On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Tony Houghton <h...@realh.co.uk> wrote: >> The only way to not lose quality is to keep the bitrate high, >> especially for recordings with a lot of motion. You should encode >> with constant quality (CRF) set to whatever the minimum quality you >> want to preserve. You can also reduce the resolution a bit, just make >> sure to maintain the aspect ratio. > > And don't try to scale interlaced material without using a good > deinterlacing filter first.
That's a great point, I should have mentioned it but since I didn't, it's good you did. >> Bottom line is that you will not >> get smaller filesizes without making sacrifices. Data is lost with >> every encoding pass. > > The point of H264 is that it can achieve better quality for a better bit > rate. Although some quality will be lost by transcoding, you could > probably halve the file size without making a noticeable difference. That sounds good when you read the datasheets but real world results are a bit different. Also, what you're referring to is encoding comparisons all from a raw source - not mpeg2 vs. the same mpeg2 reencoded in h264. I can't stress enough that there is no magic to be had here for the reasons in my previous post. _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
