2-Pass encoding really takes up so much more time in converting in HandBrake. It takes so much time - so I wanted to know; does 2-pass encoding really make much of a difference in the quality of the movie? Thanks.
The answer is..
Of course it does!
But this all depends on the quality you are encoding in the first place. However, I find you can 2 pass a lower bitrate and get equal results to a higher bit rate depending on your settings. However, if you are just ripping at AppleTV preset there is hardly any point..
2-Pass encoding really takes up so much more time in converting in HandBrake. It takes so much time - so I wanted to know; does 2-pass encoding really make much of a difference in the quality of the movie? Thanks.
I have absolutely nothing to back up my opinion but I have read numerous threads on the issue. Hopefully someone will give you a better answer, but...
As far as I know it *does* make a difference on either the quality OR the size of the file. The problem is that I don't think the picture quality difference is *that* noticeable and with the declining pricing of hard drives, the space you save might not be worth it.
Personally I use the two-pass encode out of habit. I don't think I've ever read anything that has solid evidence of the difference in quality be negligible so I will continue to use the two-pass until I am able to be convinced the difference isn't worth it. (I don't mind using the extra time because I just let it run overnight)
Sure, no one is holding a gun to your head. I doubt you'll notice the difference. I gave up on two-pass a long time ago and went with CRF, but that is another discussion entirely.
I will say, if you're encoding Futurama, use the new development snapshot and enable detelecine and the decomb filter. Trust me, it is worth it.
Sure, no one is holding a gun to your head. I doubt you'll notice the difference. I gave up on two-pass a long time ago and went with CRF, but that is another discussion entirely.
I will say, if you're encoding Futurama, use the new development snapshot and enable detelecine and the decomb filter. Trust me, it is worth it.
I've read threads of about CRF with little understanding. Is there a way you can sum up why I should (and even why I shouldn't) use CRF as opposed to picking a bit rate (I use 3000)? I understand the premise of CRF but most of the discussions I've read just have both sides arguing why the other is no good.
Exactly what eddyg said.Should: Because you get to choose the quality of the encode, at 60% with the new snapshot it is pretty much identical to source. It is single pass, and you can use bitrate limiters to prevent bitrate spikes above what your player can handle.
Shouldn't: Because some noisy/grainy films (art films etc) take a lot of bits to encode and get that same quality as the original, and that will push up the file size quite a bit. Average Bit Rate (ABR) will give you a predictable filesize, however on action packed movies that require a high bitrate quality will suffer if you have arbitrarily chosen a lower bitrate than that movie requires.
So in summary:
CRF: Predictable quality, unpredictable filesize
ABR: Unpredictable quality, predictable filesize
The reason that 2-pass for ABR is good is that it allows the compressor to figure out in advance of how many bits it needs in order to meet the bitrate targets that you have set. Which means it is less likely to run out during an action scene and present you with overcompressed video.
Cheers, Ed.
Note that some modern movies only require about 1500kbps to achieve 60% CRF. That means that if you were using ABR, at say 2500kbps, you are wasting 1000kbps on unnecessary quality.
So the unpredictable filesize argument for CRF goes both ways, you may end up with (and often do) a file a lot smaller than with ABR at the same quality.
Cheers, Ed.
There is absolutely no change in file size but some movies do have a significant improvement in resolution. I don't have much time to tinker with settings as I have a lot of DVDs to go through.
Sorry.
Don't be. I was just pointing out another ( and frankly better imo ) alternative. The x264 devs all use it afaik and by and large, unless you have a device with extremely narrow bitrate limits ( which would pretty much only be the 5G iPod now) constant quality as defined in hb 0.9.3's presets is a far better rate control method in general. Which has the added bonus of only working in single pass mode. Again, just my .02.
Fair doos. I can tell you that several hb dev's use atv's as one of their main playback target platforms. The built in atv presets in hb are pretty much optimized for the atv at the time of that public release. Having said that there is one issue on HB 0.9.3's atv preset which was realized *after* 0.9.3 came out. In the Advanced settings (which is where most of the real magic happens) weightb=1 should be removed from the option string. It causes stuttering and dropped frames on the atv with some sources. It was realized after further testing of the atv after the preset was written for 0.9.3 and released. Other than that the atv preset for 0.9.3 should give you a very nice quality across sources.Well, that is really helpful to know. I just started using Handbrake a few months ago since I just got my AppleTVs and I am always looking for the best advice on an efficient and "quick" method of encoding.
which is why all relevant hb presets moved to crf (constant quality), which renders the whole 1 pass vs. 2 pass debate obsolete.
Anyone got any ideas about why the new presets aren't working?
Presets > Update Built-In Presets
Done that many times - still no dice.
Would have to see an activity log to tell you more ...