Choosing settings or preset by results

Discuss encoding for devices and presets.
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
Leprechaun
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2022 11:05 pm

Choosing settings or preset by results

Post by Leprechaun »

How much is too much (or too little)?:

I travel a lot, and I carry movies with me on thumbdrives. Haven't been to a hotel yet that I couldn't plug a drive into their TV and watch without paying for their movie package. BUT all shows have to be less than the 4.2 GB file limit.

I've had good luck with the following preset: Super high quality H.265 video (up to 1080p) SRC framerate, 10-bit, RF=20, AAC stereo audio, and Dolby Digital (AC-3) surround audio, in an MP4 container. Preset: slow. Deblock 5, Denoise HQDN3D Medium, ref=5:bframes=5 (Obviously I'm looking for fairly high quality, or I wouldn't be using an RF of 20.)

It reduces 3 to 5 GB 1-hour shows down to around 1.3 GB, taking around 10 hours per file. Movies though, if they start out very large, remain too large to put on a thumbdrive.

I'd like to compress more without losing video quality. Got a 12 GB movie that I need to squeeze at least 66% out. My research suggests RF of 24 might work. Of course, it's the Preset value (currently I use SLOW) that trades off compression efficiency against encoding speed. Maybe I should just set it to SLOWEST and accept that it's going to take a day or two per movie.

I wonder if anyone has thoughts to share?

HandBrake version 1.3.1:

Linux Mint 20.3 Una 6 core AMD processor, 16 MB memory:
Deleted User 11865

Re: Choosing settings or preset by results

Post by Deleted User 11865 »

Going from slow to slower will improve compression efficiency, but most likely not reduce file size to the point where it's as small as the RF24 + slow equivalent. I haven't done any specific tests, but x265 slow is already close enough to "optimal" that the next presets won't give you more than a 10% reduction in the best case scenario, unless your source is clean animation or something similar (in which case RF20 would probably give you a small enough size anyway).

Try formatting your thumb drive (or a compact external SSD, if your budget allows for it) as NTFS (poof, file size limit is gone). Most TVs should support this by now.

Or, for maximum convenience (at the expense of using up slightly more luggage space), carry a small media player with a USB port (and an HDMI cable) with you that supports whatever non-FAT32 format you feel like using.
Deleted User 11865

Re: Choosing settings or preset by results

Post by Deleted User 11865 »

Leprechaun wrote: Sun Jun 12, 2022 11:42 pm Linux Mint 20.3 Una 6 core AMD processor, 16 MB memory:
May I suggest a RAM upgrade? :lol: (I know it's just a typo)
Leprechaun
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2022 11:05 pm

Re: Choosing settings or preset by results

Post by Leprechaun »

First, Rodeo, thanks very much for confirming my thoughts. I had done fairly extensive testing to determine that Slow and SHQ x265 were the optimal settings for compressing 1080p files. I didn't think RF 24 would make that much difference and was concerned that the picture quality would become unacceptable. Still, based on your response, I'm going to have to give Slow, x265, and RF 24 a try.

There are a number of alternatives, and I've tried most of them. Surprisingly enough, only about half of the TVs I have tried will accept an NTFS thumbdrive. Maybe I've gone to too many budget hotels. I've also tried set top players and carrying a laptop, both using the HDMI cable. I'd rather travel light, carrying as little as possible.

Unfortunately my current system will not take a RAM upgrade. I built it just after the 6 core CPU was released, and the motherboard won't take more memory. I am however, building its replacement, which will have 16 cores, 128 GB memory, a 500 GB M.2 SSD dedicated to swap space, liquid cooling, and mirrored 12 TB drives.

Oops, I just realized the typo. :oops: I typed MB instead of GB. I thought you were saying the 16 was too small ... and yes, I think it is. On my current system, handbrake uses 506% of my CPUs, 15 GB of memory, 6 more GB virtual, and another 2.3 GB of swap.

Thanks again!
Post Reply