The black levels in the X.264 version fall short compared to the original file.
The black levels in the X.264 version fall short compared to the original file.
There are several alternatives to x264, such as ffmpeg, jbmp2, and handbrake. Each offers different features and compatibility options.
I see your point. The flexibility of x264 is what really stands out for me. Yes, you can produce a very small, low-quality file, but you can also create a high-quality image. For example, a Blu Ray Remux file for a two-hour movie would be about 24 GB and would use x264. Here’s a still from a Blu Ray remux of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes I found: http://cdn.imagecurl.com/images/60696248...355803.png Please note, I’m linking to the image rather than embedding it because it’s large. Are you suggesting that this indicates poor quality?
I captured this myself using Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes at x264. The result fits the file size reasonably well—don’t misinterpret it. There are superior techniques for making higher-quality videos than x264. The criticism isn’t that x264 is terrible; it’s just that I’m limited to what x264 offers.
Yeah and that still looks great! Isn't x264 awesome? Haha, teasing a little bit. But in your opinion, what is the best there is in terms of size to quality? Sure a DCP looks great, but I think most people don't want there 1080p video to be like 8GB a minute or what ever
I won't discuss YIFY since talking about piracy isn't allowed here. However, I think compressing a 720p video to 900 MB with x264 should be fine and might even look good. When you ask about "butchery," are you referring to quality loss or the distorted appearance shown in that image?
YIFY is indeed known for distributing pirated films, correct? Still, that’s not the main focus. Concerning compression quality, I understand you’re right that x264 can appear blocky when heavily compressing. A 720p video at 900MB might look somewhat blocky, but x264 can still render well, especially on a Blu Ray. The idea that "x264 looks blocky" is quite precise. While a heavily compressed file may look blocky, it’s an accurate observation. Overall, I don’t think this conversation is heading anywhere exciting, so I’m closing out. Nonetheless, it was a productive discussion.
Reducing audio to just the 2.1 channel also helps shrink the file size of a 720p movie below 900 MB. You won’t see any noticeable issues when watching it from across the room. If you enjoy watching videos, you might start to notice the difference. I’m not a serious audiophile, but I usually opt for quality at a lower cost. My screen is set to 0.248 mm @ 102 PPI, so even if you face it directly, the pixels won’t be obvious. Combined with sitting near the screen, this makes the clear differences when a video uses x264 encoding. It’s kind of similar to choosing between 30 FPS and 60 FPS—some people can spot the difference, others can’t.