Resize Filter: Which For Low Bitrate?

[JohnMK]

I'm just thinking out loud here, I guess. For squeezing lots of video/sound into a small file, as we're doing for a lot of 1 CD rips, wouldn't it be better to sacrifice bicubic's resize sharpness for bilinear's added compressibility, and use instead a higher resolution with the bits you save by using bilinear?

[ronnylov]

I think it's a matter of taste. Do you like a softer image with smaller pixels or a sharper image with bigger pixels? Do whatever you think looks best!

Personally I do mostly DVD or SVCD encodings so the resolution is fixed to a few settings. But I can save some bitrate if I'm encoding a TV-capture by bilinear downsizing horisontally to something like 528 pixels width and then upsize again with soft bicubic to 704 pixels width to stay within DVD spec. I loose some resolution but I may be able to squeeze a little bit more on one disc...

But normally I prefer a smaller resolution with a sharper image. I use 352x576 PAL quite often, especially when copying VHS to DVD.

[Boulder]

I did a small compressibility test a while ago, the results were posted in the SVCD/VCD encoding and authoring forum. They might be helpful.

In short, I'd use Bilinear if extra bitrate was needed.

[sapient]

Does anybody know how the new LanczosResize filter compares to bilinear/bicubic/simple, compressibility wise?

[sh0dan]

Just a few days back.... this thread (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33290)

Next time - use search - much easier! ;)

[JohnMK]

Thanks for your help sh0dan.

The thread you mentioned doesn't really address my specific question. Certainly more information can be derived faster from a specific discussion about which filter is best for low bitrates, so my question still stands.

PS: I'm very aware of the search function, but sometimes it's not efficient to spend too long reading the entire results page for an answer buried in a haystack.

[wotef]

Acaila said (not long ago) that lanczos was not an optimal choice for 1 cd movies when compared to bicubic ~ using it means ending up a higher avg quant

Myself I'd take simple > bilinear > soft bicubic but I ain't done no mass quant comparison tests

[JohnMK]

I'd like an expert's opinion on a specific case.

My options are either 480 bicubic neutral, or 512 bilinear. Which would you choose?

[Koepi]

Ok, I consider myself an expert.

Take whatever you prefer. EDIT: btw., I'd prefer the bicubic neutral solution as bilinear adds some blurryness which can make encodes look like old VHS tapes.

:P

Read forum rule 12 please.