Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

720 or 1080...whats enough?

Agreed, 2500 kbps would be pretty light for a 1080p video, or would require Hi profile options wich would limit your target playback device. Regardless I would use Constant Quality mode either way. ABR is throwing darts in the dark ... very unlikely you will hit you're target. Of course in terms of a device like the appleTV you are limited two what the processor can decode ... but I digress

In addition, I totally agree that bitrate is hardly a tangent. For the most part it is integral to resolution. Cripes you could encode a 1080p video at 700 kbps which would be very small .... it would be 1080p but you would never want to look at it.
 
To be honest, you're not really going to see the problem of encoding at a low bit rate by checking the stills.

Check out an action scene with a low rate, then watch the same scene with a higher rate, that's where YOU WILL see the difference.
 
Tallest Skil said:
They're only around 3.6 Mbps, but I don't think they're pixellated at all... :eek:
Click to expand...

OK, I just watched a bit of Quantum of Solace transcoded at 4 mbps and it came in at just over 4 gb in file size. The image was better than I expected, with moderate pixelation issues only during fast moving scenes. Not too bad, but I think I'll stick to the 60% constant quality (which makes this 1080p h.264 around 6 gb in size).
 
sven- said:
Then I wonder why most of the 1080p rips found on torrent websites are around 8 GB ?
Click to expand...

Because they suck at encoding. :p You can do far better than wasting eight gigabytes.

Cave Man said:
OK, I just watched a bit of Quantum of Solace transcoded at 4 mbps and it came in at just over 4 gb in file size. The image was better than I expected, with moderate pixelation issues only during fast moving scenes. Not too bad, but I think I'll stick to the 60% constant quality (which makes this 1080p h.264 around 6 gb in size).
Click to expand...

Hey, to each his own. I found 4GB to be a good balance between filesize and quality, but if you like six, have at it with six. :D
 
Tallest Skil said:
Hey, to each his own. I found 4GB to be a good balance between filesize and quality, but if you like six, have at it with six. :D
Click to expand...

If users can get this kind of quality at 4GB and 6GB, it makes you wonder why we need 50GB BluRay at all. Couldn't we have done this with a "super DVD" at 9.5GB. Instead of all this other crap that they put on the BD movies.

I'm sure the pros could get great 1080p to fit onto a DVD-9 with the encoders they use.

Oh well, the cat's out of the bag anyways.

ft
 
well, the point is that blu ray is just like sd dvd in that each source will require a different bitrate to achieve the same visual quality level (whatever level that you want) a lot of still shots with little movement and dark scenes require less, many fast action complex scenes require more. this is the fundamental problem with picking an arbitrary bitrate for all sources.

... and yes, when the blu ray masters are done, quite obviously they know exactly how much storage space they have to work with. High quality at low bitrate == long encoding times. Hence they will likely use all of the storage space the blu ray disk affords them as compressing it further at high quality has no pay off for them since it takes longer.
 
i havnt bought a tv yet as im waiting for the right time and money to come in.

Should note:

the tv i will buy will be for my bedroom, that said this is the primary area for where i will be watching tv for a few years.

from my bed watching distance from eyes = 8-9 ft (2.6 meters)
from computer desk = 5 ft (1.5 meters)

i wont be using this as a primary computer monitor at all, i will connect it up to my macpro in the future to watch movies though.
 
wawathings said:
i havnt bought a tv yet as im waiting for the right time and money to come in.

Should note:

the tv i will buy will be for my bedroom, that said this is the primary area for where i will be watching tv for a few years.

from my bed watching distance from eyes = 8-9 ft (2.6 meters)
from computer desk = 5 ft (1.5 meters)

i wont be using this as a primary computer monitor at all, i will connect it up to my macpro in the future to watch movies though.
Click to expand...

If you have room in your budget go for the 1080p. especially if you plan to watch blu rays or anyone is the house has a Xbox 360 or Playstation 3.

I've seen a pretty noticeable difference between my 720p TV and 1080p monitor when both watching blu rays and playing games.

If you are ever going to use the TV (32+ inch) as monitor, 720p will have very poor resolution, whereas the 1080p resolution should definitely be usable.

If you're only watching HDTV, 720p is fine.
 
Tallest Skil said:
HERE we go.

This is a 4GB file.

picture1nwt.jpg
Click to expand...

I think I'd prefer to see Mr. Fishburne's complexion in low-res actually. :p
 
Hence they will likely use all of the storage space the blu ray disk affords them as compressing it further at high quality has no pay off for them since it takes longer.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... I don't think movie studios/bluray makers really care to save a few hours of encoding time when they are making a mass market disc that will be manufactured in quantities of hundreds of thousands if not millions. For that kind of production time isn't really an issue (since it only has to be done once), not to mention they got some killer systems to handle it.

I think the issue is that compressed stuff always loses some quality, and with 50GB to play with they can afford to go for the best quality possible versus having to worry about cutting corners to save a few gigs. That way the blu-ray discs that are QUALITY transfers will look good on even future sets that may require less compression to fully take advantage of their features.

I guess erring on the side of caution plays a part here -- it is always better to compress as least as possible if one can get away with it, to err on the side of quality. Given that up to 50GB the movie will fit on ONE disc it is best to take full advantage of that to increase quality since there is no upside that I am aware of to not using the space available.
 
I thought ATV couldn't play 1080p anyway?

I'm confused. Are you all encoding 1080 for the ATV or for plex on a mini?

I thought we had to use 720p for the ATV.
 
pprior said:
I thought ATV couldn't play 1080p anyway?
Click to expand...

That's correct.

I'm confused. Are you all encoding 1080 for the ATV or for plex on a mini?
Click to expand...

For Plex (or XBMC, QT, VLC, Media Player, etc.), not the ATV.

I thought we had to use 720p for the ATV.
Click to expand...

Yes, any content for the ATV cannot be more than 720p and 25 fps and a bit rate of <6 mbps.
 
I would go with 1080p just so if you do to upgrade later you will already be ready.
Cave Man what settings do you use for Blu Ray rips?
 
K3mp said:
Cave Man what settings do you use for Blu Ray rips?
Click to expand...

For Plex
1. Apple TV preset.
2. Change container to mkv.
3. Set video to 1920 by xxx.
4. Set audio to DTS or AC3 passthrough

For Apple TV
1. Apple TV Preset.
2. Set video to 1280 by xxx.
3. Check to make sure track 1 is AAC and track 2 is AC3 passthrough
4. If audio is DTS, set track 1 to AAC and track 2 to none.
 
Get what you can reasonably afford and be happy

Back to the original topic...

I would not claim to be an expert, so take my 2 cents for what they're worth. If you're a typical viewer (not one of the 10% or so that watch very critically in an optimized environment), I don't think you can go too wrong with any reputable brand TV in the 32-42 inch range.

Most of my enjoyment comes from the content, not the display. Get a reasonably good display and save some money for content, source system(AppleTV, DVD or Blue-Ray player) and maybe a cheap, but decent soundsystem.

I would buy what you can reasonably afford, spend an hour or so adjusting the picture to get the most from it. Then stop reading the forums about TVs. Otherwise, you will soon be convinced that your life sucks unless you have a 60" 1080P display.
 
Tallest Skil said:
Size? All of my 1080p files are 4 gigabytes. With that in mind, there's no excuse for doing it otherwise.
Click to expand...

Really? My 720p files are ~5GB and my 1080p files are ~8GB.

picture-12.png


But I guess everyone on the scene just sucks at encoding. Why don't you go teach them.
 
Gregintosh said:
Hmmm.... I don't think movie studios/bluray makers really care to save a few hours of encoding time when they are making a mass market disc that will be manufactured in quantities of hundreds of thousands if not millions. For that kind of production time isn't really an issue (since it only has to be done once), not to mention they got some killer systems to handle it.

I think the issue is that compressed stuff always loses some quality, and with 50GB to play with they can afford to go for the best quality possible versus having to worry about cutting corners to save a few gigs. That way the blu-ray discs that are QUALITY transfers will look good on even future sets that may require less compression to fully take advantage of their features.

I guess erring on the side of caution plays a part here -- it is always better to compress as least as possible if one can get away with it, to err on the side of quality. Given that up to 50GB the movie will fit on ONE disc it is best to take full advantage of that to increase quality since there is no upside that I am aware of to not using the space available.
Click to expand...

I cannot argue with that. I guess the main point is they have 50 gb to work with so as you said, no upside to compressing it further. I would submit that time of encoding is likely a consideration. Remember what source they are using. Nothing you would really want to throw at even a mac pro octo with serious options. But either way I think we generally had the same point, size up to 50 GB is not an issue for blu ray. :)
 
Tallest Skil said:
'Kay. Here's one of mine. The quality had to be turned down for the image to be uploaded to the forums, though. Tell me what you think.

attachment.php
Click to expand...
What settings are you using for the 1080p? as the previous one looked great and I am sure if it were not toned down this would as well :)

Are you using TV settings in HB? or are they your own? CRF or AVB?

On a side note, is it true than 62%+ is transparent quality to source after encode? I read this somewhere on HB but I can't find the topic again to ask confirmation :eek: I am personally betting it isn't but never know lol.
 
northy124 said:
On a side note, is it true than 62%+ is transparent quality to source after encode? I read this somewhere on HB but I can't find the topic again to ask confirmation :eek: I am personally betting it isn't but never know lol.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking 62% CQ is considered transparent to the *sd dvd* source. Some advanced opts can alter this somewhat but as a rule of thumb it is true. Not true of blu ray rips or other hd sources.
 
dynaflash said:
Generally speaking 62% CQ is considered transparent to the *sd dvd* source. Some advanced opts can alter this somewhat but as a rule of thumb it is true. Not true of blu ray rips or other hd sources.
Click to expand...
Ah SD DVD not HD, thanks for the response Dyna.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back