VSO Software Forum

eon_designs wrote:I know 6000 is a bit low for BluRay but, I was chatting to Cedric today explaining that this is all apples fault really. I downloaded my first HD movie from them and was shocked at how good the quality was and how small the file was. Full HD movie with AC3 5.1 audio. Only 4gb in size and a max bit rate of 4000

But that is probably Variable bitrate. 4000 would be the average. It also probably used Reference frames that improve the quality and dramatically reduce the file size. Both of these can't be done in VSO Video Converter. If you've ever heard of YIFY on your internet travels, they convert 2 hour 1080p films to about 1.8 Gig. The quality is unbelievably good for the file size.

Wow you literally just took the words out of my mouth. I was about to mention YIFY. Would love to know their settings as I have been shown some of their encodings. Fantastic. That's what I am after.

Actually I had forgotten how good convertX was. I purchased that back at version 4 a good few years ago. I remember all the comments from people asking why it did not due the whole capacity of a DVD when it was making the conversions. Basically came down to the same thing. Fingers crossed they can do the same magic with VC. Sure that Cedric has it all planned out.

Personally - I don't like those YIFY encodings, I can clearly see the difference on my 46" FullHD so I prefer files that have good picture, even if file size is 20Gigs.

JJ wrote:Personally - I don't like those YIFY encodings, I can clearly see the difference on my 46" FullHD so I prefer files that have good picture, even if file size is 20Gigs.

Bigger file size doesn't mean better quality, it's just less compression so it's compatible with slow bluray/TV decoders. Each to their own. If I had a choice of a 20gb or a 2gb file with next to no difference, I'd choose the smaller one (or buy the bluray version).

I don't really condone what they are doing, that whole scene is not really what this is all about. If, like me you own the original material and just want to back it up into a different format. I have lost too many DVD and blu rays to jam covered fingers and scratches from little ones playing with them. Not to mention the amount of room all the boxes take up.

If I really want to watch something in the best possible quality then I will reach for the original every time. I do however want the best back up quality at the smallest file size. That just me though

eon_designs wrote:I don't really condone what they are doing, that whole scene is not really what this is all about. If, like me you own the original material and just want to back it up into a different format. I have lost too many DVD and blu rays to jam covered fingers and scratches from little ones playing with them. Not to mention the amount of room all the boxes take up.

If I really want to watch something in the best possible quality then I will reach for the original every time. I do however want the best back up quality at the smallest file size. That just me though :D

I understand what you're saying, that's what Video Converter's are for.

cribber wrote:

JJ wrote:Personally - I don't like those YIFY encodings, I can clearly see the difference on my 46" FullHD so I prefer files that have good picture, even if file size is 20Gigs.

Bigger file size doesn't mean better quality, it's just less compression so it's compatible with slow bluray/TV decoders. Each to their own. If I had a choice of a 20gb or a 2gb file with next to no difference, I'd choose the smaller one (or buy the bluray version).

Keeping in mind that I'm new to all of this, I have a genuine question concerning your statement: If there is "next to no difference" in a 20gb HD AVC file from a Blu-ray disc vs. a 2gb HD AVC file that's been more efficiently compressed, then would it be correct in assuming that higher capacity discs (Blu-ray, HD DVD) were never really necessary? Would you say that regular DVD media would have still been viable if the industry had adopted newer players with more powerful processors capable of decoding efficiently encoded AVC files?

cribber wrote: Bigger file size doesn't mean better quality, it's just less compression so it's compatible with slow bluray/TV decoders. Each to their own. If I had a choice of a 20gb or a 2gb file with next to no difference, I'd choose the smaller one (or buy the bluray version).

I do know that bigger is not necessarily better.
But when you can clearly see the difference even in simple scenes then it means that file has been compressed too much.
On those two movies that I tried just to check the quality of those 2Gb rips there was huge difference compared to 10Gb rip, even in a movie that was quite static.

There is no effective lossless compression on video so at some point quality suffers too much when compressing. When FullHD movie is compressed to 2000kbps compared to almost 20000kbps you can see the difference easily.

This gives some idea about actual file sizes needed for good picture:

http://www.hdslr-cinema.com/tools/files ... ps=&s=5400

Then of course there are various techniques to compress it, but too much is too much.
Check on any scenes with background, if it looks blurry or unsharp then it is clearly too much compressed.

This concept has been discussed and tested thoroughly for DVD resolutions in ConvertXtoDVD section.

JJ wrote:

cribber wrote: Bigger file size doesn't mean better quality, it's just less compression so it's compatible with slow bluray/TV decoders. Each to their own. If I had a choice of a 20gb or a 2gb file with next to no difference, I'd choose the smaller one (or buy the bluray version).

I do know that bigger is not necessarily better.
But when you can clearly see the difference even in simple scenes then it means that file has been compressed too much.
On those two movies that I tried just to check the quality of those 2Gb rips there was huge difference compared to 10Gb rip, even in a movie that was quite static.

There is no effective lossless compression on video so at some point quality suffers too much when compressing. When FullHD movie is compressed to 2000kbps compared to almost 20000kbps you can see the difference easily.

This gives some idea about actual file sizes needed for good picture:

http://www.hdslr-cinema.com/tools/files ... ps=&s=5400

Then of course there are various techniques to compress it, but too much is too much.
Check on any scenes with background, if it looks blurry or unsharp then it is clearly too much compressed.

This concept has been discussed and tested thoroughly for DVD resolutions in ConvertXtoDVD section.

But again you are comparing to Constant bitrate. YIFY for example aren't compressed to 2000kbps, it's Variable. 2000 Kbps is the average and when the scenes are more busy etc the maximum is 12.2 Mbps. It's just a compromise between filesize and quality and for 1.8 Gig for a 2 hour movie that is very good. If you tried that in VSO Video Converter it would end up at about 9 Gig and still not as good quality. At the end of the day this conversation was originally about hoping Cedric would implement quality settings like Rate Factor, Reference Frames etc. to the H264 profile (like Handbrake) with GPU acceleration for converting our own movies. YIFY was just an example. I don't have the time/bandwidth to download 20 Gig movie files.

Thanks for the info guys... I finally checked into YIFI to see what it was....and.....well, that looks like another Napster suit in the making. LOL!! :-P

However, I am very interested in learning how to compress (my own) video files like they are doing. Are they using Handbrake to accomplish this? Something else? Cribber, can you point me to a site that teaches how to compress files like that?

One of my goals is to use the share features of Plex, to stream my collection to family members with Roku boxes. Having high quality small files would definitely make that easier.

Has anyone tried a variable bit rate file like those on a large screen panel, like 60"+?

I would be very interested too. Getting file sizes and quality like that would be good. I am however hoping that with all the tweaks and changes Video Converter may prove to give us the best results.

MyMojo wrote:Thanks for the info guys... I finally checked into YIFI to see what it was....and.....well, that looks like another Napster suit in the making. LOL!! :-P

However, I am very interested in learning how to compress (my own) video files like they are doing. Are they using Handbrake to accomplish this? Something else? Cribber, can you point me to a site that teaches how to compress files like that?

One of my goals is to use the share features of Plex, to stream my collection to family members with Roku boxes. Having high quality small files would definitely make that easier.

Has anyone tried a variable bit rate file like those on a large screen panel, like 60"+?

Handrake is only a Frontend for the H264 codec. Unfortunately, the settings that the YIFI group use are extremely top secret for some reason. There may be some similar guides out there but YIFI have never revealed their method, (anoXmous is another person who produces similar quality files but with 5.1 audio).

Hi all,

Like you can see in last beta version changelog, I started to work on H264 encoder tuning.
So, please can you post your new encoding results there?
@eon_design : can you reconvert your test files using same video settings and post new screenshots?

Thank you for your help!

Regards,

Here are some screen shots using the latest 1.4.0.13 version of Video Converter. CUDA now working, although seems to be much slower. This could of course be down to the better quality settings that have been implemented. Previous working version I was getting around 150-180fps, this new version only getting around 50-60fps.

Quality does look like it has improved, especially on slow moving sections. Fast moving video does still show blockyness. Played back in both VLC and Quicktime - did not make any difference.

All shots on Left are VSO Video Converter bitrate 6000. 3.30GB

All shots in the middle from DVDFab bitrate 6000. 3.13GB (get similar quality, size with Handbrake)

All shots on right from DVDFab CFR(Constant Quality) 20. 3.3GB (get similar quality, size with Handbrake)
Definitely looks like things are moving in the right direction

Yeah, it's completely clear to see that CRF Quality wipes the floor with everything (and that's only set at 20). If DVDFab can do it (Lightning fast with GPU/CPU acceleration) why can't VSO. It seems like they don't want to add the option but only tweak their current renderer. Hopefully in the near future.

Doing a few more tests things get even more daft

DVDFab has the option of using Intel Quick Sync and their silly fast options called Lightning Recoding and Lightning Shrink. Putting the same episode through that on my i7-3517U laptop with a CRF value of 16 converted in 6 mins with a file size of just 2.95GB - YES 6 mins - bonkers. The same conversion without Quick Sync and I am looking at 2 hours! If I put the same episode through my Xeon desktop it took 25-30 mins (software encoding only as it does not have the option of Quick Sync) VSO did the same task in about 20mins with CUDA enabled, previous versions it was doing the it in about 15-17mins.

As for the quality - the 6 min conversion looked fantastic

I am sure that VSO will implement something similar to the engine they used in ConvertX as that produced stunning results.

eon_designs wrote:Putting the same episode through that on my i7-3517U laptop with a CRF value of 16 converted in 6 mins with a file size of just 2.95GB - YES 6 mins - bonkers. The same conversion without Quick Sync and I am looking at 2 hours!

LOL! Holy cow.....I've been looking to upgrade to an i7-4790 from my old AMD X2 Black.....I think you just pushed that date up a little sooner, Ha Ha! :-)

BTW... Seeing those comparisons there is no doubt that Constant Quality is far superior. Yesterday I just started fooling around with MeGUI and StaxRip. If VSO would implement those kind of video quality adjustments, along with the awesome features it already has, there is no doubt VSO would be 'king of the hill'....IMHO of course!

Cheers

I was converting down to 1280x720 but with an AC3 5.1 audio track. If I left it at 1920x1080 then it took a minute longer

eon_designs wrote:....it took a minute longer :-)

LOL!!! :-)