Is There Really a Point to Ripping for iPod at 1500kbps?

[Hub.exe]

I have experimented with ripping DVDs with HandBrake to my 5.5G 30Gig Video iPod for a couple of months now. I have ripped DVDs multiple times with varying bitrates, but after approximately 512kbps I notice absolutely no observable difference on iPod. All that ripping at 1500kbps seems to do is take up 250% more space on my iPod. The videos do seem to look much nicer at fullscreen on my PC, however. Is there any other reason to convert at 1500kbps?

[baggss]

If you are JUST watching them on the iPod, not really. If you ever plan to plug that iPod into a TV and watch a video from it, then it does make a difference, but not as much as you would think.

[cbud]

Another reason to encode at >512 kbs is for future iPods, which will most likely have screen widths twice the size of the current iPod.

[demeatloaf]

Another reason to encode at >512 kbs is for future iPods, which will most likely have screen widths twice the size of the current iPod.

When that day comes, I will worry about that and re-rip things. But for the time being, I just got a new iPod and don't plan on getting a new one anytime soon, anyway.

[Gordon Werner]

is there a matrix available anywhere that displays the optimum encode rate for each type of playback device?

i.e. what should one encode at for appleTV vs. ipod, etc ...

[PuzZLeR]

The videos do seem to look much nicer at fullscreen on my PC, however. Is there any other reason to convert at 1500kbps?

You answered your own question right there even before baggss answered. And if you want to try them with the iPod hooked to a big screen TV then 1500kbps would be the bare minimum for watchable quality.

[PuzZLeR]

is there a matrix available anywhere that displays the optimum encode rate for each type of playback device?

i.e. what should one encode at for appleTV vs. ipod, etc ...

The common denominator is the iPod.

If you only want to encode once, and can make it look good with iPod settings that look good on bigger screens, then you have wide compatibility on many devices.

As far as an "optimal encode rate" is concerned, the law of diminishing returns applies to H.264 past about 40% of the original file size. In other words, you won't see many improvements in quality over that file size due to the efficiency of H.264.

But going lower than a 40% original file size has a higher rate of quality loss. In this zone it is completely up to the individual as it's a compromise thereafter - what is the lowest quality you will accept or what is the highest file size you will accept. There is no best since this scale is rather proportional at this level.

[PuzZLeR]

Another reason to encode at >512 kbs is for future iPods, which will most likely have screen widths twice the size of the current iPod.

Good point, but I believe the future iPods not only will play with a bigger screen, but they will also handle higher profiles like Main, High, level 5.1, CABAC, anamorphic, etc.

Since I usually encode from DvD-RWs that my PVR captures from television, I delete the source afterwards so what I do in my case is encode into two batches of everything. One for the iPod, and another for my "good stuff" with higher setting H.264 features for archives and backup.

In a couple of years as tech progresses, I will not need the current iPod stuff and just delete it and only use the "good stuff" only.