4k videos I download are upscaled 1080p because they have more details if you zoom in.. I'm not sure what you mean by workflow... as I said I encode my videos to 1080p HEVC 10-bit CRF 23 preset slow ( I add this line min-cu-size=8 to force the resolution because sometimes I have to upscale SD videos to 1080p to merge them with the native FHD vids) and everything else is default.

[RanmaCanada]

CRF 23 is already very low in regards to detail retention. As you add more detail, more of it will be lost because of the constraints of the codec.

[F3low]

CRF 23 is already very low in regards to detail retention. As you add more detail, more of it will be lost because of the constraints of the codec.


I'm no expert but according to my tests with 1080p/720p CRF 23 is the sweet spot when it comes to quality/size balance.. sure you can go lower to retain more details but you will also get a bigger size.. the primary point of encoding to HEVC is better compression as far as I know.

[Cary Knoop]

CRF 23? You get what you ask for!

[Sharc]

As I wrote before you cannot expect the same quality with the same CRF for different sources. The OP's UHD and HD are different sources even though it might be the same movie.
CRF does not mean a certain absolute quality. It means Constant Rate Factor, nothing else. It aims at a constant viewing quality throughout the video, but not same quality between different videos from different sources.

[F3low]

As I wrote before you cannot expect the same quality with the same CRF for different sources. The OP's UHD and HD are different sources even though it might be the same movie.
CRF does not mean a certain absolute quality. It means Constant Rate Factor, nothing else. It aims at a constant viewing quality throughout the video, but not same quality between different videos from different sources.

I understand, thanks for the explanation.

[F3low]

CRF 23? You get what you ask for!

Well, it's subjective... I rarely use a lower CRF (like this situation) otherwise I might as well not encode at all since the file size won't go down by much and might even go up in some cases! (I'm not kidding I remember a few months ago I had 2 videos about 1.5GB each using CRF 23 the quality went down but the file size went up :p I just had to accept it since I had to merge them with other videos).

[Sharc]

......I'm not kidding I remember a few months ago I had 2 videos about 1.5GB each using CRF 23 the quality went down but the file size went up :p .
This is well possible eg when the source has lot of encoding artefacts or noise which boost the bitrate to reproduce the artifacts and the noise details for any CRF.

[Groucho2004]

Storage cost is more or less a non-issue nowadays. When I last checked, the price/TB is about 20 bucks.

When it comes to quality, I'd rather downscale a 1080p movie to 720p than compromise on bitrate (I usually encode at CRF 16~18). Most movies don't have resolution worth full HD anyway except some Pixar animation flicks.

I can't speak for 4K since I don't have a 4K display.

[F3low]

Storage cost is more or less a non-issue nowadays. When I last checked, the price/TB is about 20 bucks.

When it comes to quality, I'd rather downscale a 1080p movie to 720p than compromise on bitrate (I usually encode at CRF 16~18). Most movies don't have resolution worth full HD anyway except some Pixar animation flicks.

I can't speak for 4K since I don't have a 4K display.

I believe you're talking about HDDs, I don't use them even for backups because they're just too slow and inconvenient.. I just bought a 500GB SSD and a 128GB SD card for backups and they're already full! I'm waiting for another SD card right now, storage gets filled very quickly.

I currently have about 7 SD videos, 2 FHD and 3 HD that I have to edit
and merge an I'm debating whether to upscale/downscale everything to FHD or HD.

[F3low]

This is well possible eg when the source has lot of encoding artefacts or noise which boost the bitrate to reproduce the artifacts and the noise details for any CRF.

That's good to know :thanks: what would you recommend me to do with files like those? Would setting a target bitrate or file size be a good idea?.

[Groucho2004]

I believe you're talking about HDDs, I don't use them even for backups because they're just too slow and inconvenient.. I just bought a 500GB SSD and a 128GB SD card for backups and they're already full! I'm waiting for another SD card right now, storage gets filled very quickly.Yes, I was referring to HDDs preferably mounted into a NAS. I have a NAS with 10 TB that holds all movies, etc. and an identical NAS serving as a backup unit. I find it very convenient since I have everything in one place and I can stream to any device I want (TV, tablet, phone).

Even though traffic "only" goes over gigabit LAN, it's certainly not too slow for its purpose.

[Sharc]

That's good to know :thanks: what would you recommend me to do with files like those? Would setting a target bitrate or file size be a good idea?.
No. Setting a target bitrate would reduce the file size but degrade the quality even more.
If the source is noisy you could denoise it with a denoising filter before encoding. If you are however too ambitious with denoising you will also loose picture details. You have to find the appropriate balance. Selecting a slower encoder preset may also help.
You may also consider to reencode the audio for a lower bitrate or change the audio format. Audio is sometimes just bloated.

[RanmaCanada]

I'm no expert but according to my tests with 1080p/720p CRF 23 is the sweet spot when it comes to quality/size balance.. sure you can go lower to retain more details but you will also get a bigger size.. the primary point of encoding to HEVC is better compression as far as I know.

And you're asking the "experts"*. I'm not the only one who has said CRF 23 is bad. X265 tops out at CRF 27, so you're already at the far end of the stick. For 4k encodes, I personally do CRF 14-16, and 1080P pending on source is 17-20, all at slower or very slow.

*I am not claiming to be one, but I have been encoding with x265 since its inception. Though I may not know the complete ins and outs as some other users, I do have years of experience that tell me the CRF you are using is detrimental to quality.

[Asmodian]

If the point is to compress already compressed content to a smaller size a large quality loss is expected. H.264 and H.265 have bad generational efficiency losses when used at standard content delivery bit rates.

Recompressing already highly compressed H.264/H.265 is a very different use case than recompressing a bluray, for bluray or UHD 14-20 is what I use as well. I don't re-compress highly compressed video but if I did CRF 23 does sound reasonable. The quality will go down but using much lower the entire operation would be pointless, it would end up both larger and worse quality.

[F3low]

If the point is to compress already compressed content to a smaller size a large quality loss is expected. H.264 and H.265 have bad generational efficiency losses when used at standard content delivery bit rates.

Recompressing already highly compressed H.264/H.265 is a very different use case than recompressing a bluray, for bluray or UHD 14-20 is what I use as well. I don't re-compress highly compressed video but if I did CRF 23 does sound reasonable. The quality will go down but using much lower the entire operation would be pointless, it would end up both larger and worse quality.


That's what I was trying to say. I don't encode blu-ray, I try to find the highest quality content of what I'm looking for on the internet then I encode it to reduce size and store it.
I do care about quality if I weren't I wouldn't even have posted this thread... When I notice that the quality went down noticeably I lower the CRF to 18. Usually when using CRF 23 you'd have to stop the videos and take screenshots or open both video in a media player then compare to notice the difference and in my case I find the small loss totally worth it for the size I'm getting.

[Groucho2004]

I don't encode blu-ray, I try to find the highest quality content of what I'm looking for on the internet then I encode it to reduce size and store it.Hm, you might want to check out forum rule 6. Discussing illegally obtained content is frowned upon here.

[F3low]

Hm, you might want to check out forum rule 6. Discussing illegally obtained content is frowned upon here.

I wasn't talking about illegal things... there are some websites that require you to pay before being able to download and watch.

[Groucho2004]

there are some websites that require you to pay before being able to download and watch.Ah, those websites...

[F3low]

Ah, those websites...


[QUOTE=The moderation team]Dear F3low,

A member of the moderator team discovered a violation of forum rule #6! in the following post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?do=showpost&postid=1902104)..

I actually got a strike even though I said I wasn't talking about anything illegal... downloading doesn't mean pirating.

[Groucho2004]

I actually got a strike even though I said I wasn't talking about anything illegal... downloading doesn't mean pirating.That may be so but your wording "I try to find the highest quality content of what I'm looking for on the internet" leaves little room for interpretation.
However, before issuing a strike the moderator should at least give you a chance to explain what content you are downloading.

[F3low]

That may be so but your wording "I try to find the highest quality content of what I'm looking for on the internet" leaves little room for interpretation.
However, before issuing a strike the moderator should at least give you a chance to explain what content you are downloading.

Yeah, well people always assume the worst. :p

[Stereodude]

I believe you're talking about HDDs, I don't use them even for backups because they're just too slow and inconvenient.. I just bought a 500GB SSD and a 128GB SD card for backups and they're already full! I'm waiting for another SD card right now, storage gets filled very quickly.
Personally, I'd just like to know what SD cards you're using that are capable of 200+MB/sec reads and writes since they're faster than HDDs and all.

[F3low]

The SD card isn't faster than HDDs... I use it to keep a copy of my collection on my phone.

[F3low]

Personally, I'd just like to know what SD cards you're using that are capable of 200+MB/sec reads and writes since they're faster than HDDs and all.

The SD card isn't faster than HDDs... I use it to keep a copy of my collection on my phone.

[MeteorRain]

Well, there are a few contradictions here.

You want higher quality. You don't want bigger file size because you don't have large storage. You could buy larger storage but you don't want to buy HDDs. You want blazingly fast SSDs but you can't afford many.

I'm not sure where are we going. I recommend bearing with the "slow" 200MB/s HDDs and enjoy the higher video quality. At the end of the day, they are large video files, not a high load database. The speed of them should be fine.

[benwaggoner]

Well, there are a few contradictions here.

You want higher quality. You don't want bigger file size because you don't have large storage. You could buy larger storage but you don't want to buy HDDs. You want blazingly fast SSDs but you can't afford many.

I'm not sure where are we going. I recommend bearing with the "slow" 200MB/s HDDs and enjoy the higher video quality. At the end of the day, they are large video files, not a high load database. The speed of them should be fine.
Yeah, as long as the drive supports sustained read above the peak video bitrate + audio bitrate, all drives provide equivalent playback.

Big slow HDs are way cheaper per TB, and will provide identical media playback experiences. 5400 rpm 3.5" over USB 3.0 is more than good enough. USB 2.0 is way more than good enough for most real-world use cases, even.