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.
TBFL
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:21 pm

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

Post by TBFL »

rollin_eng wrote: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.

Hi, and thanks for the offer.

I record shows onto a hard drive DVR that has a DVD Recorder on it. I copy each episode off the harddrive onto a DVD-RW (Standard 720x480 DVD resolution) and then edit the raw MPEG2 file removing all the commercials usually leaving me with about 42-45 minutes of video. Depending on the series, I usually try to archive them placing 10-13 episodes on 1 Standard 4.5GB DVDR. I used to do this in AVI format with old versions of Handbrake by dividing 4400 by the number of episodes I had and using that as the "target size." I am not sure what 'CQ' setting I should be trying to keep my files at similar quality (obviously not the best quality available, but good enough for my archiving needs.)

So assuming 13 45 minute episodes (585 minutes) at DVD Resolution, what CQ should I be trying in 0.9.6 to get similar quality results?

Thanks!

TBFL

rollin_eng
Veteran User
Posts: 3469
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm

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

Post by rollin_eng »

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

by TBFL » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:39 pm



rollin_eng wrote: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.



Hi, and thanks for the offer.

I record shows onto a hard drive DVR that has a DVD Recorder on it. I copy each episode off the harddrive onto a DVD-RW (Standard 720x480 DVD resolution) and then edit the raw MPEG2 file removing all the commercials usually leaving me with about 42-45 minutes of video. Depending on the series, I usually try to archive them placing 10-13 episodes on 1 Standard 4.5GB DVDR. I used to do this in AVI format with old versions of Handbrake by dividing 4400 by the number of episodes I had and using that as the "target size." I am not sure what 'CQ' setting I should be trying to keep my files at similar quality (obviously not the best quality available, but good enough for my archiving needs.)

So assuming 13 45 minute episodes (585 minutes) at DVD Resolution, what CQ should I be trying in 0.9.6 to get similar quality results?

Thanks!

TBFL
TBFL,

I will help but I think you should start a new thread and include an activity log so people can see more details.

Also look at this recent thread:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=24018

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

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

Post by red3recon »

musicvid wrote: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.
Ok, so I took the time to test it....and I like it. You were all right on the CQ with regard to file size and quality. That being said I would recommend this, add a "Estimated Resulting File Size" block so users can see the approximate effects of their settings like your Excel solution does only in the GUI. That to me would be the best of both.

And for those who say "This is the best way, why wont you just do it?" I say this:

Smoking is bad, everyone knows it yet millions of people do it and of course I could add a million examples just like that...people are creatures of habit and because the target size option was there and now it is gone nothing you can say will fully console them.

To the developers, "Thank you for a great product!"

tennisbgc
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:07 am

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

Post by tennisbgc »

Removing this feature was kinda silly I mean what was there to gain by removing this feature? My gf liked using the target file size so she could email some videos sure its not for every situation but removing a feature is never a good idea.

LEG1ON
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:00 pm

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

Post by LEG1ON »

I for one will miss this, while the previous version was great for beginers and advanced users i think this new version has basicaly taken that away. Dont get me wrong i have tried multiple times to try and produce files like the previous version but have been unable to.
To be honest its been a pain in the [Censored].Even the encoding time has doubled on some of the files and i have a quiet fast PC. Dont get me wrong i am all in to push this fantastic program further, but just cannot seem to get the results that i want, i know it will not be added again but there must be thousands of people out there who will miss this also but also thousands of people who love it.
An old saying comes to mind, dont fix what isnt broken. Me and my family have had hours of enjoyment because of this program and the results it has given me everytime, so i would like to say a massive thanks to all involved in this program but i am sticking with the previous program because its not giving me the results i want.
Everyone to there own i suppose.

Regards
LEG1ON

User avatar
JohnAStebbins
HandBrake Team
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:21 pm

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

Post by JohnAStebbins »

LEG1ON wrote:... Dont get me wrong i am all in to push this fantastic program further, ...
An old saying comes to mind, dont fix what isnt broken....
I've said this dozens of times. I suppose one more time isn't going to kill me. The feature was broken and getting more broken with each release. None of the developers used it, and therefor it got no testing and very little attention as we developed new features. The target size feature impeded our ability to "push this fantastic program further". It resulted in numerous special case scenarios that added complexity to the code. It also added complexity to the gui design since it required disabling certain features whenever it was enabled. Certain options just mysteriously vanish from the UI when target size is enabled, or worse, they don't vanish, but they have no effect when selected.

Out of curiosity, what are the results you are trying to attain that have become so difficult? For some, a specific file size is a requirement due to playback hardware limitations. For these people, I can sympathize, but they are a small minority to be catering to for something that has such an impact on maintainability of the code. But for many, they were using the feature simply because they thought it was the best way to conserve disk space (which is a complete fallacy). If you are trying to get the best file size vs quality trade-off, constant quality mode is the best method. If you have specific bitrate limitations, either average bitrate, or constant quality with appropriate VBV settings is the way to go.

vaultman110
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:22 pm

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

Post by vaultman110 »

I guess I'm still missing the point of this whole topic.
Am I the only one that uses that feature in order to get the largest file possible on to a DVD DL(8135MB) or BD-R (23866MB). If I have a 30GB file from a BR disk that I want to preserve the best possible quality but still fit on burnable media why wouldn't I want to use the target feature. Wouldn't a file that's 7.95 GB be better quality than one that comes in under size for the burnable media its going to? Can anyone suggest a better option for someone in my situation? I use mostly the default settings except for adaptive b frames I set to optimal and a few other options that show up in the advanced screen as

b-adapt=2:rc-lookahead=50:subq=9:me=umh:analyse=all:trellis=2:psy-rd=1.00,0.10

I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to get the best possible quality encodes while using most of the space on the DVD or BR.

vaultman110
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:22 pm

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

Post by vaultman110 »

Thanks JohnAStebbins. Finally an explanation that make sense. Not that I wont miss the feature but at least now I can understand why the developers have to move in that direction.

TedJ
Veteran User
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:25 pm

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

Post by TedJ »

vaultman110 wrote:I guess I'm still missing the point of this whole topic.
Am I the only one that uses that feature in order to get the largest file possible on to a DVD DL(8135MB) or BD-R (23866MB). If I have a 30GB file from a BR disk that I want to preserve the best possible quality but still fit on burnable media why wouldn't I want to use the target feature. Wouldn't a file that's 7.95 GB be better quality than one that comes in under size for the burnable media its going to? Can anyone suggest a better option for someone in my situation? I use mostly the default settings except for adaptive b frames I set to optimal and a few other options that show up in the advanced screen as

b-adapt=2:rc-lookahead=50:subq=9:me=umh:analyse=all:trellis=2:psy-rd=1.00,0.10

I'm certainly open to suggestions on how to get the best possible quality encodes while using most of the space on the DVD or BR.
I presume you only glossed over this topic, otherwise you would have seen several posts from myself and the developers saying that if you must have your encode hit a certain filesize then there are many online bitrate calculators available (I use this one for work).

That being said, presuming your sources are layer Blu-ray rips then you will find that HandBrake is able to reach the same quality at significantly lower bitrates due to it's use of the libx264 encoder, consistently judged the best H.264 encoder in the world at lower bitrates. You'll also find that it's common practice to pick an average bitrate for a DVD or Blu-ray project much higher than required, simply to "fill the disc." This sometimes results in a disc that can struggle in less capable players.

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 »

Additionally, when you dictate that there will be x bits per frame, you are not going to get the best quality where bits are wasted in simple frames, and bits are not available in complex frames.

That would be why a file that is the maximum for a target file size might not be as good as a file that has an image quality target instead, and is half the size.

SC

LEG1ON
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 05, 2012 10:00 pm

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

Post by LEG1ON »

@johnAStebbins, I have been trying 720p files some 45 minutes long and some 130-200 minutes long.
I have the settings on constant quality with an RF of between 17 and 21. On each case out of many tries the encoding time can range from about 45 minutes for a 720p tv program which is fine, to anywhere over 3 hours for a movie file. With the previous version i was constantly getting pristine movie playback taking anywhere from 1 hour to 2 hours for a large file and basically getting the file size that i wanted between 1gb to 1500 mb to conserve space but still keep a pristine picture.
With this new version the file sizes that i was ending up with were ranging from 300 mb to 900 mb but with no were near the same quality, on some of the files you could defo see macro blocking. I have tried numerous times with different settings to obtain the same effect but to no avail, so basically that is why i am sticking with the previous version.
I might just be totally screwing it up but i do not see where i am going wrong. So thanks for the reply and thanks for a brilliant program.

Regards
LEG1ON

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 »

why can't you use "Vidcoder", currently at 1.3.2, and I have just spent several hours over the weekend using it.

it has come a longway, and it does seem to be a lot more stable now.

I'm surprised why no one just uses VidC (or at least recommend it) to the people that desperate need "filesize" output.

in fact for the sake of this issue keep coming up, maybe put it in the FAQ file, or make it sticky in one of the sticky threads, that way people can just post a link to the relevant page of that sticky/FAQ.
I've said this dozens of times. I suppose one more time isn't going to kill me. The feature was broken and getting more broken with each release. None of the developers used it, and therefore it got no testing and very little attention as we developed new features. The target size feature impeded our ability to "push this fantastic program further". It resulted in numerous special case scenarios that added complexity to the code. It also added complexity to the GUI design since it required disabling certain features whenever it was enabled. Certain options just mysteriously vanish from the UI when target size is enabled, or worse, they don't vanish, but they have no effect when selected.
I agree, brilliant explanation, best I've seen.

TedJ
Veteran User
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:25 pm

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

Post by TedJ »

Registered55 wrote:why can't you use "Vidcoder", currently at 1.3.2, and I have just spent several hours over the weekend using it.

it has come a longway, and it does seem to be a lot more stable now.

I'm surprised why no one just uses VidC (or at least recommend it) to the people that desperate need "filesize" output.
Vidcoder is persona non grata around here because for a while the developer was actively forwarding his users here for tech support; not entirely fair when the issues were related to his GUI.

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 »

I see, I did not know that.

Although if that matter has been resolved now, and as the option for "filesize output" is available in an alternative GUI based on Handbrake, surely would it not be far easier for everyone (especially the developers) to ship em of there, as this topic has come up so many times, and will no doubt continue to do so for quite sometime because the 2 Pass Filesize output is still widely used in video conversion software, new users too handbrake will notice this lack of option, and of those users will always be a small minority that will then come here looking for answers, I can see it now, this subject still being raised on this forum in several years time :roll:

NOTE, I was just thinking out loud that some kind of low maintenance long term solution was in order for what can be described as a ring around the roses topic.

Astro Visual
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 8:55 pm

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

Post by Astro Visual »

Brandon Abell wrote:
Flo wrote:It's gone. It's not coming back. A simple search would have turned up literally dozens of threads asking the same thing.
Perhaps it should go in the FAQ then.
I did both ... searched AND read the FAQ ... still didn't find what I needed. So another vote for a Frequently asked question to go in Frequently Asked Questions section. :roll:

Astro Visual
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 8:55 pm

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

Post by Astro Visual »

Hey ... on this topic ... and totally understanding Tamuuli's frustration ... I only got this program after a search for a way to reduce my own video sizes. I use a Contour helmet cam and simply wanted to be able to upload to youtube quicker.

So, the target size option was the reason for the download. It's gone, as John explained, and, as a web developer with custom forums of my own, I get it.

So, I tried the constant quality option as per this screen shot ...

Image

... and my 3m 30 sec vid went from 104mb UP to 240mb. What the hell did I do wrong to get a reverse effect?

TedJ
Veteran User
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:25 pm

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

Post by TedJ »

The text in that resized screen shot is too small to read, why not try posting the encode log instead?

cowboyup910
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:36 am

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

Post by cowboyup910 »

I got a good laugh thanks. CQ is the way to go! Dozens of projects PROVE this.

crackerjack
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:36 pm

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

Post by crackerjack »

I have to admit that I miss the 'Target Size' option as well.

I particularly don't care if the new sizing option saves me space, because I can get a 3TB hardrive for just over $100, so space is never an issue.

Knowing each film is 2.2GB is exactly what I like to see on my drives ... and trying to figure out the Constant Quality option seems so unnecessary.

TedJ
Veteran User
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:25 pm

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

Post by TedJ »

crackerjack wrote:Knowing each film is 2.2GB is exactly what I like to see on my drives ...
May I ask why? Aside from 2.2 GB being approximately half the capacity of a DVD-R I don't see the point. I'd much rather know my movies were all the same quality than all the same size.

crackerjack
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:36 pm

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

Post by crackerjack »

With a file size of 2.2GB's there is very little chance that the quality of each film will be different since most films of that size will not lose their quality. (If they do it won't be noticeable)

Once again space is not an issue for me, and that probably goes for most people in the world. Harddrives are very cheap, so saving space here and there makes no difference to me.

That being said, I simply like to set it and forget it with the 'Target Size' setting ... also I like the fact that I can always fit two movies on a DVD when they are 2.2GB's each.

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 »

Well, you can't do it anymore, can you?

crackerjack
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:36 pm

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

Post by crackerjack »

Hence the reason for this topic ...

mlandis
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:28 am

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

Post by mlandis »

I am a frequent user of the HandBrake 'Target Size' quality option and just upgraded today to v0.9.6 from v0.9.5 and realized that the 'Target Size' option had been removed from this version. After searching the forum and reading the earlier posts concerning this change I decided to go back to v0.9.5 since the 'Target Size' option greatly simplifies my use of Handbrake.

I uninstalled v0.9.6 was and reinstalled the earlier version but the 'Target Size' option did not reappear as expected. During uninstallation I was asked if all HandBrake settings should be deleted and I answered in the affirmative but apparently this is not the case. Fortunately I had a working v0.9.5 copy on another Windows 7 machine so I copied the complete ..\Program Files (x86)\Handbrake directory from the working v0.9.5 machine to the other and the 'Target Size' is now back. Hallelujah!

If trying to restore the 'Target Size' option by reinstalling an earlier version the ..\Program Files (x86)\Handbrake directory should be manually deleted before installing the earlier version to ensure that no memory of v0.9.6 remains.

mlandis
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 3:28 am

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

Post by mlandis »

I would like to explain why I am a 'Target Size' quality option user and why it provides the desired results when using HandBrake. I maintain a family TV/Movie video archive stored on a 4TB NAS. The total available video storage space is ~2TB with music and ebook files allocated for the remaining 1TB of the total usable 3TB on the NAS. As content is consumed it is deleted while new content is constantly being added.

My sources for the video files may be flash\html5 captures, Usenet downloads, Bittorrent downloads or rips from DVD/BD media. The advent of hi-def and the improvements in uplink bandwidth available to many has resulted in much downloadable content being available as larger and larger files since the uploaders have increasing bandwidth to use. Many times a desired program may only be available as a 1080p file (approx 2.5-3GB/hour) or a 720p file (approx 1-2GB/hour) which are too large to archive and stay within my storage constraints. I use HandBrake to re-encode and reduce file size when the file size is greater than 750MB-1GB/hour of program material. I have come up with a simple metric for setting the 'Target Size' which is ~500MB/hour of program content. This simple rule serves me well and the resulting video files are quite watchable.

The bitrate calculator spreadsheet referenced may be useful if I was interested in or had knowledge of the items that are specified but I have no idea what the audio or video rates of the source file are nor do I care. I've tried using various constant quality settings with different source files but after much trial and error cannot intuit what settings will produce what file size for a given source file knowing only program length and current file size. Given the implicit raison d’être for software as being a tool to simplify complex tasks, the path to the desired result in my case is now much more complex and may even be unreachable without the 'Target Size' option.

I hope this illustrates that there are uses for your tool which provide results emminently desireable by some but which are diametrically opposed to what you the developer see as valuable. I'm not suggesting that there be any reversal in your approach but that there be begrudging acknowledgement that sub-optimal use of a tool like HandBrake can be worthwhile when the desired end result is accomplished.

Locked