Testing 265 encoding (cq 26 added, cq 30 deleted)

[takenoko]

So I'm testing it with Gotchard Vs Legend 2 since it's a half ep (although I really should have picked like a 5 min clip or something)

Baseline, this is our release 264, 2 pass at 3800 bitrate, 392 mb
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kun2q96a ... fa8q4&dl=0

First test 2-pass 265, 3000? bitrate, 312 mb. Not sure how viable 2 pass will be since these encodes are slow
https://www.dropbox.com/s/arsc0yc8l603h ... D.mkv?dl=0

1-pass 265, cq 25, 350 mb
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oy1aav3a ... 6el84&dl=0

1-pass 265, cq 26, 312 mb
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yre2at7wzh9bk ... 6.mkv?dl=0

1-pass 265, cq 27, 279 mb
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/stalk5zh ... ipj4x&dl=0

1-pass 265, cq 30, 202 mb!!
Deleted since the flaws are too noticeble

I feel like cq 25 is a pretty good balance. I'm not noticing any flaws in the encode. I feel like cq 27 looks a bit soft to me personally, but actually comparing it with the 264 release, there's some details that are captured well even in the cq 27

12 seconds in, the fingers in the 264 have a bit of artifacting around them, while they're smooth in the cq 27. The details on the cq 27 look like they've been through a smooth filter, but the artifacting around the mouth and side of face aren't there

15 seconds in, the closeup doesn't really look great in either version, but it looks worse in the 264 since the sharper parts just enhance the macro blocking flaws

A few issues I've had so far:
-It encodes slow
-When it tries to mux the mkv it errors out. I have to manually mux it with MKVToolNix. The error message is status entrypoint not found, whatever that means
-I was given a 32 and a 64 version of megui. Apparently the 64 is faster but more buggy. I couldn't get that to even open my avs file for encoding so I'm on the 32

Encoding a cq 30 now just to see how small and bad I can get it

I feel like if we went with cq 27 we could probably get away with it with most people? What do people think?

[Yaiba]

Image quality is easier to compare with darker areas. The edges on the lines for the baseline are rougher, and the image noise on the glow effect for cq 30 is very noticeable.

For the other three, cq 27 has slightly more noise (less smooth) than the other two if you look hard enough. I don't think it'll matter on a moving scene, but I personally don't pursue for super high video quality.

Maybe ask ViRGE to take a look as well? He seems to have an eye for these things.

[takenoko]

All the 265 look about the same to me, they're all pretty clearly better quality than 264. I feel like I could see a bit of softening around the 27/30 ones, but probably would be hard pressed to point it out exactly where

Does the 2-pass look okay? I could try to see how long it takes to encode, since it seems like it'd give higher quality

If cq 27 is too far, maybe I can try encoding a cq 26 to see?

[Yaiba]

I edited photos a life time ago so I'm drawn to image sharpness. On that note, 2-pass 265 is the better one because the lines are firmer and has the least noise. But there's also the encoding time and files size to balance.

I don't encode videos so I really understand what 1/2-pass, cp or 264/265 means...

[takenoko]

264 and 265 are basically just the codecs/format we're using. 264 is the older, slightly more compatible one. 265 is a bit newer, but has much improved features, like it's a lot better with gradients and in lower bitrate settings it doesn't look quite as bad as when 264 has low bitrate

1 pass cq is me saying "I want the quality to be a 7 out of 10 (numbers made up for simplicity, and also because I don't understand it)". It's fast because it's just one encode and I'll get a file that's roughly the equivalent size of what the system decides a 7 means in quality. The downside is I can't control the final output size so it may be really big or small

2 pass means encoding it twice. The first pass looks at the video and creates and records the motion data and figures out how to distribute the bitrate so that it prioritizes more bandwidth during high motion or high detail scenes, and lower bitrate for simplier or more stock still scenes. It's more efficient and you can set a size goal. So even though I set the bitrate to 3000, that bitrate is spread across the video and returns higher quality for lower bitrate

Edit: I added a cq 26 for comparison purposes

[Yaiba]

Replaced cq30 with cq26. Looks very similar.

[takenoko]

So either cq 25 or a 2 pass?

[Yaiba]

That's fine with me.

[Aeikozz]

highly support this.

I've been saying drop SD for quite some time, i'd say drop 720 as well seeing as most of this should be in 4K by now. REALLY surprise we never put out a 4k sub.

[takenoko]

It's because Toei doesn't release stuff in 4k...

[HowlingSnail]

Yeah, Toei is still stuck in 4K. A lot of things are still 1080p. Doctor Who has only gone 4K this year (probably due to the Disney deal), and even then, there's no 4K home media release.

[Lunagel]

Most people don't have 4k TVs yet so the only channels broadcasting on 4k are cable.

[Dark Ren]

I'm in 720p army as SD is too small to see and 1080p is too big to download/stored

[Yaiba]

I'm in 720p army as SD is too small to see and 1080p is too big to download/stored

I've said this in another thread. I'm all for people who like HD and 4K, but I too am Team 720p for this exact reason.

[HowlingSnail]

Most people don't have 4k TVs yet so the only channels broadcasting on 4k are cable.

I'm admittedly one of those people, though I've been shocked by the low prices 4K TVs are now, so I may finally get one. Ever since the PS5 came out I've started buying UHD Blu-Rays as a way of future proofing.