OK… Used MakeMKV to tip Maze Running, DVD. (not BR)
then use Vidcoder:
Automatic Cropping, Automatic Sizing
Use Anamorphic
No Padding
No filters set
Codec H.264, Constant Quality set to 18
Basic Encoder Settings, Tune=Film, Profile=High, Level=4.1
Preset=Very Slow
Takes 7 hours. Looks just fine to me
**THEN
**All same settings except,
VIdeo Codec = H.264 Interl QSV
Preset=Balanced
Profile=High, Level=4.1
Takes 17 min.
I compare in VLC. Run both at same time, on pause, switch back between two.
I se NO difference between the two………
I was under the impression that QSV would yield lover quality… What am I doing right or wrong?
thanks… will do more testing for sure… Also want to try some Blue Ray stuff to see how that comes out.
Having ready multiple articles stating that the quality would not be as good, I was surprised that I could not find any difference other than amazingly faster (25x).
@jwaltrip4 said:
thanks… will do more testing for sure… Also want to try some Blue Ray stuff to see how that comes out.
Having ready multiple articles stating that the quality would not be as good, I was surprised that I could not find any difference other than amazingly faster (25x).
Maybe there will be difference in BR.
But you did find a difference. It’s not that GPU encoding produces an inherently worse result per se, it’s that it takes more bits to get an analogous result. In other words, a GPU encode will be larger for a similar quality output.
On top of that, DVD is actually pretty terrible. MPEG2 isn’t the cleanest codec to source from in the first place, and then depending on the region and format of the disc you have combing/interlacing, dup frames, blended frames, varying amounts of motion blur. DVDs just not great…
good point… there are certainly movies in BR that look fantastic and I have some of them… However the majority of the movies I have a DVD and really… with my crappy eyes and hearing, they look and sound just fine on my 55" flat screen.
the slightly larger size does not matter, I have plenty of space and can add more
I will do some testing with BR and see if there is a difference there.
DVD movies are, at most 10 Mbps. Typical is 6-8 Mbps. Storing as MPEG1 or MPEG2 with only 4.5 GB of storage available does not help.
Most DVDs are digital depositions of an analog (film) image.
DVDs do not have the innate quality found in BluRay.
@jwaltrip4 said:
good point… there are certainly movies in BR that look fantastic and I have some of them… However the majority of the movies I have a DVD and really… with my crappy eyes and hearing, they look and sound just fine on my 55" flat screen.
the slightly larger size does not matter, I have plenty of space and can add more
I will do some testing with BR and see if there is a difference there.
Oh yeah, absolutely, if your media looks good to you that’s all that matters. And as you rightly pointed out, the size doesn’t matter at DVD sizes, 400-500MB is basically nothing compared to multi terabyte HDDs.
I was just laying out the case for visual differences in GPU encode quality with a “clean” source like bluray that the issues with DVD may hide.
OK… I just ripped a BR of Rick Steve’s….
Comparing the raw rip with the QSV compression, I see no difference in quality.
one big difference from normal compression without QSV is the files actually total out larger after QSV.
So other than audio configuration, and reencoding as h.264, there is no space benefit.
I will try a feature length film like avatar next (have it somewhere
Blu-Rays on QSV… seemed very squirrely… about 50% of the time hangs up. Also… did not save as much time as DVD. quality wise did not see that much difference but since I am doing Blue Rays for quality, I wont use QSV on them
For DVDs… goes from several hours to about 20 min with no detectable loss of quality. Files are a little larger but not by much. Will be my default from now on
