Even just using simple video filters in OBS is very complex, more so than need be. If you are having a hard time understanding any of what I've said, I really don't understand why you'd want to use OBS, unless you are streaming, and even then, it's a lot less complex just to use ShadowPlay with OBS. Suit yourself, but I thoroughly explained why I use ShadpowPlay and Avidemux, and they're both a LOT easier to use than OBS, and offer things OBS doesn't, which saves time and makes things much simpler.
AVIDEMUX BITRATE TOO LOW HOW TO
Most have to watch a lengthy tutorial just to know how to use OBS, and even then it has a lot of strange quirks. The main reasons I don't like OBS is you cannot use it for cached recording like you can with ReLive and ShadowPlay, you cannot resize to larger res, and it's controls are very non intuitive. Thus you will have to use another tool to resize to 1440p after you capture the file with OBS. It will only scale to resolutions lower than your native display res.
AVIDEMUX BITRATE TOO LOW 1080P
You cannot resize a 1080p capture to 1440p with it, neither while the capture is made, nor after. Not possible, as advanced as OBS is, there's one crucial thing of what I mentioned it will not do. File size is not a problem since I have fiber. So, this answers my question :) Sadly no GPU-encoding for me, although much faster, the quality is not useable in my opinion.Could you convert your information into OBS settings? I like to use obs because of the extra HUD options aso. The GPU-encoded quality is really blocky, the software-encoded is totally fine.
AVIDEMUX BITRATE TOO LOW SOFTWARE
When using the Apple VideoToolbox vs the software encoder (-x265) with the same bitrate (2500kbps) the software encoder is significantly slower (although still about twice as fast as Handbrake) but creates much better quality. I investigated further and the quality seems to depend heavily on the encoder (GPU vs software). And your usecase is different (BR as source). But you made your research, I dont need to know in detail. I had good results with Handbrake and constant quality (RF20.5), files are noticeably smaller than the source (high bitrate h264 for me) and still had a good quality. But why it is better than constant quality is not obvious to me (even after reading your FAQ) since it is in my understanding basically the same as ABR with even more freedom to allocate more bitrate in demanding scenes. I understand that ABR is much better than CBR of course. Of course this will degrade the quality a little, but with high bitrate h264 as the source and enough bitrate for h265 this is usually nearly invisible to me and ok for the size benefit. I want to convert h264 to h265 since it saves around 40%-50% space. I mistyped the first h264, sorry (edited now). This means that the encoder is allowed to adjust bitrate allocation to accomodate complexity and mitigate the risk of blockiness or other artifacts. Rather than limiting the maximum bitrate to the same value as the target, the other-transcode tool selects an average bitrate (ABR) ratecontrol system.
And color banding is actually much more noticeable than artifacts like blockiness in high-motion scenes. It seems counterintuitive, but targeting a specific bitrate makes it much more likely that in those low-motion scenes where the eye can linger, that enough bits are allocated to prevent color banding. This is because using a fixed quality level can result in output larger than its input or, worse, output too low in quality to be mistaken for that input.
The ratecontrol systems used by the other-transcode tool target a specific bitrate rather than a fixed quality level. Selecting the best system and then properly configuring it is key to high-quality video transcoding. Most encoders have more than one ratecontrol system available. Ratecontrol is how a video encoder decides on the amount of bits to allocate for a specific frame. The ratecontrol systems used by the other-transcode tool are designed to minimize that as I explain here: This is because neither FFmpeg nor HandBrake will retain that HDR data.Īnd, frankly, if you already have a 1080p video at 5000 Kbps, why would you ever want to re-transcode it? This is just a waste of time.Īlso realize that you will always degrade quality when transcoding. Transcoding HEVC to HEVC again is never a good idea if the original HEVC content contains HDR color information.
0 kommentar(er)
