What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

HandBrake for Windows support
Forum rules
An Activity Log is required for support requests. Please read How-to get an activity log? for details on how and why this should be provided.
tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

jamiemlaw wrote:I'm gonna reiterate what other people have been saying, but only because it's important:

Tamuuli, you seem to use Target File Size a way a lot of other people do: as a way to ensure your files don't exceed a certain size. But what you and everyone else don't seem to grasp is that while you will never end up with a movie that's goes over the target size, you'll never end up with one that's under that size either. If you use Constant Quality, there is always the likelihood of an encode coming out smaller than you expected. Given the poor quality encoders that people have used in the past, I get the feeling that they often overestimate the bit rate required to get good quality video. In your case, you suggested 2GB for a movie. That's 3000kbps. Very few SD movies encoded in HandBrake with constant quality ever reach that. Most are around 2000kbps and in the case of some cartoons, 1000kbps.

What we're saying, politely, is to stop whining and give constant quality a try. I would suggest you encode maybe a dozen or so movies - enough for you to get a feel for the kind of file sizes it produces. Because the file sizes will vary. But it depends on the type of film. After a while, either you'll find it works brilliantly, like most people here think it does. If after you've encoded a bunch of videos you find that they're consistently coming out larger than you like, or smaller, you can raise or lower the RF respectively to correct this (lower RF = better quality). What we're hoping here is that you'll find that while some movies come out larger than you were expecting, some come out smaller, and they average out at being the right size.
I use target size as a way to get the movie somewhere in the size range. I understand its not going to be exactly on or necessarily even close to the 'target size'. Thats why I thought it was named "target". And I never suggested a 2gb file, that was another user. Most people don't want to "get a feel" for it, they just want to convert 1-5 files and be done with it. I was never trying to be disrespectful and say you did something wrong, I was simply and respectfully giving you my opinion as a user of your product (that obviously other people share).

rollin_eng
Veteran User
Posts: 3296
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by rollin_eng »

tamuuli wrote: It would be cool/convenient if you could input a 'target size' and then the program/encoder would calculate a bit-rate that would make the size roughly around the target size.
No it wouldn't, we have just explained why this is bad.
tamuuli wrote:). Its not about laziness, just convenience for those in a hurry/don't want to calculate things for every conversion.
But it seems rather than just try using the new settings and see if they work you are going to downgrade to an obsolete version. Sounds pretty lazy to me.

tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

rollin_eng wrote:
tamuuli wrote:). Its not about laziness, just convenience for those in a hurry/don't want to calculate things for every conversion.
But it seems rather than just try using the new settings and see if they work you are going to downgrade to an obsolete version. Sounds pretty lazy to me.
Maybe I am just being confused but with all due respect Im not the only one having problems/confusion with this and maybe thats something you guys should look into (honestly with all my respect, not a witty statement). When I check 'constant quality' and then drag the bar for quality, as far as I know, I have no way of knowing what the size/quality of that video will be without getting "a feel for it". So that leaves me with doing several conversions just to get to see what size that file is.

Im not trying to attack your guys decision or product (though I feel kind of upset for some of the more rude replies when I was trying to be sincere), Im trying to explain my confusion/dissapointment as a consumer of your product so you guys can either make it more obvious for others or fix/change something -the whole reason for a support forum. Im not using my time on the forum of a product I have nothing to do with just to insult you or what ever. Think about it. I do wish you are more respectful to other people just trying to HELP your product.

tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

jamiemlaw wrote: Tamuuli, you seem to use Target File Size a way a lot of other people do: as a way to ensure your files don't exceed a certain size. But what you and everyone else don't seem to grasp is that while you will never end up with a movie that's goes over the target size, you'll never end up with one that's under that size either. If you use Constant Quality, there is always the likelihood of an encode coming out smaller than you expected. Given the poor quality encoders that people have used in the past, I get the feeling that they often overestimate the bit rate required to get good quality video.
jamiemlaw wrote:
tamuuli wrote:
It would be cool/convenient if you could input a 'target size' and then the program/encoder would calculate a bit-rate that would make the size roughly around the target size.

-No it wouldn't, we have just explained why this is bad.
<- that didn't explain why its bad/you disabled the function. It simply stated that I do something I don't at least believe I do.
jamiemlaw wrote:
But what you and EVERYONE else don't seem to grasp..
then maybe instead of using an insult full tone with somebody thats trying to HELP you, you should think why "EVERYONE" is so confused.

rollin_eng
Veteran User
Posts: 3296
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by rollin_eng »

tamuuli wrote:When I check 'constant quality' and then drag the bar for quality, as far as I know, I have no way of knowing what the size/quality of that video will be without getting "a feel for it". So that leaves me with doing several conversions just to get to see what size that file is.
I know it can be confusing but please listen to us, this is not some crazy idea we are telling you, these are the experience of many people (including the people who write the encoder).

CQ encoding is the way to go. Why worry about size if you dont have to?

tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

rollin_eng wrote:
tamuuli wrote:When I check 'constant quality' and then drag the bar for quality, as far as I know, I have no way of knowing what the size/quality of that video will be without getting "a feel for it". So that leaves me with doing several conversions just to get to see what size that file is.
I know it can be confusing but please listen to us, this is not some crazy idea we are telling you, these are the experience of many people (including the people who write the encoder).

CQ encoding is the way to go. Why worry about size if you dont have to?
Hahhhah. I don't think its a "crazy" idea and Im right and CQ isn't the way to go. Your missing the point. What I've been saying from the beginning is that i am/need to be SIZE oriented because of limited resources. And ALOT of other people are/seem to be aswell -hence all the posts and articles on the other websites. So what I was saying, respectfully from the beginning, is it would be NICE to have that option. Its not something you guys have to do or anything like that but you are going to loose a lot of business over it because people really want that option for a video encoder.

rollin_eng
Veteran User
Posts: 3296
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by rollin_eng »

tamuuli wrote: What I've been saying from the beginning is that i am/need to be SIZE oriented because of limited resources.
In which case you should use cq encoding as it will save you space in the long run.

tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

rollin_eng wrote:
tamuuli wrote: What I've been saying from the beginning is that i am/need to be SIZE oriented because of limited resources.
In which case you should use cq encoding as it will save you space in the long run.
hahah once again I understand I can use that. I know my messages contradict. Id just rather not "get the feel" and spend hours doing that when I could get a guestimate and loose a little. Most people agree with me. Didn't come here to complain about my laziness and spend my time doing that, just trying to inform the developers.
Last edited by tamuuli on Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rollin_eng
Veteran User
Posts: 3296
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by rollin_eng »

tamuuli wrote:hahah once again I understand I can use that. Id just rather not "get the feel" and spend hours doing that when I could get a guestimate and loose a little. Most people agree with me. Didn't come here to complain about my laziness and spend my time doing that, just trying to inform the developers.
There is no 'feel' just select your settings and go.

tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

rollin_eng wrote:
tamuuli wrote:hahah once again I understand I can use that. Id just rather not "get the feel" and spend hours doing that when I could get a guestimate and loose a little. Most people agree with me. Didn't come here to complain about my laziness and spend my time doing that, just trying to inform the developers.
There is no 'feel' just select your settings and go.
<-thats not knowing the output size tho. so you have to do trial and error.

Flo
Bright Spark User
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by Flo »

The irony is that, in the time you spent arguing for your beloved target size option, you could have encoded several DVDs at constant quality and seen the results for yourself.

Smithcraft
Veteran User
Posts: 2691
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by Smithcraft »

Of course you could try Vidcoder, which is Handbrake with a different user interface. Well, mostly. However, Vidcoder also seems to have a problem with target size.

The other thing to understand, is that when the Handbrake developers decide on something, that's it. It's not open to discussion. Avi support is gone, and no matter how much begging, or bribing, everyone does it's not coming back. Same thing with target file size.

SC

tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

Flo wrote:The irony is that, in the time you spent arguing for your beloved target size option, you could have encoded several DVDs at constant quality and seen the results for yourself.
Hahah agreed. Im not doing this for me tho, I'm doing it for the rest of the Handbrake community that don't want to do trial and error. :)

rollin_eng
Veteran User
Posts: 3296
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by rollin_eng »

tamuuli wrote: Hahah agreed. Im not doing this for me tho, I'm doing it for the rest of the Handbrake community that don't want to do trial and error.
Flo wrote:The irony is that, in the time you spent arguing for your beloved target size option, you could have encoded several DVDs at constant quality and seen the results for yourself.
Hahah agreed. Im not doing this for me tho, I'm doing it for the rest of the Handbrake community that don't want to do trial and error. :)
What trial and error? Could you post an example of the settings you are using in 0.9.5. so I can suggest a setting for 0.9.6?

Flo
Bright Spark User
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by Flo »

tamuuli wrote:I'm doing it for the rest of the Handbrake community that don't want to do trial and error. :)
You're not doing "the rest of the community" any favors, you're holding them back.

GregiBoy
Veteran User
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:23 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by GregiBoy »

And argue/post all you like!!

It AIN'T coming back.

tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

Smithcraft wrote:Of course you could try Vidcoder, which is Handbrake with a different user interface. Well, mostly. However, Vidcoder also seems to have a problem with target size.

The other thing to understand, is that when the Handbrake developers decide on something, that's it. It's not open to discussion. Avi support is gone, and no matter how much begging, or bribing, everyone does it's not coming back. Same thing with target file size.
Thank you for your sincere answer! Its refreshing.
Its good to keep a clear picture/goal as a developer. I was simply trying to shed light into my confusion and frustration as a consumer. What the developers do with that information is up to them. I wasn't/can't demand anything from them and I was trying to explain from the very beginning. The negative response I got on this forum was astonishing and unprofessional.
tamuuli wrote:
rollin_eng wrote:
tamuuli wrote:hahah once again I understand I can use that. Id just rather not "get the feel" and spend hours doing that when I could get a guestimate and loose a little. Most people agree with me. Didn't come here to complain about my laziness and spend my time doing that, just trying to inform the developers.
There is no 'feel' just select your settings and go.
<-thats not knowing the output size tho. so you have to do trial and error to find the size.
<- rolling_eng, that trial and error.
Flo wrote:You're not doing "the rest of the community" any favors, you're holding them back.
Well that was my intentIon. Its not my fault few of the community would rather diss on the consumer than hear what they have to say (especially when they were being respectful and just trying to help).

tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

Ps: I hope the admins re-read this whole post and recognize my struggle to help while being put down. And if there were any Handbrake representatives involved, they talk to those people because it shined a horrible and unprofessional image on their product. I was honestly trying to help as a consumer of a product I enjoyed.
Last edited by tamuuli on Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Flo
Bright Spark User
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by Flo »

The whole idea of "hitting a target size" is antiquated. It comes from an era of limited disk space and bad codecs where people thought "backing up" their DVDs to CD-R as 700MB DIVX files was "the thing" to do. Constant Quality has been around for over a year. There has been plenty of time for "trial and error". Even "the scene" has moved on.

PS: Handbrake is a free tool. If you don't like the direction it's taking, I'm sure you can take your "business" elsewhere. And if you're really representing the BBC and if they really depend on hitting a target file size, I'm sure they have the resources to hire a full time programmer to (re-)implement that feature. It's open source. Feel free to contribute.

tamuuli
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:39 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by tamuuli »

Flo, I am, and can only represent myself as a regular consumer.
Flo wrote:..has been around for over a year. There has been plenty of time for "trial and error". Even "the scene" has moved on.
Not everyone is part of 'the scene' and has time, in under a year, to experiment and learn the "feel" so as they could guestimate the size of every file. I was simply constructively suggesting for a solution that was more user friendly.
Flo wrote:PS: Handbrake is a free tool. If you don't like the direction it's taking, I'm sure you can take your "business" elsewhere.
Jesus.. "I appreciate all your guys work on such a complex and intensive (open source!!) project! and I'm in no way trying to demand or threaten or anything like that, I just really really miss this feature in by far my favorite video converter." ".. What the developers do with that information is up to them. I wasn't/can't demand anything from them.." "I was simply trying to shed light into my confusion and frustration as a consumer." want more quotes of me respecting that and simply trying to explain my intentions?? they are through out.

red3recon
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by red3recon »

GregiBoy wrote:And argue/post all you like!!

It AIN'T coming back.
Enough said. I do appreciate the honest feedback and I have a much better understanding and will upgrade and forget about the target size. Since everyone seems to like it I suppose I can try it, that was why I started smoking pot too and that turned out well. 8)

Flo
Bright Spark User
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by Flo »

tamuuli wrote:... to experiment and learn the "feel" so as they could guestimate the size of every file. I was simply constructively suggesting for a solution that was more user friendly.
You're still missing the point. You're supposed to pick a quality that suits you and forget about the file size. Some files will come out bigger, some will come out smaller, but they will all have a fairly consistent quality.

rollin_eng
Veteran User
Posts: 3296
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by rollin_eng »

tamuuli wrote:Ps: I hope the admins re-read this whole post and recognize my struggle to help while being put down. And if there were any Handbrake representatives involved, they talk to those people because it shined a horrible and unprofessional image on their product. I was honestly trying to help as a consumer of a product I enjoyed.
I dont think people are being rude, they are just frustrated that you seem unwilling to even try cq encoding. Instead you are going back to 0.9.5 (which also means you are using an old version of x264 so you are in effect shooting yourself in both feet).

If you were to post your old 0.9.5 settings and say 'Hey, how can I get a similar result in 0.9.6' people would love to help you.

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3456
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by musicvid »

My goodness!
I presented an alternative, yet NO ONE has taken the time to test it, improve it, or tell me it's crap and present your own solution.

Just whine.

Makes me think there is another agenda at work . . .

Witness:
1) At about $0.06 US per MegaByte, hard drive storage is incredibly affordable these days. I remember when it was $2.00 per MB.
2) Anyone producing original, legitimate video files for streaming or download has absolutely no use for such an option, because they already know the math.
3) You can fit 5-7 movies on a 16GB thumb drive.

700MB is dead. So is torrent.

Registered55
Regular User
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:04 pm

Re: What happened to the "Target Size" quality option?

Post by Registered55 »

long live magnet :lol:

Locked