Wow this is ridiculous.

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by waloshin, Aug 28, 2010.

  1. waloshin macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #1
    Handbrake wanted to convert a 1280x720 video .mkv to mp4 (x264) aac 6 channel audio, original file size was 4.6 gb's and handbrake converted 3 minutes to 38,000 bit rate:

    [​IMG]
     
  2. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #2
    What settings did you use?

    4.7MB/s is not that bad, but I assume, the video is only used for watching purposes?
     
  3. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #3
    Yep just for viewing on a 1080p tv.

    So if a movie was 1 hour 48 minutes Handbrake would convert the file to around 30 gigabytes ?
     
  4. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #4
    What settings did you use? Maybe you can provide a screenshot?
     
  5. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #5
    [​IMG]
    *
    [​IMG]
    *
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Flash SWT macrumors 6502

    Flash SWT

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #6
  7. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #7
    It's the constant quality setting set to 100%, it is sufficient to use an constant bit rate between 60% and 70% or use a target size of whatever file size you want (2 to 3 GB for your example).
     
  8. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #8
    Ok so if I went to say 65% through Handbrake would the quality be better then Vuze encoding the file for the Xbox 360?
     
  9. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #9
    Here's a good setting for watching good quality on a HD TV.

    Make sure you select 29.97 NTSC. That is very important.
    It reduces the size of the file greatly without losing quality.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Flash SWT macrumors 6502

    Flash SWT

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #10
    No clue. I'd suggest encoding just a single chapter at several different settings and compare the output files. Say 55, 60, 65 and 70, shouldn't take too long to do for a short clip. Watch the files on your TV and decide which one will give you the result you're looking for.

    .

    I'm curious about this as I'd never heard the advice before. I just tried it with a quick 2 chapter encode of Avatar (had the source rip handy) and leaving it on "Same as source" resulted in the smaller file.

    .
     
  11. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #11
    Depends on what the source is. If it's HD @60FPS it will be a larger filesize. When you change it to 29.97FPS NTSC you are actually removing half of the frames reducing the size of the file while maintaing most of the quality. NTSC is the default for a lot of video as is ATSC.

    It gets more technical.

    This is what makes most of iTunes "HD" movies look good on HDTV's.

    Check out any movie you purchased from iTunes and you will see it's 29.97 FPS or maybe 30 FPS NTSC.


    Read here
     
  12. waloshin thread starter macrumors 68040

    waloshin

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #12
    I believe it might have been a bluray rip and conversion so what would be better 29.97 vs 24p?

    The xbox 360 does play .mp4 x264 at 24 frames per second.
     
  13. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #13
    Depends on the original video. If it's 60 FPS and blue-ray you might be better off with 24 FPS. I'm not sure how Blue-Ray encodes video.

    I do HD TV .:p

    If you can run the 64-bit version of Handbrake the job will go much faster.

    It does on my core i7 iMac. Utilizes all 8 "cpu's"

    Keep in mind I've seen some transcodes at 24 FPS come out all jittery.

    I've never had a problem with 29.97. But like I said I do HD TV video. It's native format is 60 FPS @ 1280X720.
     
  14. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #14
    Waloshin, why are you re-encoding the video?

    That's bad advice. You should almost always chose 'same as source'.

    Not that I've checked every one, but I'd be willing to put down a substantial wager that almost all movies are 23.976 fps.
     
  15. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #15
    If you choose "same as source" and the video happens to be 60FPS you're going to wind up with a 2hr. movie thats 15GB.

    Using the 29.97 it will be around 5GB.


    [edit] I stand corrected.

    I took a 5GB HD720P video that was a native mp4 @59.97 FPS and encoded it using both 29.97 FPS and the same framerate @ 59.97. Both files came out the same size. Around 1.05GB

    Well I learn something new everyday. I've been using 29.97 NTSC on all my HD TV recordings. But in all honesty they both look the same.

    [/edit]
     
  16. KeithPratt macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #16
    Did you set the target bit rate the same for both?

    That's a pretty arbitrary number, but ignoring that fact, why would twice the frame rate end up being three times the data rate? You'd be able to specify a larger key frame value, so you'd probably be looking a 60p being something like 1.7 times the data rate of 30p.

    But my point was that 60p is most probably the least common frame rate for HD material at the moment, so it's ridiculous to blindly base your settings on the off-chance it might be 60p.

    Really? They certainly don't to my eyes.
     

Share This Page