Hi,
I just want to hear from the plex community regarding if you encode your media or keep it lossless.
An more indepth like file size/video bitrate and software.
Cheers.
The Handbrake Guide in my signature is what Iâve been doing - for years.
The eyeballs in my head stop seeing much improvement - enough to matter - above about 4500Kbps, so If I really âcareâ about something Iâll encode at 4750Kbps. Otherwise, somewhere between 2850 and 3750Kbps is adequate.
Your eyeballs may require something else. Do what feels right.
1 Like
I second handbrake.
Iâm a bit pickier than juice. 1080p I like to hit 8000Kbps (esp. if the movie is dark!!) and 720p about 5000Kbps. Thatâs with h264, the bitrate can be quite a bit lower using h265 but it takes forever to encode and itâs harder on your computer to transcode.
I find the artifacts at 3000 Kbps for 1080p to be distracting, esp reds and the dark moments.
I did the dark knight at 16000Kbps and its perfect.
Iâm glad you asked because I was going to ask a similar question.
@adamstewiegreen said:
I second handbrake.Iâm a bit pickier than juice. 1080p I like to hit 8000Kbps (esp. if the movie is dark!!) and 720p about 5000Kbps.
When your eyeballs get as much mileage on them as mine have - you may be able to save some storage⊠lol
I just canât see much difference between 4500 and 8500 - not enough to warrant the additional storage and pain suffrage via network/internet, but by all means create the material that pleases your eyeball.
I keep all my of main features lossless (about 125 bluray rips). I have no ambitions of keeping 1000âs of movies since I only watch media Iâve actually purchased, and storage is a relatively easy problem to solve at that scale. I tested a bit when I was starting out and found that a 10mbps rip was indistinguishable from the original. But I fear that if I reencode Iâll eventually notice some artifact and then obsess over reripping everything again. Peace of mind is worth a couple of extra hard drives.
I also rip and catalog all the extras on my discs (with a few exceptions, like LotR with its massive extra selection). I do reencode those - many are encoded with far more bitrate than they deserve, or are holdover MPEG2 transfers from old DVD releases. I can often shrink their size by 75%. If it were just me, Iâd probably watch them once and be done with them, but my kids are film enthusiasts and I like keeping the extras around for them to watch.
I was terrified to encode a few months ago. I had always had the thought that blu-ray/remux is always superior to any encode. I have been doing it for a few months now and confident that I am not losing anything that impacts my viewing experience. When I started, I always did A/B comparisons of the blu-ray and the encode, on my 130" projector screen, and couldnât tell the difference. It is really amazing what h.264 is capable of.
On handbrake, I use:
-âvery slowâ speed
-RF 17 (I have read that RF 18 is considered âtransparentâ, but the paranoia in me sets to 17 to be extra sure)
-âFilmâ tune mostly (Very heavy grain Iâd use âgrainâ, however have not had to do that yet. For 2D animation, I use âanimationâ. I still use âfilmâ tune for CGI animation such as Pixar films)
-I mostly keep the DTS 5.1 track and discard the HD track. I personally donât need the HD track as my sound system is not high end.
I donât really mess around with the other settings. A few examples of the results of recent encodes (from memory. Not home right now):
-Toy Story (CGI animated) comes down to about 6GB (original remux rip size about 16GB)
-Chef (Digitally shot, live action) comes down to about 8GB (original remux rip size 28GB)
-Atonement (35mm, live action, fairly grainy) comes down to about 15GB (original remux size 31GB)
I only encode with the aim of the video to be considered âtransparentâ to the blu-ray. Happy to use as much space as necessary, however have learned the overblown bit-rates on the blu-ray are entirely unnecessary.
Another reason I like to encode is I like to have the english subtitles for foreign language parts of a film burnt in. Then I donât have to worry about if those parts will show subtitles. Plex on PS4 and Xbox One (both I use) is unable to display subtitles without transcoding. Very annoying.
I have an i5 quad processor, and it takes about 8hrs to encode your average 2hr movie.
When you use those âVooDoo Magicâ HB controls - like the CRF and Speed sliders you âhopeâ HB can come up with a decent rip. What you usually get is wildly varying file sizes and qualities. I once did two episodes of Perry Mason from the same DVD with the same slider settings - one was 4GB with a bit rate of about 4500kbps and the other was 500Mb at 600Kbps and looked like it was bounced off the moon.
Eventually you realize the Bit Rate IS the quality. You decide what bit rate you want and youâve decided on your quality and your file size. There is no magic guesswork by some programmerâs idea of whatâs best, you use your own eyeballs and time honored methods for creating reliable, high quality rips with predictable results every single time.
The CPU in this server box/gaming rig is an AMD FX-8350 and can wade through an hour of 4750Kbps, rip - that my eyeballs are very happy with - in about 35-45 minutes. Direct Play or the Highway.
I can look at the source and pretty much know what bit rate Iâm willing to give it. If it looks like crap to begin with thereâs no need dedicating a lot of storage and bit rate so you end up with a great big crappy looking rip. When you do this stuff long enough you stop worrying about what you might be missing - because youâre not missing anything. Look at the source. Look at your rip. Look pretty much the same? There you go. Mission Accomplished.
I would disagree with that JuiceWSA. Yes using CRF can give you drastic different file size which is normal but not different Quality. CRF will give you constant quality and will use however many bits as needed.
On the flip side using a steady bitrate can waist bits where itâs not needed and not have enough bits when it is needed for complex scenes.
CRF is much better overall for quality.
@cayars said:
CRF is much better overall for quality.
Not over here at my house.
I prefer predictable quality and file sizes time after time after time after time after time.
If I wanted total mystery and algorithm guesswork along with wildly varying file sizes and qualities - Iâd just let Plexâs transcoder do all the work. HELL hasnât yet frozen over - so thereâs no chance thatâs going to happen.
You got it backwards Juice. You canât predict quality based on bitrate at all!!!
After all think about it. If you have a scene with someone sitting at a table and nothing moving vs a scene from Transformers where the robots change from robot to car there is so much more going on in the action film. It will require many more bits to store that information.
So if you have both set a 5Mb, 10Mb or whatever you are starting one and wasting bits on the other. h.264/h.265 fluctuate in how many bits they need during scenes and it can drastically change during the movie itself depending on whatâs going on.
The CRF setting tell the encoding to use whatever bits are needed in order to achieve the quality you want. It wonât use more or less than needed (roughly speaking). But using a constant bitrate is just a pure guess and you will be over or under shooting what each scene needs. Thatâs just the nature of compressed video, plain and simple.
So you canât get predictable quality without using CRF.
Uh-huhâŠ
Well, Iâm not going to argue with you. You are convinced you know what youâre talking about⊠and so am I. Arguing simply doesnât work for us.
I am going to point this out - again (for all the good it will do in your case - lol):
Itâs not a constant bit rate. Itâs an average bit rate. The encoder uses as much bit rate as it needs to pull off the scene, but does try to keep the overall average bit rate in the neighborhood you have set. I have NEVER seen anything that would indicate ANYTHING else is happening. I get perfect encodes, day in and day out and have FOR YEARS AND YEARS. There is NO LOCKDOWN OF THE BIT RATE. Not sure where you came up with that one, but around here that dog wonât hunt.
I also use The Advanced Tab. I do not like the wildly varying file sizes and qualities associated with some programmerâs algorithm that magically does just the right thing at the very instant itâs needed (I call bull**** on that anyway). When I create a hunk of content I can pretty much know beforehand how big itâs going to be, but depending on action, source quality, etc they do vary a bit - and that is exactly what I want.
3750 is currently in the field because that is how I set the User Profile I created for HD Material. I use 3750 for MOST of my TV Recordings because that doesnât make the file too big and is very near my eyeball cut-off rate where making it any bigger doesnât do anything to make it any better. I do encode GOT and Good Sci-Fi and Cinema Classics at 4750, not because it makes much difference - just because. lol
There is a reason I use Handbrake - it does exactly what I need, when I need it. I have learned how to use it. Itâs taken years, but - you canât get 18 year old Whiskey in 6 Months no matter how âhigh-techâ the process becomes.
Note: I am using Version 0.10.5. I ONLY know how that version works. I will NOT be upgrading until HB decides to pull their head out and let me use Custom Anamorphic Settings for DVD rips. 0.10.5 still works fine and apparently HB is in no hurry, so neither am I.
Again not many people use that option since it was originally use to for people who needed things to fit on certain size discs and whatnot Youâre forcing an average bitrate on content and you have no idea what bitrate the content requires.
Try using those same settings on a film drama then encode an NFL game with the same. The NFL game will be terrible because youâll be starting it of bits it needs.
On your screen shot right above the red circle on the right side is the CRF setting as Handbrake uses it and they just call it constant quality. Set it to 18 for BlueRay quality and 23 to 25ish for DVD quality and youâll guarantee a level of QUALITY that all transcoded material will have. I typically use 18 because I view my material on 75" and larger screens so I want high quality encodes.
This isnât handbrake specific but H.264 specific. Handbrake uses the H.264 encoder. This same thing applies if you use memcoder, ffmpeg or any of the other for paid video coders. H.264 is H.264
In your example if you encode a 1 hour or drama and 1 hour of NFL you will have roughly the same file size since itâs using an average bitrate. Using CRF the NFL game will be larger than the drama since it needs more bits due to the faster action sequences. My drama will likely be smaller than your average encode while my NFL will be larger. Constant quality supplies all the bits needed to hold a CONSTANT QUALITY. Simple as that.
@cayars said:
Again not many people use that option since it was originally use to for people who needed things to fit on certain size discs and whatnot Youâre forcing an average bitrate on content and you have no idea what bitrate the content requires.Try using those same settings on a film drama then encode an NFL game with the same. The NFL game will be terrible because youâll be starting it of bits it needs.
I have recorded many sporting events - I have never seen any of the âterrible resultsâ you speak of with my Handbrake settings. Perhaps you have Dr. X-ray Eyeballs. I have one item in my Plexiverse thatâs over 4750Kbps - Casablanca (1942). Itâs about 8950Kbps, way too big, and I canât see the difference in that one and the 3750Kbps version I maintain for remote users. Maybe those âterrible resultsâ I just canât seem to see, happen up there in the clouds at 8000Kbps and above. Or perhaps itâs just a figment on your imagination. Or perhaps you havenât used my settings and are just recalling these âOld Wives Talesâ from memory.
On your screen shot right above the red circle on the right side is the CRF setting as Handbrake uses it and they just call it constant quality. Set it to 18 for BlueRay quality and 23 to 25ish for DVD quality and youâll guarantee a level of QUALITY that all transcoded material will have. I typically use 18 because I view my material on 75" and larger screens so I want high quality encodes.
I graduated from the Kindergarten, Automatic-Bouncing-Balls settings some time ago. They kept producing encodes that I didnât care for.
This isnât handbrake specific but H.264 specific. Handbrake uses the H.264 encoder. This same thing applies if you use memcoder, ffmpeg or any of the other for paid video coders. H.264 is H.264
Iâll take your word for it.
In your example if you encode a 1 hour or drama and 1 hour of NFL you will have roughly the same file size since itâs using an average bitrate. Using CRF the NFL game will be larger than the drama since it needs more bits due to the faster action sequences. My drama will likely be smaller than your average encode while my NFL will be larger. Constant quality supplies all the bits needed to hold a CONSTANT QUALITY. Simple as that.
With average bit rate the football game will also be bigger. I donât expect you would know that, but there you go. I do expect you know that decombing that football game WILL absolutely take a while - cause almost every frame will have some combing artifacts and removing them takes time - unless you have some magical Auto-Balls setting for that as well.
ROTFLOL
Well, this is about where we reach an impasse and it stops being fun, but as always itâs nice to debate with you.
My Handbrake Guide or Cayarsâ Scripts eventually get you to the same place (relatively). If people use my Handbrake Guide and my settings and canât see those âHorrificâ encodes - then their eyeballs must have come from the same factory mine did.
Concerning constant bitrate or constant quality (variable bitrate) check out this article: HandBrake Documentation â Constant Quality vs Average Bit Rate
âUnless you really need to aim for a target filesize (which we recommend against), it is highly recommended that you use Constant Quality.â
You realize you donât have to decomb all NFL games correct? Only if broadcast in 1080i. Also youâre better off deinterlacing it vs decombing it if needed depending on the device you play it back on. If itâs a game on FOX you wonât need or want to do either because itâs not interlaced content but already progressive (720p). If the content is interlaced and you are playing back on dumb devices like a Roku then yes you would need to but not if youâre using a TV, ShieldTV, Android or something that can deinterlace in hardware or software on the playback device you might want to skip this step. Basically this decision is driven by the user and the equipment he has and the purpose of the recording.
Using decomb over deinterlace can give you the appearance of better quality until you actually deinterlace it properly and then you see how much a decomb softens things. Decomb is sort of a âdumbâ person mode to make Handbrake easier to use. It can also be used on all content so a user doesnât need to know if the content is progressive or interlaced or the format used to interlace it. It can also be very useful as well if you have mixed content (both interlaced and progressive - think Star Trek with CGI sequences). But in general decomb looks at the amount of combing going on frame to frame and will decide to either deinterlace (lots of combing) the frames or blend them (less combing). This can cause issues for people who are visually acute to this. Really noticeable on some content where itâs on the border of deinterlacing and blending and itâs mixed a lot throughout the resulting encode.
If you deinterlace the content correctly you are doubling the frames before compression which keeps things smoother, but if you blend frames then you need to duplicate frames if writing to a constant fps which many devices prefer. Variable fps can skip the duplicate frames. In either case the doubling or varied frame rates can be seen as small âjerksâ in motion to many people since itâs not consistent. This bothers me a lot as Iâm vary aware of it and itâs most easy to see in fast moving scenes.
Decombed video of sports drives me absolutely crazy because it actually doesnât deinterlace every frame but only frames that show a big enough difference. To me itâs quite visible to watch as I still see lots of frame not deinterlaced properly. Itâs hard to beat a proper deinterlace when you know what filter to apply. Telecined content is even worse IMHO.
Of course most of this was becoming a mute point for most Plex users since DVD were interlaced and BluRay content was progressive. People ripping BR didnât need to deinterlace at all. But now with DVR functionality and cable networks that have some channels in 1080i and some in 720p we are back to needing proper deinterlacing again. 
Iâm just glad my eyeballs canât detect all these horrific conditions those genetically enhanced wonders of medical science installed in your head can.
Iâm happy with one episode from the same disc being about the same size as the previous one - instead of one being 800Mb and the next one being 6Gigs <â that looks exactly like the 800Mb one - but if those precision instruments installed in your head - the ones that can see through female undergarments (males too I suppose - ewwwww), through walls, tanks, bunkers, etc are happy with the results you achieve - that suits me fine.
BTW: Can you dial the power on those back to just under the clothes, or do they go right for the bones?
Iâll bet thatâs a real bummer after a while, eh? Seems like that would just suck the fun out of a strip club - dancing skeletons on stage over the production floor of a sausage factory. Iâll pass, thanks.
Enjoy those two pass encodes - cause they really make all the difference.
B)
Thatâs exactly the issue. You are forcing all your encodes to use the same bit rates. You will use the same bit rate on a sporting event or high action content movie as you do of a security camera monitoring your bedroom when nothing changes in the room 23 hours a day. These two source do not require the same bit rates. One will compress like crazy and one not as much. Yet both of your encodes will come out about the same size.
The security camera encode will be using far to many bits and the action film/sporting event wonât be using enough. Youâve chosen a âhappy mediumâ that tends to give you OK results but they are far from optimal.
So you most likely donât get horrible results but take the same encode and do one your way and one using constant quality and the difference in detail is great.
Your encoding method is very similar to what Plex does when it transcodes on the fly or when you create optimized files. It creates a file using a bitrate that doesnât fluctuate much from a baseline. This is ideal when you are streaming the content on limited pipe sizes but not for in house use where you donât have a bit rate limiting issue.
3750 is on the low side for 1080 content. Even Plex limits resolution to 720 when using 4Mb rates. So in a nut shell you are getting OK conversions but you are hamstring the h.264 encoder and not allowing it to produce the best encode. The encoder using a constant quality factor (adjustable bitrate) will allow it to use bits where needed and save them when not needed to match the quality level. Using the two examples mentioned earlier the sports file would be big because it needs the bits while the security cam video would encode small because hardly any bits are needed and it would compress greatly. Yet both would have the same level of quality.
Your method says. Give me the best quality I can squeeze into 3750 bit rate where my method says use whatever bits are needed to give me the quality level I chose.
You donât take into consideration the FPS so youâll use the same setting if itâs 30 fps or 60fps. Youâre not adjusting the bits needed depending on resolution such as 720, 1080 or 4K. With your settings of adjustable framerates, average bitrate then HB can reduce the FPS in the output file as needed to achieve your average bit rates since there isnât enough bandwidth to do the full fps that it would like to do. This causes some scenes to become a bit more jerky as itâs not as fluid. Of course the DECOMB will smooth this out so itâs not as noticeable and so there isnât as many pixels that need compressing. Youâre settings are causing a lot of trade offs in quality that a constant rate factor wonât do.
Try downloading a 2K or 4K trailer of the latest Transformers from:
https://www.traileraddict.com/transformers-the-last-knight/theatrical-trailer
https://www.traileraddict.com/transformers-the-last-knight/feature-trailer
Now try both methods on those sample files. Try it both keeping the resolution as is and also reducing to both 1080p and 720p using your method. Then try the same with a CRF of 18 to 22 (I use 18, higher number will give smaller files).
Now view the resulting files looking at the detail. The CRF 18 versions will look almost identical to the original while the method you use will show how much of the detail is now removed. The bigger the TV you use the more youâll notice the difference in lack or detail.
Bit rate is essentially = detail. The lower the bit rate the lower the quality will be. There is no exception to this, period!
Carlo
Okey Dokey Dr. X.
I see no difference in my 4750 encodes of The Expanse and the BluRays - except, of course, the 20G of storage (per episode). I do notice that. I also notice 20Mbps wonât fit into my 6Mb upload pipe, but 4.7 will.
If I cant see any difference why should I worry about it?
The answer is: I shouldnât, so I donât.
Hereâs another news flash: Most people canât see that difference either, so they shouldnât worry about it the same way I donât.
If Dr. X and company can see real or imagined faults they should add as many Gigs to their material as necessary before the placebo kicks in or those X-Ray orbs are happy.
Most people are going to be very happy with a quick one-pass 3750Kbps encode that passes well over network or internet. I sure am - and so is Netflix/Prime 'cause theyâve been providing stuff like that for a LONG time and Billions World Wide seem to think itâs more than adequate. So good, in fact, they pay for it.
Others, with more evolved visual reception devices transplanted into their heads are going to have to sink more cash and resources into satisfying their elite, gold, invisible to many, standards.
A whole lot of people leap on that MakeMkv bandwagon, then, when 50TB starts becoming a bit ridiculous notice 25% of that bit rate looks about the same.
Suddenly they start asking how to use Handbrake. My guide is in my signature.
Yes most people will be able to tell the difference when they use Plex.
If you canât tell the difference between a 4.5Mb and a 12Mb (example) 1080p action flick then Iâd suggest an eye exam. LOL Thatâs like saying people canât tell the difference between a DVD and a 720p BR disc. 4.5Mb just isnât enough bitrate to deinterlace properly and double the frames for fluid motion unless downscaling the resolution. Now if you throw away half frames or keep the fps when deinterlacing (again throwing half the frames out) then it might be enough.
You should worry about it because youâre not encoding your files optimally. Youâre using bits when you donât need to and youâre starving the encoder of bits when it needs it. Simple as that. Youâre overriding what the h.264 encoder can much better calculate on itâs own based on the quality objective.
This thread was about the best way to encode your media which most would assume is for home consumption, not the best way to limit it to 6Mb or such. BTW, you can still use CRF with a max (capped) bitrate if you must which would still be better than forcing an average. Using average bitrates is very old school and was mostly used for making sure your files fit in X space like DVD/BluRays. Not so much for streaming or HDD spaces.
If youâre netflix and are going to create multiple versions of files then this would also be a good reason to create multiple files for different resolutions and bitrates but Plex can do this for us transcoding in real time when needed or with the Optimize feature.
Otherwise you want to keep as much info/bits as possible in your âoriginal fileâ and allow Plex to transcode for smaller pipes when needed. Plex is good at this but the end result will look better when you have a better file to start with.
As an example: A 10Mb 1080p file will transcode to 720/4Mb with better quality then a 1080p file with 4.5Mb. When ever you are transcoding a file the more info thatâs there to start with the better the final result will be. Hence converting your files originally using a Constant Rate Factor is important as that will guarantee the file will have enough bit rate to allow it to be transcoded on the fly yet again for mobile devices. Put another way if a client requests a 720p/4Mb file that Plex has to transcode on the fly my system will deliver a better quality file then yours will since my âoriginalâ file wasnât starved of bits to start with.
Iâd suggest anyone experimenting with the best way to optimize files to try both ways CRF and Average Bit Rate. Do back to back conversions and create two dummy test libs on Plex adding one to each lib. Then also try playing them back on your TV at 720/4Mb (or different combinations) and see for yourself the results. Try a couple small files like the Trailers posted above. They are both HQ. Also try some lower quality files as well.
The whole point of my guide is so novice users can easily create material that will Direct Play on their Plex systems. It works wonderfully because Iâve been doing it for YEARS. Iâm wearing the latest prescription glasses fresh from the Eye Doctor and when I compare sources to end products I canât see any difference. What can I say? Apparently no matter what I say youâre going to burn me at the stake for heresy.
If youâre creating material that needs to be transcoded - so you can eek that last possible, undetectable bit of quality out of it, you donât need my guide - you need a mental health professional - and a LOT more storage. If Plex is transcoding material youâve already passed through an encoding session - youâre crazy. Plex is ****ing it up.
If you own the DVD or BluRay and create some material that you canât see a lot of difference in, but you still decide, just for giggles, youâll add another 20Gigs to the file - just to be sure - youâre crazy. Eat another Thorazine, kick back and tighten up the drool bib.
I do agree with one thing though - by all means run some tests and make decisions based on what your eyeballs see - not what some self confessed internet expert claims is the correct way (yea, Iâd be one of those - as are you).
Use my guide, or donât. Make sane decisions when it comes to Direct Play or let Plex transcode. I donât really care which. There are some options available - pick one.
Over and Out.
All of my media (non 4K) is all MP4/AVC/AAC + other audio and SRT subs. Will direct play on EVERY Plex device.
Where transcodeing comes in is if you only have 5Mb upload and a remote client or two is trying to watch then Plex will use itâs ABR to dynamically transcode on the fly to fit the bandwidth available. This isnât controlled on the server but by the client. So unless you have access to all remote clients you canât change this.
With ABR on mobile (and some devices) clients it will have your serverâs transcoded involved regardless of the format of your media since it has to segment the data.
You need to catch up on how Plex works as ABR has been active in the last few releases. You can manually turn it off on devices you have access to go back to direct play but itâs a manual process.
BTW, no one is talking about 20Gigs files here. For example a movies thatâs got a lot of intricate detail in it is Transformers (2007). Mine is 9.58GB in size. Dramas will be much smaller. Transformers with a CRF of 18 came out to an average bit rate across the movie of 8433 kbps and itâs 1920 by 1080.
Some parts of that movie will have higher bit rates (where it needs it) and other parts will be lower where itâs not needed. If I used a CRF of 22 the file size and average bit rates would be lower.
A movie (drama) such as Hidden Figures (2016) only required 1.92 GB and had an average bit rate of 2049 kbps with the same CRF of 18. It didnât have the complex scenes so it didnât need the bits.
Something like Star Trek Beyond (2016) comes out to 3.31 GB and has 2850 kbps bit rate.
All movies will have the same quality since the H.264 encoded used whatever bit rates were needed to achieve the quality I specified. They will all appear indistinguishable from the BluRay discs on any size TV.
