You might be able to on some content that lends itself well to compression, but it's less likely on all content. Too many people get into the thinking of new version = half the space. Lastly, if you are going to h.265, for most content, generally, testing (and I believe mpeg-la itself) places the equivalent bitrate for h.265 at around 30% less then h.264 for no/minimal PQ visible degredation. mp4 or mkv) but otherwise leave them alone. Keep ISO images, or if those aren't playable directly(like, say, from Plex), rip the mpeg-2 streams, re-package them into something more current (i.e. This is also a way of saying, if you really don't want to lose anything, don't recompress. So as long as you have enough bitrate(which does translate directly into a larger file, in context here), older is actually going to be better. The reason being that newer codecs have more tricks to mask the perceivable losses, but they are still discarding more information about the original image than the older codec. Things that aren't noticed if you play them on a window, or even full screen on your desktop may stand out a lot more blown up to the full size of your TV vs just checking on your computer.Ī thing to keep in mind here too- an older codec with sufficient bitrate is actually generally going to be better than a newer codec. It's also important for you to check on the device you'll be _watching_ on. For an older film that has some film grain, you may notice it a lot, especially if you like the visual of the grain, for example. As an example, h.264/265 will both start to smooth heavily as you push the bitrate down a lot. You may not notice or care, and watching some of the video is the only way to know for certain. What the content is can also have a large effect on this, both how much degrading happens, and how noticeable it is. There will always be some degrading or even a change to the picture quality if you re-encode to a non-lossy codec (which h.264 and h.265 both are, just like mpeg-2 is). a DVD film encoded losslessly would end up being at least 50GB, depending on the format)ĭon’t want to lose any quality from the already limited format/resolution of DVDįrom a purely technical perspective, you can't with h.264 and h.265. This is an unfortunate but necessary effect as lossless video is incredibly large (e.g. Pretty much any video re-encoding that you do will be lossy, but a lot of the time the loss is small and not very noticeable. Considering the resolution of DVDs, you don't need a massive screen to evaluate the quality, a laptop screen should suffice. If possible, I would always watch the videos, or at least part of the videos, to compare it to the original and see if it's good enough quality for you. This means that the video might have a higher bitrate than would otherwise be required for similar quality. Re-encoding it into h.264 or better yet h.265 will result in a large reduction in file size with little drop in quality.Īlso when it comes to physical media, the video tends to be encoded in order to take up as much of the space available as is possible, to get the highest possible quality. DVDs utilise MPEG-2 video encoding, which is very old.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |