Does higher Bit rate equal better quality?

EDV

EDV

Well-known member
I just rendered a 5 minute uncompressed avi from After Effects.
It looks pristine, colors are spot on, clarity is stunning, etc.
Once my file is compressed in Sorenson Squeeze 5 (using Main Concept's H264), I expected the resulting .mp4 to be almost as good as the original .avi, after all, H264 is as good as it gets isn't it?
Well careful side by side comparisons show the .mp4 looks different: ligther, more saturated, and with more contrast. It still looks good mind you, just not "great" like my original .avi.
I'm just wondering whether bit rate has anything to do with it.
the .mp4 file is 5000 kbps while the uncompressed .avi is 1456 kbps.
If bit rate doesn't affect the final outcome, then I should have compressed the .avi at a lower bit rate (2000 or even 1000 kbps). Could have saved lots of processing time and probably get the same result. What do you think?
 
Hi,

High bit rates usually means high quality, but compression engines do things to files.

Ultimately, anything you have that needs compression, needs to have a balance of it's purpose weighed to it's destination. Make trade offs with what you can live with and go from there.

There's a lot more on the subject - what is your target?

My best,

Mike
 
My video's destination was online streaming. I use Blip Tv, which in terms of quality is as good as it gets....viewers can actually watch THE ORIGINAL .mov or .mp4 file.
Trouble is, my original .mp4 file (204 MB) is only 80% the quality of my uncompressed .avi, eventhough I manually set the compression to 5000 kbps. I also set it to Multi-pass render, so I don't know what I could have done different. I'm trying to impress a potential client with this 5 minute video, so I'm thinking I may just show him the uncompressed .avi file instead (9.5 Gb)
 
EDV, i would leave the Blip version and place some education to the client concerning the limitations of streaming vs. actual avi.

dont think you will ever be able to stream uncompressed, compression is what we all live with. although i would love to be able to play 100 g uncompressed video on my 1080P HD tv. LOL

btw, this subject is huge, i and others will probably always look to improve our footage and compress it less and less to get the best results possible.

best of luck

Tin Man
 
care to show us what your seeing? how is Sorenson Squeeze 5 working for you? Im looking to pick this up myself for mac.
 
My advice would be to use x264 with one of its GUI options - StaxRip or MeGUI. They're all free and output to mp4 container too.

There are a tonne of options and variables that have to be tweaked to get the best result and I only know a few of them.

2-pass encoding is crucial, even 3-pass - if the clip is too short.

4-6 Mbps minimum for 720p and 8-12 Mbps for 1080p.

Also particle decision, motion estimation, number of B-frames, reference frames and lots of other shi*z.

If you're interested, check these out. StaxRip is easier and has pretty good presets, from which you can start tweaking.

MeGUI is more complicated but gives fuller control.

Good luck. :beer:
 
I also find that .mp4 basically blows out the image... I always compensate by color correcting now, lowering the blacks and whites and bumping up the saturation... probably not the best way to do it, but the websites my company run are .mp4 only so i really don't have much of a choice.
 
Xtopher said:
I also find that .mp4 basically blows out the image... I always compensate by color correcting now, lowering the blacks and whites and bumping up the saturation... probably not the best way to do it, but the websites my company run are .mp4 only so i really don't have much of a choice.
Click to expand...


Dont use quicktime to encode h.264 and you won't have this issue. Its related to the encoder built into quicktime.

Search Quicktime gamma Shift for more info.
 
ok, i have now found out that quicktime player has a box that you can tick that shows the video in 2.2 gamma instead of 1.8 gamma. So now, how does that effect the video when I put it online? checking that box will not change the video itself, correct? only the way I see it on my mac. So I should keep doing what I am doing for now if it is looking good on my website?
 
Xtopher said:
ok, i have now found out that quicktime player has a box that you can tick that shows the video in 2.2 gamma instead of 1.8 gamma. So now, how does that effect the video when I put it online? checking that box will not change the video itself, correct? only the way I see it on my mac. So I should keep doing what I am doing for now if it is looking good on my website?
Click to expand...


You could export QT reference files out of FCP, and run them through a program called Handbrake. The latest version of handbrake allows for File based input now.

These will give you higher quality h.264 in .mp4 containers than Quicktime ever could.
 
Hey Karapetkov may I ask you the final encoded file size of your 'Make sure' Student Short fiim? Did you use x264 encoding? How does x264 differ from H264. Thanks

Kruz
 
kruzmode said:
Hey Karapetkov may I ask you the final encoded file size of your 'Make sure' Student Short fiim? Did you use x264 encoding? How does x264 differ from H264. Thanks

Kruz
Click to expand...

x264 is an open-source freeware h.264 encoder.

Mainconcept also has an h.264 encoder

Quicktime has h.264 encoding support (but there are lots of issues with it, stay away)

x264 is the name of a free, proven h.264 encoder.
 
EDV said:
My video's destination was online streaming. I use Blip Tv, which in terms of quality is as good as it gets....viewers can actually watch THE ORIGINAL .mov or .mp4 file.
Click to expand...

last i heard, blip will re-encode everything that isn't an flv file, at least with the free account.

with your squeeze 5, you can create some really clean vp6 flash... use the higher profile, the one with the -e.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top