Halo 2 Forum > Halo Franchise > Halo Videos > Creators Platform
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#41
07-06-2010
Default

Updated.

As some of you might know:

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...9&postcount=39

I re-released the package with a preset that is compatible with the newest update. It is basically the same preset, I just had to tweak the script language a tad.
Stagga
Level 48
Stagga's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,594
Subtract from Stagga's ReputationAdd to Stagga's Reputation Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Stagga
#42
07-06-2010
Default

For a standard definition, 720 x 480 video, should I set my CRF value lower, or should I try to use something like 2-pass and set the bitrate manually, to say, 5000-7000 kbps?

I capture with my Dazzle DVC 100, S-Video, and Lagarith lossless codec in VirtualDub.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
stagga stood with his palms in a sweat
wetter than eminems, i would bet
but his voice in a mic
was something to like
he'll be drowned in a pussy quartet
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#43
07-06-2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoldYrPistlSTR8 View Post
For a standard definition, 720 x 480 video, should I set my CRF value lower, or should I try to use something like 2-pass and set the bitrate manually, to say, 5000-7000 kbps?

I capture with my Dazzle DVC 100, S-Video, and Lagarith lossless codec in VirtualDub.
Everything I've read says that the higher the resolution, the more you can increase your CRF value without showing quality loss. I wouldn't go lower than 18 or anything, but right around the 18-20 range is what I'd recommend since 720x480 is a small resolution. You'll probably get an average bitrate of around 4-5mbps, which is plenty for that resolution.

Unless you need to hit an exact file size, use CRF.
Stagga
Level 48
Stagga's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,594
Subtract from Stagga's ReputationAdd to Stagga's Reputation Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Stagga
#44
07-06-2010
Default

But since 720 x 480 is a lower resolution and a lower bitrate, wouldn't it be a bit important to preserve the quality more? If you lowered the CRF value, you could have better SD quality with a file size on par with HD videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
stagga stood with his palms in a sweat
wetter than eminems, i would bet
but his voice in a mic
was something to like
he'll be drowned in a pussy quartet
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#45
07-06-2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoldYrPistlSTR8 View Post
But since 720 x 480 is a lower resolution and a lower bitrate, wouldn't it be a bit important to preserve the quality more? If you lowered the CRF value, you could have better SD quality with a file size on par with HD videos.
That's now how CRF works. If you use a CRF 18 on a 720x480 video, you'll probably get around half the bitrate had that same video been 1280x720.

You only need to hit a value where the encode is nearly translucent from the source. Your SD videos don't need the same bitrate as HD videos to look nearly translucent, they'll be perfect with a lot less.

edit: Lower CRF value = less compression and higher CRF = more compression, in case you didn't know. It's easy to mix that up.

And the higher the resolution, the more you can increase that Value (compress it more) without noticing any quality loss.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 07-06-2010 at 08:39 PM.
Stagga
Level 48
Stagga's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,594
Subtract from Stagga's ReputationAdd to Stagga's Reputation Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Stagga
#46
07-06-2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
That's now how CRF works. If you use a CRF 18 on a 720x480 video, you'll probably get around half the bitrate had that same video been 1280x720.

You only need to hit a value where the encode is nearly translucent from the source. Your SD videos don't need the same bitrate as HD videos to look nearly translucent, they'll be perfect with a lot less.
Ok, but since the video is a lower resolution, wouldn't it be important to lower the CRF value to keep it translucent?

I get what you're saying, and I'm probably not going to move from 18.0 as a CRF value, but like you said here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
note: Because of how CRF works, you can actually afford to use a higher CRF value with 1080p than you can with 720p, so don't be afraid to use a higher value for your 1080p version than for your 720p version. Also, if you know a bit about x264 feel free to play with the settings, but the preset I made hasn't failed me yet.
therefore, wouldn't it be better to lower my CRF value?

Quote:
edit: Lower CRF value = less compression and higher CRF = more compression, in case you didn't know. It's easy to mix that up.
I knew this already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
stagga stood with his palms in a sweat
wetter than eminems, i would bet
but his voice in a mic
was something to like
he'll be drowned in a pussy quartet
ManWithoutModem
Level 32
ManWithoutModem's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,466
Subtract from ManWithoutModem's ReputationAdd to ManWithoutModem's Reputation ManWithoutModem is a novice
#47
07-06-2010
Default

resolution circlejerk
Stagga
Level 48
Stagga's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,594
Subtract from Stagga's ReputationAdd to Stagga's Reputation Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Stagga
#48
07-06-2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManWithoutModem View Post
resolution circlejerk
If you don't have anything to say that contributes or helps, don't bother posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
stagga stood with his palms in a sweat
wetter than eminems, i would bet
but his voice in a mic
was something to like
he'll be drowned in a pussy quartet
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#49
07-06-2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoldYrPistlSTR8 View Post
Ok, but since the video is a lower resolution, wouldn't it be important to lower the CRF value to keep it translucent?

I get what you're saying, and I'm probably not going to move from 18.0 as a CRF value, but like you said here:

therefore, wouldn't it be better to lower my CRF value?

I knew this already.
Yeah, but going under 18 is kinda over the top. Just play around with it.
Stagga
Level 48
Stagga's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7,594
Subtract from Stagga's ReputationAdd to Stagga's Reputation Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000 Stagga IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to Stagga
#50
07-06-2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
Yeah, but going under 18 is kinda over the top.
Frag be chasin' them jailbait.

Well, thanks for the help. I think I'll stick with 18 anyway because it produces a decent filesize for nice quality, although I do notice a change in quality going from uncompressed/lagarith to x264.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
stagga stood with his palms in a sweat
wetter than eminems, i would bet
but his voice in a mic
was something to like
he'll be drowned in a pussy quartet

Last edited by Stagga; 07-06-2010 at 09:47 PM.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off