Hi there,
I'm currently trying to put all my DVDs onto a large external drive so i'm encoding them all in h.264. Now i'm come across this HandBrake program and have taken quite quickly to it and have done many test runs with desirable results. Good work to all involved!
Just a few questions, mainly about the anamorphic setting. I want to use this option but i was concerned about Quicktime support... I have read that the new release of HandBrake will allow anamorphic h.264 files to run in Quicktime because at the moment they really don't in the .mp4 container. Umm so is it worth waiting for the new beta release before encoding all my DVDs or should i not worry about that and assume a new Quicktime release will sort that out?
I also read that they do work in the .mov container which i've yet to try out but will do. The other thing, probably slightly bigger issue, is that my file sizes for anamorphic are almost three times the size. A 6.26 minute clip that i'm using to test this out at 75% quality is coming out at 515MB! Without anamorphic it's more like 200MB. Any suggestions?
In the anamorphic guide it talks about the anamorphic setting ignoring the 16x16 blocks and i've realised that i'm cropping the edge of my clip by 2 which makes the width 718... Does this cause big problems? And is it likely that the reason my files are so big is that the encoder is creating unnecessary garbage to fill the gaps?
Thanks, luminol
Anamorphic file sizes
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.
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.
It doesn't make a human-perceptible difference to quality that anamorphic doesn't use mod16 values.
The current release already outputs QuickTime-compatible anamorphic video.
75% is higher than most people find useful for constant quality encodes - using CRF about 68-72% is generally considered "high quality" I believe. As for the extreme difference in file size you're noticing, I'm very surprised and can't really offer an explanation if you're sure it's otherwise the exact same settings on the same clip.
The current release already outputs QuickTime-compatible anamorphic video.
75% is higher than most people find useful for constant quality encodes - using CRF about 68-72% is generally considered "high quality" I believe. As for the extreme difference in file size you're noticing, I'm very surprised and can't really offer an explanation if you're sure it's otherwise the exact same settings on the same clip.
On double checking Quicktime does seem to be getting the resolution right but it looks awful. It's all boxy like a really small video that's been stretched. VLC player seems to work fine, maybe it's a setting in Quicktime? The encoder settings i'm using have been the same throughout basically. I'm trying to figure out the file size thing at the moment. Wierd though..
Interestingly Quicktime only displays it properly in full screen mode if i set it to display full screen movies in actual size. It just looks crap in windowed mode and full screen fit to screen mode.. Wierd, oh well. Plus Quicktime is soooo slow, it's using 80-90% CPU! Is that typical for 68 - 72% Quality encodings? I mean my computer isn't THAT slow...
Here's some figures on the 6.26 clip i was talking about, see if they seem reasonable. I fiddled around and got sizes down a bit:
68% Quality, CRF, NO Anamorphic PAR - 124MB
68% Quality, CRF, WITH Anamorphic PAR - 186MB
72% Quality, CRF, NO Anamorphic PAR - 172MB
72% Quality, CRF, WITH Anamorphic PAR - 256MB
It seems that with anamorphic PAR the file is about 1.5 times larger which ain't brilliant when encoding a whole film.
Here's some figures on the 6.26 clip i was talking about, see if they seem reasonable. I fiddled around and got sizes down a bit:
68% Quality, CRF, NO Anamorphic PAR - 124MB
68% Quality, CRF, WITH Anamorphic PAR - 186MB
72% Quality, CRF, NO Anamorphic PAR - 172MB
72% Quality, CRF, WITH Anamorphic PAR - 256MB
It seems that with anamorphic PAR the file is about 1.5 times larger which ain't brilliant when encoding a whole film.
It's the GUI 2.25 beta version for Windows. And i thought that the whole point in anamorphic PAR is that it doesn't store at a higher resolution it just uses a tranlstion matrix just like a DVD does. In VLC player the anamorphic files are displayed as 1021x404 (or whatever it is exactly) but if you look in the video properties it says the file is 718x404 hence the anamorphic PAR.
No.luminol wrote: And i thought that the whole point in anamorphic PAR is that it doesn't store at a higher resolution
It stores at a higher resolution than a non-anamorphic encode.
No, you haven't spotted anything. You told it to use the same target bitrate and it used the same target bitrate. What is this least bit surprising about this?Huh well i think i've spotted something with a couple of new encodes:
Like I already told you, if you're trying to reach *the same quality* for two encodes at different resolutions, you're going to end up with different bitrates.
Sorry i'm probably being dim but i don't follow. The impression i get from the guide http://handbrake.m0k.org/trac/wiki/Anam ... uide#macro is that the clever anarmorphic technique will store at the same resolution as a DVD i.e. the 720x576 standard for PAL and use the same anamorphic "trick" that a DVD does to display it in whatever widescreen ratio it may be... Am i misunderstanding?
If anamorphic PAR does store at a higher resolution then surely it's using the crude method of maintaining the height but adding to the width?
If anamorphic PAR does store at a higher resolution then surely it's using the crude method of maintaining the height but adding to the width?
Thanks though.