Hi guys,
I'm just wondering if anyone uses Handbrake to encode 4k files and if so what settings you use in order to keep the file sizes relatively small?
I'm currently encoding Warrior 4k, it's at 12% and the file size is already 3.91GB.....by comparison the blu ray is 7.62GB total with the same settings:
Codec = H.265
Quality = 20
2-pass encoding
Turbo first pass
Encoder preset = Medium
Best 4k settings to use?
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.
-
rollin_eng
- Veteran User
- Posts: 4854
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm
Re: Best 4k settings to use?
Try the 4K preset that best suits your needs and post your logs if you have a problem.
Re: Best 4k settings to use?
4 times as much information to compress, it would be reasonable for the file to be 4 times as big. Nothing out of the ordinary so far.
-
rollin_eng
- Veteran User
- Posts: 4854
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm
Re: Best 4k settings to use?
Below about 25% I wouldn’t trust any size estimates, although my experience is mainly with blu rays rather than 4K.
But I’m glad to see others realise size estimates are reasonable and possible
But I’m glad to see others realise size estimates are reasonable and possible
-
timberflake
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 5:34 pm
Re: Best 4k settings to use?
My reason for asking is because I've seen 4k video files posted to NZB sites by posters like PSA and the quality it fantastic yet they're able to keep the file sizes down, I just wondered how they do it.
Re: Best 4k settings to use?
They give up "absolute quality" in ways you didn't notice.
That's the thing about lossy compression - the quality is in the eye of the beholder, and a lot of things that CAN be done are ignored by viewers.
Some viewers do NOT ignore them - things like reducing the number of colors allocated to "almost uniform" dark areas can be a blotchy mess to someone who runs a monitor with the brightness and contrast turned to absurd levels.
My personal presets use RF=20 above 720p resolution, RF=22 below that. That is acceptable to me, and animated features compress by 90% or so. Things with more detail/motion, say, an action film, only compress by 50-70%. That hits my target for size reduction.
If I wanted to stream that across anything but a local network, I'd probably raise the RF values 2 to 4 points, accepting that the result would be displayed on a smaller screen, where compression artifacts would shrink to near-invisibility.
It's choices we make to suit our personal preferences. The compressed size of the original is much bigger, because the disk authors were targeting making it "really really cool!", and they had the space to do it.
That's the thing about lossy compression - the quality is in the eye of the beholder, and a lot of things that CAN be done are ignored by viewers.
Some viewers do NOT ignore them - things like reducing the number of colors allocated to "almost uniform" dark areas can be a blotchy mess to someone who runs a monitor with the brightness and contrast turned to absurd levels.
My personal presets use RF=20 above 720p resolution, RF=22 below that. That is acceptable to me, and animated features compress by 90% or so. Things with more detail/motion, say, an action film, only compress by 50-70%. That hits my target for size reduction.
If I wanted to stream that across anything but a local network, I'd probably raise the RF values 2 to 4 points, accepting that the result would be displayed on a smaller screen, where compression artifacts would shrink to near-invisibility.
It's choices we make to suit our personal preferences. The compressed size of the original is much bigger, because the disk authors were targeting making it "really really cool!", and they had the space to do it.