Quote:
Originally Posted by De_Hollander
I used grain because there is grain in the movie.
|
That may be OK, but don't forget that grain is extremely difficult to compress. The first thing that all encoders do to compress better is removing the grain. If you force the encoder to keep it, it will need to regain some bitrate by other means, and you will probably end up with a poor quality. Or a very large file.
Also, I'm not sure the grain tuning is the best way to preserve the grain. Someone has explained earlier in this thread that it's not a good option. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to search the thread, but you should find the post easily.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by De_Hollander
why is there no setting for cpu managing?
|
I can't include all x264 options in the GUI. I want to keep it simple.
But you can add your own options in the Additional options field. For example, you can add --threads 3 to force the encoder to use only 3 CPU cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by De_Hollander
Preset: Is that binding with cpu encoding script, for giving more quality?
ore cpu using?
|
Sorry, I don't understand.
Anyway, the preset is not related at all to the CPU. Selecting a slow or fast preset do not mean that the CPU will be used differently. The presets determine the settings of the most complex options that will be used by the encoder. See the x264 doc for a list of the options that are modified by the presets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by De_Hollander
I assume slower is better
|
The presets change many x264 settings. Normally, the slower the best, but take in mind that if you select a slow preset, you may end up with a level greater than 4.1. It's why I have added the "force level" option, to be sure that a specific level will never be exceeded, regardless of the preset used.
Take care also. The Placebo preset is really extremely slow!
Usually, my settings are: CRF (18 to 22 depending of the quality I want for that specific film), Preset slower, Tune none, Force level 4.1, --threads 3, BD compatible not ticked. I have always had excellent results with that settings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by De_Hollander
My first re-encode (x264 BD compatible 2-pass 14000 Kbps preset slow, tune grain) are a lot smaller (dubbel smaller) with the same quality.(with the same blu-ray bitrate) then the Test with CRF mode.
|
How can you be sure that it's "the same quality"? If you cannot see a difference, it's great, but if the file size is very different, it's because there is a difference in quality, even if you cannot see it. (It's why it is useless to use very low CRF values. The human eye cannot see subtle differences, and forcing a very high quality has only the effect of enlarging the file size for no good reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by De_Hollander
Test with CRF mode: The bitrate are higher than the original blu-ray.
|
That's what happens when you use a crazy CRF value, way to low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by De_Hollander
Next test tomorrow CRF mode with 23
|
CRF 23 is the default (from the x264 team, not BD3D2MK3D), and I think that that value has been very well chosen. It gives excellent compression, while maintaining a reasonable quality. No visible artefacts, but the image is a little bit less sharp than the original. The final MKV file size is usually around 4 GB. That's really less than most encoding you can find on the internet, but if you use a slow preset, it's sufficient. However, personally, I prefer to lower that value a bit, and I use normally a CRF around 20 or 21. For movies with extra sharp and very detailed pictures, such as Sin City 2, I prefer even a lower bitrate, like 18 or 19.
You may think that 2-pass is better, but again, it's not true. The same movie with the same bitrate and the same parameters is encoded exactly the same way. The only real difference is that you cannot predict the exact bitrate in CRF mode, while it is easy to control it in 2-pass.
Also, the CRF mode is intelligent enough to give more bitrate to the parts that are really important (such as slow shots with many details) and less bitrate to the shots with rapid movements, because when you watch the film normally, you cannot see the (relatively) poor quality of these shots. Of course, if you examine closely a single image taken from one of these shots, you can see the problems. You have to watch the movie like a real spectator to evaluate the real quality of the encoding.
Anyway, you are free to do what you want.