I have a question about encoding 16:9 widescreen media. I can't seem to be able to get MediaFork to encode at 640x360, which seems to be the standard resolution for widescreen media on the iPod 5.5 (I've purchased a number of episodes off iTMS and all of them are encoded at 640x360).
As far as I can tell, I can only encode at 624x352 or 640x368. The former doesn't quit get the full resolution allowable on the iPod, while the later is slightly distorted.
I don't think I could really tell the difference between a media file that's 624x352 and 640x360, but it might be something to address in future releases (that is, if I haven't missed something completely obvious).
Congratulations again on the release of MediaFork!
640x360?
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.
Especially with the preference to "Reset picture width to 640 when x264 (iPod) encoder is selected," it would be awesome to have MediaFork automatically make 16:9 media 640x360. It would certainly save some time and ensure that I'm actually encoding at the best possible resolution for my iPod (plus, I bet a lot of people will check that preference box and not realize that it's slightly distorting their 16:9 media).
But as I said, I can't really tell the difference between 624x352 and 640x360 and it certainly won't stop me from encoding stuff in the meantime and being very happy with the result.
But as I said, I can't really tell the difference between 624x352 and 640x360 and it certainly won't stop me from encoding stuff in the meantime and being very happy with the result.
Great, and just to let you know, we have a trac ticket on this already. Its affect varies from dvd to dvd and NTSC to PAL.cdb216 wrote:But as I said, I can't really tell the difference between 624x352 and 640x360 and it certainly won't stop me from encoding stuff in the meantime and being very happy with the result.
Hope you are enjoying MediaFork.
You do understand that 640*360 does not obey DCT rules, right? MPEG-4 requires video to be in 16x16 macroblocks. Apple, I guess, is cheating and allowing 8x8 values. While x264 can encode those, it will be at a loss of quality (or depending on how you look at it, an increase in file size). That's why the GUI height and width steppers move in increments of 16, in order to make sure the values are not going to cause extra work for the encoders.cdb216 wrote:But as I said, I can't really tell the difference between 624x352 and 640x360 and it certainly won't stop me from encoding stuff in the meantime and being very happy with the result.
Here's the word straight from the mouth of the man who actually created x264:
akupenguin wrote:5th April 2006, 01:23
In h264, if the resolution of the whole frame is not mod16, you basically pay the bit costs (and cpu-time) for the rounded-up resolution instead of the displayed resolution. So e.g. 640x368 ~ 640x352 > 640x364 > 640x360 > 640x356. (where ">" is "better")