700 kbs = no good for me. am i wrong

[avs34]

This is a general post applying to most all the encoders.

I keep reading post where people mention that they encode video at 400 - 800 kbs and consider any thing over this to be over kill. I have tried to encode video at this lvl and am totally unsatisfied with the results. The video is plagued with blocking artifacts. The only acceptable lvl i have found is 1500 - 3000 kbs. Only at these levels have i found that blocking is at it's minimal or not at all at all towards the higher setting. Is there something that i am doing wrong.

DVD content.

1. extract vob
2. make .D2V file from Vob
2. use avisynth to deinterlace (if necessary) and crop off the black borders for 16x9 content.
3. use virtualdub to encode (manily x264) but experiment with the others.

the outputted video size is 720x480 4x3 or 720x380 (?) 16x9 depends on the 16x9 content.

encoded content.
Buffy UK 4x3 / 16x9
Angel 4x3 / 16x9
Futurama 4/3
Movies. 16x9

am i wrong with my bit rate settings?

[jellysandwich]

the outputted video size is 720x480 4x3 or 720x380 (?) 16x9 depends on the 16x9 content.


Lower the video size - aka, resolution.

js

[Sirber]

use x264.

[cuban]

use x264.

There is no 800 kbps rule (even with any Mpeg4 AVC codec). Sometimes contents of the video is just to complicated, to encode well at this bitrate level. I found some DVD clips, that require (when encoding at full DVD resolution) bitrates above 3 Mbit/s with x264.

I've made a test once. I added some heavy noise (via fddshow) to my video (640x480). Then I tried to encode it with x264 @ 8Mbit/s and i was disappointed with the result, because even at that high bitrate x264 couldnt preserve noise well. Conclusion: 800 kbps is not always enough.

[Sirber]

Then I tried to encode it with x264 @ 8Mbit/s and i was disappointed with the result, because even at that high bitrate x264 couldnt preserve noise well. Conclusion: 800 kbps is not always enough.Well, usualy we remove the noise so it can compress better. Noise is random and kill motion estimation.

[Sharktooth]

This is a general post applying to most all the encoders.

I keep reading post where people mention that they encode video at 400 - 800 kbs and consider any thing over this to be over kill. I have tried to encode video at this lvl and am totally unsatisfied with the results. The video is plagued with blocking artifacts. The only acceptable lvl i have found is 1500 - 3000 kbs. Only at these levels have i found that blocking is at it's minimal or not at all at all towards the higher setting. Is there something that i am doing wrong.

DVD content.

1. extract vob
2. make .D2V file from Vob
2. use avisynth to deinterlace (if necessary) and crop off the black borders for 16x9 content.
3. use virtualdub to encode (manily x264) but experiment with the others.

the outputted video size is 720x480 4x3 or 720x380 (?) 16x9 depends on the 16x9 content.

encoded content.
Buffy UK 4x3 / 16x9
Angel 4x3 / 16x9
Futurama 4/3
Movies. 16x9

am i wrong with my bit rate settings?
Well, starting from the fact you watch buffy and angel you dont deserve any help :P (joking) but since im in a good mood maybe i can help you...
I suppose you use a h.264 codec since you started this thread in the AVC forum... it seems it is x264... but what options did you use/set?
Did you tried tweaking the inloop filter settings or to not disable it?

[cuban]

Well, usualy we remove the noise so it can compress better. Noise is random and kill motion estimation.
I know, but my point was to show that the quality of the encoded video strongly depends on the complexity of the source, and even MPEG4 AVC codecs might sometimes need much more than 800 kbps @ DVD resolution to archieve good quality.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Are you generating your encode over two passes?


Cheers

[Doobie]

I keep reading post where people mention that they encode video at 400 - 800 kbs and consider any thing over this to be over kill...
the outputted video size is 720x480

Even before they ever invented DVD or PC video encoding software, I knew that you should have a bitrate of at least two bits per pixel. My kitty cat can'd do anything more complicated than to cough up hairballs, yet still knows that reducing the resolution makes for a much more efficient encode.

You're in luck! Download the Divx6 package. Their new encoder is just your speed and will handle bitrate and resolution itself. :cool:

[avs34]

Doobie I’m glad you cat can reduce the resolution of its video files. Kudos to him / her

But I don’t want to reduce the video size as I want to keep as much to the original. I’m creating a pc with an archive of my DVDs to be displayed out on an 46” HDTV. So smaller may end up creating more visual problems during the up scaling when being out putted to the tv.

Yes I do use 2 passes.

X264 settings

2 B frames and everything enabled. Search complexity = 5

It probably really is the complexity of the footage. Along with the film grain. Which is something that I’m trying to keep. as removing film grain will only result in loss of detail.

But it's good to know that 3+ Mps is a constant for full resolution DVD conversions. I just thought I was doing something wrong.

thanx

[avs34]

Sharktooth - Did you tried tweaking the inloop filter settings or to not disable it?

Which settings would these be?

Analysis, rate control, ect?

[Sirber]

I know, but my point was to show that the quality of the encoded video strongly depends on the complexity of the source, and even MPEG4 AVC codecs might sometimes need much more than 800 kbps @ DVD resolution to archieve good quality.
You can always use filtering to remove all that unwanted noise.

[cuban]

You can always use filtering to remove all that unwanted noise.
What if I wanted to keep the noise ? When You apply filters such as removegrain or undot You spoil the picture, and sometimes this is not an option. To preserve as many details as possible (so without any filters used) at full DVD resolution 3Mbit/s bitrate might sometimes be needed. That's all I wanted to say.

[Lefungus]

Considering your high requirements, it seems you just want a copy, so the answer is easy, don't transcode. Nobody will tell you you can encode something at 700kbps while keeping full dvd res and full grain without detail loss...

[Chainmax]

It seems most people around here think that using AVC for high bitrates is a bad thing to do and I don't understand why. I'm currently trying to make a cartoon encode at 640x480 with an average video bitrate of ~1600kbps (I want to make a whole season fit into a DVD-R) while doing some heavy filtering to remove nasty source artifacting and also was noted that such a high bitrate isn't logical when using AVC. How is that different from making high bitrate Xvid encodes (which many people around here does or did)?

[Sirber]

inloop might kill some details. Also, AVC is heavier than xvid to playback and is slower to encode. At 1600kbps, xvid can do an excellent job. The latest technology isn't always the best for your needs (Guess why MPEG1 and MPEG2 are still alive :p).

[sugala]

inloop might kill some details. Also, AVC is heavier than xvid to playback and is slower to encode. At 1600kbps, xvid can do an excellent job. The latest technology isn't always the best for your needs (Guess why MPEG1 and MPEG2 are still alive :p).
Kawaii

[Chainmax]

inloop might kill some details. Also, AVC is heavier than xvid to playback and is slower to encode. At 1600kbps, xvid can do an excellent job. The latest technology isn't always the best for your needs (Guess why MPEG1 and MPEG2 are still alive :p).

Well, at least in my case details are already killed by the filtering process, which is unavoidable. Also, inloop can be disabled so that's a moot point. As for playback speed, pretty much everyone has a >1.5Ghz computer so even full resolution anamorphic encodes should playback smoothly, right? People with slower PCs probably are not too interested in watching movies on a computer anyway. As for encoding speed, I don't see much of a difference between AVC (3 reference frames, 2 adaptive weighted bframes, RDO, umh, chroma me, all macroblock options) or Xvid (VHQ4, VHQ for bframes, chroma optimizer, chroma motion, trellis, msp=6)

And I'd bet MPEG2 is still alive mainly because Hollywood hasn't started releasing movies encoded with AVC yet.

[Caroliano]

As for playback speed, pretty much everyone has a >1.5Ghz computer so even full resolution anamorphic encodes should playback smoothly, right?
I only have a 1.7 Ghz Celeron. Not all my encodes play smoothly. Only a faster pan to make my cpu reach at 100%.
People with slower PCs probably are not too interested in watching movies on a computer anyway
I know many people with <800Mhz that like to watch videos in pc. And they have no problem in doing it. Xvid, Divx, Mpeg1/2, all play smooth even in full resolution.
Also, AVC is heavier than xvid to playback and is slower to encode. At 1600kbps, xvid can do an excellent job. The latest technology isn't always the best for your needs (Guess why MPEG1 and MPEG2 are still alive ).
I agree completely. Why use AVC for such high bitrate? It is good for provide a very good quality at bitrates around 400~500, comparable with Xvid's 700~800. But for this bitrate there no big gain in use x.264. It can have unknow bugs in the version you are using (remember, "early experimental stage"), is less used/suported and is slower.

For these tasks I stick with Xvid :)