Target Size

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.
Post Reply
Kmcm
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:14 am

Target Size

Post by Kmcm » Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:59 am

Hi,

http://mediacommons.psu.edu/2013/04/usi ... rget-size/

Is this legit ? My handbrake looks nothing like this. I upgraded to v 99 to get the 'Target Size' option shown above under the Video tab
but it isn't there! Or am I in the wrong place ?

Thanks

User avatar
Ritsuka
HandBrake Team
Posts: 1077
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:29 am

Re: Target Size

Post by Ritsuka » Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:28 am

That version in the screenshot is from several years ago. Target size is no longer in HandBrake. You can make a search on the forum for an explanation.

Kmcm
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:14 am

Re: Target Size

Post by Kmcm » Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:27 pm

Thanks for letting me know... looks more modern than the current version tho...
I haven't been able to find an explanation of the RF value or quality setting that makes any sense at all.

Very disappointed to find the Rotate function crops the top and bottom of the image so it becomes useless.
Is there any way around this so the all of the image remains after rotating. I'm using , --rotate=4 on the Extra Options under Video tab

mduell
Veteran User
Posts: 6741
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:54 pm

Re: Target Size

Post by mduell » Thu Oct 30, 2014 3:20 pm

Kmcm wrote:Thanks for letting me know... looks more modern than the current version tho...
Those screenshots are the Mac GUI, not the Windows GUI.
Kmcm wrote:I haven't been able to find an explanation of the RF value or quality setting that makes any sense at all.
Which ones have you read? What's your level of technical competence?
Kmcm wrote:Very disappointed to find the Rotate function crops the top and bottom of the image so it becomes useless.
Is there any way around this so the all of the image remains after rotating. I'm using , --rotate=4 on the Extra Options under Video tab
As it says so subtly in bold underlined red text at the top of the page on a pink background, encoding logs are required for support.

Kmcm
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:14 am

Re: Target Size

Post by Kmcm » Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:04 am

>those screenshots are the mac gui, not the windows gui.

Thank you.

>which ones have you read? what's your level of technical competence?

Many hours googling, found nothing that satisfactorily explains it. A 'target size'
option seems very useful, why remove it? I've encoded my file about 6 times so far to looking for
a desired size. What is 'RF'? What is H.264 level. What are presets used for ? Maybe there's a decent
user guide somewhere?

My 'technical competence' with Handbrake? Zero. Othwerwise, excellent.

>As it says so subtly in bold underlined red text at the top of the page on a pink background, encoding logs are required for support.

I felt my question was too generic for an error log and wasn't an actual error but the results acheived with all default settings.
Has anyone else rotated an image ? If yes, was it cropped top and botom, or not?

Thanks :)

Smithcraft
Veteran User
Posts: 2691
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: Target Size

Post by Smithcraft » Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:33 am

Why remove target file size? Glad you asked! viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23912

SC

Kmcm
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:14 am

Re: Target Size

Post by Kmcm » Sat Nov 01, 2014 11:30 am

Hi SC,

I'm confused. Most ppl there asking where it went and could it be restored

Then you get " you seem to use Target File Size a way a lot of other people do: as a way to ensure your files don't exceed a certain size. But what you and everyone else don't seem to grasp is that while you will never end up with a movie that's goes over the target size, you'll never end up with one that's under that size either. "

What BS is that !!! ? LOL what a moron... I'm now using VidCoder to set a target size but would like to stick with Handbrake as it doesn't report !Failed as vidcoder can do. There was a calculator mentioned in that link. Was that to covert
a target size to an RF value ? What the heck is RF anyway? To me it means Radio frequency. What does it mean in Handbrake ?

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: Target Size

Post by musicvid » Sat Nov 01, 2014 1:51 pm

Stop ranting and read the docs. Its all there.

User avatar
JohnAStebbins
HandBrake Team
Posts: 5480
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: Target Size

Post by JohnAStebbins » Sat Nov 01, 2014 3:26 pm

Maybe this will help.
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=24152#p110784

But you really need to educate yourself about video encoding and the terminology. As I say in some of those posts, most people who use target file size do so for the wrong reason. They misunderstand what RF does and do not optimize their disk space usage properly. But there are a rare few that understand what they are doing where target file size would be appropriate. Most people with this level of understanding can easily do a quick calculation in their head to figure out the proper bitrate setting to get what they desire.

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: Target Size

Post by musicvid » Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:24 pm

Most people with this level of understanding can easily do a quick calculation in their head to figure out the proper bitrate setting to get what they desire.
+1

Every producer who encodes for web delivery knows the math, and juggles the available bandwidth accordingly.
Those who just want a mindless way to create 700 MB or <4 GB files should either learn the math or at least how to use a calculator.
So legitimate users should have no issue with the way it is now.

Smithcraft
Veteran User
Posts: 2691
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: Target Size

Post by Smithcraft » Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:12 am

Kmcm, your questions are all answered in the thread I linked to.

SC

Kmcm
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:14 am

Re: Target Size

Post by Kmcm » Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:48 pm

> Stop ranting and read the docs. Its all there.

Haha... normally I'd agree but it's NOT there (sorry SC, my considered opinion is that link lacks any decent coherent explanation),

Can I explain what I have - a 15 min video taken on a Samsung S3 and I want to compress it to send via email or download link.
Setting a target size will let me see how much falls apart at that size, and adjust accordingly for the best fit.

And you guys - no-one has said what RF is or means yet . What is this semi-secret formula or juggling you mention - and why is it necessary?

rollin_eng
Veteran User
Posts: 3183
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: Target Size

Post by rollin_eng » Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:09 pm

Target size has been beaten to death, no one is going to want to debate that with you.
Kmcm wrote: Setting a target size will let me see how much falls apart at that size, and adjust accordingly for the best fit.
If you are just going to pick a size at random then adjust until you are happy why not do the same with RF. Pick a number then adjust up or down as necessary (lower number = higher quality thus bigger files, higher number = lower quality thus smaller files).

User avatar
s55
HandBrake Team
Posts: 9602
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:05 pm

Re: Target Size

Post by s55 » Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:14 pm


User avatar
Rodeo
HandBrake Team
Posts: 12256
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Target Size

Post by Rodeo » Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:57 pm

Kmcm wrote: Setting a target size will let me see how much falls apart at that size, and adjust accordingly for the best fit.
But quality at a given size depends on the source, so you have to do that for all sources, quite time-consuming if you ask me :P

musicvid
Veteran User
Posts: 3369
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 1:19 am

Re: Target Size

Post by musicvid » Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:09 pm

Best fit?
For an email?
Scale it down to 320x240 and keep it under 20 MB (10 MB for some recipients). You won't want to use CRF.
Little else matters, except people have inbox quotas, and often don't appreciate large attachments, even from someone they know. Your video should have no motion, talking heads only. It will look worse than cellphone video.

The solution? Post it on YouTube and send them a private link.

The mental estimate is simple.
Time (sec) x Bitrate (Mbps) x .125 = Size (MB).

Kmcm
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:14 am

Re: Target Size

Post by Kmcm » Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:52 am

> Target size has been beaten to death, no one is going to want to debate that with you.

Why a debate? Why so controversial? Just put it in and those that want it can have it. Those that don't can ignore it.

> If you are just going to pick a size at random then adjust until you are happy why not do the same with RF. Pick a number then adjust up or down as necessary (lower number = higher quality thus bigger files, higher number = lower quality thus smaller files).

Because of the need to continually cross reference this meaningless RF value with something instinctive and meaningful. A computer could do that so easily... why, even Handbrake could :)

> But quality at a given size depends on the source, so you have to do that for all sources, quite time-consuming if you ask me

But if the source is constant...

> You won't want to use CRF.

I won't want to use GFGHX either !

> The solution? Post it on YouTube and send them a private link.

Or upload to some webspace and email the recipient the link. That's what I'm doing. A very small clip could be emailed.

> Time (sec) x Bitrate (Mbps) x .125 = Size (MB).

How about expanding that to factor in this RF setting ? If Handbrake refuses to give a target size, that seems a excellent workaround.

I find Handbrake gives brilliant results with VOB files etc, but with small clips I'm now using VidCoder which says it uses the 'Handbrake Engine".
Does one give any better results/speed than the other ?

Smithcraft
Veteran User
Posts: 2691
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: Target Size

Post by Smithcraft » Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:15 pm

Perhaps you missed the part where people that were using it, were whining about files coming out slightly bigger than the target they set.

Since the developers work on Handbrake in their spare time, and do things that interest them, they decided that they had no interest in supporting something that wasn't working right, and was something that they were moving away from. Much like they lost interest in supporting a container that has more issues than they have time to constantly fix.

The Handbrake developers are interested in settings for quality and not fixed bitrates which can starve a scene or waste bits on another scene, so they have no interest in maintaining target file size. The developer of VidCoder has an interest in supporting that feature in his software which uses the Handbrake libs. If you have to have target file size then use VidCoder. It's that simple.

SC

mduell
Veteran User
Posts: 6741
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:54 pm

Re: Target Size

Post by mduell » Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:59 pm

Kmcm wrote:Because of the need to continually cross reference this meaningless RF value with something instinctive and meaningful. A computer could do that so easily... why, even Handbrake could :)
Computers are terrible at subjective user preferences.
Kmcm wrote:> Time (sec) x Bitrate (Mbps) x .125 = Size (MB).

How about expanding that to factor in this RF setting ? If Handbrake refuses to give a target size, that seems a excellent workaround.
The relationship between RF and file size depends on a lot more than time; indeed, it depends on many characteristics of the source (motion, grain, etc), which changes from source to source. There is no generic formula from RF to file size.

CRF encoding gives you a constant output quality; the file size is allocated based on what the source and constraints (preset, tune, advanced settings) needs to hit that target.

Post Reply