My suggestion is 19 for 480, 21 for 720, and 23 for 1080. Going lower than these values rarely has an appreciable change in PQ.Scott R wrote:So when you say 21-22 *minimum*, can you (or others) give me a hard number that you'd suggest when converting a 1080p Blu-ray rip down to 1280 width, with optimal PQ as the goal (I have a 720p front projector, so I'd like it to look as close to the source as possible)?
Will boosting these numbers add significantly to the encoding time? As I mentioned, I believe that last night's encode took about 8 hours.
Encoding time is largely independent of rate factor.
It's a matter of personal preference. Use 22 if you can't see the difference between 21 and 22. A higher rate factor is lower quality.Scott R wrote:Thanks for the added comments, everyone. I'm still a bit confused, though. You're all providing ranges, rather than a specific number. How are you decided when to use 21 vs 22?
So with this Blu-ray rip, what will moving up from RF 19 to RF 22 bring me? Is this going to result in more detail or in less motion artifacts/macroblocking/etc. FWIW, while I could see the resolution loss between the 1080p .ts source and this 2GB 720p file when standing a few inches from my 52" 1080p LCD TV, I didn't see any motion artifacts/macroblocking, which was a pleasant surprise. But if moving up to RF 22 can result in a little more detail, I'm sure I'd appreciate that when I watch these movies with my projector.
Inches away from a multi-foot display is a rather abnormal viewing distance. Watch it like you would watch it, not pixel peeping.