I'm not solely concerned with motion; I'm concerned with clips that have proven to be codec-poisonous for testing purposes. Larger file sizes will mean there is more room for seeing the effect of tuning any particular option, and we will be able to better see the relative impact of any changes that are made.
I don't see it this way. Why would codec poisonous clips have more room for seeing effect. What about them makes them more likely? Just cause they use more bits? Couldn't the use of more bits is just plain due to the textures are all so different? I mean, to me, if I just sequence completely different looking frames every frame, I would think it be codec poison and not very easy to optimize at all no matter what settings I choose.
Subme 5 is the best performer here, saving ~30 seconds over the higher subme while still (somehow) being smaller than the rest.
What the hell?..
lol, it could entirely just be this particular clip that got a smaller size..your reaction is funny nonetheless. Anyway I'm strictly dealing with lossless here..any q>0 and I'm certain that value will change in regards to quality.
updated a bunch more charts. I'm too lazy at the moment to add details, but basically a lower ref + TESA is more efficient and smaller than high ref + UMH. The last picture with subme 10 is the most efficient I've gotten the encoder so far.
Just a thought here, but you are aware that changing settings will also change the bitrate? That is, to get equivalent quality at different settings, you need to also change the birate/quality factor setting.
Just comparing the sizes of different settings won't do... x264 isn't ideal. Just changing some settings to better won't automatically reduce the filesize compared to worse settings. It may bloat the size, even. However, the encode will have higher VISUAL quality.
But awesome tests, nevertheless.
Just a thought here, but you are aware that changing settings will also change the bitrate? That is, to get equivalent quality at different settings, you need to also change the birate/quality factor setting.
Just comparing the sizes of different settings won't do... x264 isn't ideal. Just changing some settings to better won't automatically reduce the filesize compared to worse settings. It may bloat the size, even. However, the encode will have higher VISUAL quality.
But awesome tests, nevertheless.
since they use the quality setting (CRF), it should produce the same quality regardless of what settings they use. the difference will be in size/compression. if you used the bitrate setting, the difference would be in quality, but it's hard to compare quality, so it's better to use, uh... the quality setting, so that you can compare the bitrate/size.
No. Try, for example, compressing the same source at preset veryslow and placebo. Chances are that the placebo file will be LARGER, despite the same crf setting.
Settings influence the bitrate x264 will use for the movie. You can get higher quality at the same crf setting with different settings.
