I'm pretty used to this sort of crap on the newbie oriented distro Linux forums I read.Īgreed, utter nonsense. When you start to bring up, what settings does and criticize it makes a little sense, because at the end it is that illusion that matters.
It's advice such as your and the other guys that results in constant questions on this and other forums as to why theire encodes don't look good.Īs for the other hogwash about illusions,Įncoding business IS businesses dealing with illusion. HD has more pixels to encode than SD, higher CRF uses less bit rate than lower CRF, so when you combine HD+higher CRF you end up with a worse pixel/bit ratio. Not what settings do what.Įncoding business IS businesses dealing with illusion. But I'm sure he is talking about a given screen and setting scenario, using similar or same settings so things make sense in this regard. Of course, you start to use a 120" TV screen and then again that CRF 19-20 for HD content might not be enough. For SD resolution, while watching on big TV screens, content gets upscaled, every artifact is blown up, so that 19-20 equivalent for HD might show up as a worse,CRF is better to be lower, say CRF, 16-17 or 18. For HD source, you get away with higher CRF 19-20. blend file (as simple as possible).Well in reality and not some theory, what butterw says is valid. Įxact steps for others to reproduce the errorīased on the default startup or an attached.
I suggest to have quality mapped to to CRF in another method that takes into account the format.Īlso, I really wish Blender could add support for AV1 and/or H.265, which aren't in but I see for example "AV_CODEC_ID_AV1" in.
However VP9 CRF values should be quite higher.
0 kommentar(er)
