Lanczos Resize and minimum bitrate

[X-Nemesis]

Is there an minimum bitrate for a 2 cd rip one should stay around when using Lanczos instead of SharpBicubic? I've read in other threads that Lanczos is really only the better option when using higher bitrates.

thanks for any input.:D

[scmccarthy]

The posts are wrong, Lanczos compresses better than SharpBicubic. It manages to keep detail without oversharpening. Lanczos is the most natural and transparent resize filter. I'd say it is pretty neutral, it doesn't help compressability, but it doesn't hinder it either. No one seems to know exactly how compressible Lanczos is. But the consensus is it is more compressible than SharpBicubic. I'd start by treating it the same as SharpBicubic or compress it a little more.

Stephen

[seewen]

When I made tests, Lanczcos was less compressible than Bicubic with defults values.
But they are very near from each other.

X-nemesis, why don't you make some compressibility test ? There's no "limit-bitrate" for this Resize or This one.. It depend on the movie, the resolution, etc..
The only way to know that is to make a compressibility test ( and there are big differences between FastBilinear/Bilinear/SimpleResize & Lanczos/Bicubic. But not so much between Bicubic and Lanczos )

[onesoul]

I think it is a matter of personal preference. I just add that mine is LanczosResize.

[scmccarthy]

@seewen
When I made tests, Lanczcos was less compressible than Bicubic with defults values. Bicubics defaults are not sharp. Get your terms straight. We are talking about SharpBicubic and Lanczos only. If you compare BicubicResize(w,h,0,1) with LanczosResize(w,h), you will find that Lanczos compresses better. If you compare BicubicResize(w,h) with LanczosResize(w,h), you will fine that Bicubic looks softer. I am saying that Lanczos is one optimum between sharpness and compressability, depending on your tolerance for a soft look.

Stephen