I am trying out something
In this rar file there are two test samples from the movie LITTLE Monsters ( exactly same duration and same sequences), Test1 and Test2
I would appreciate if you could kindly download this, play the samples on your media players, TVs and all
and share your feedback about the video quality. (audio is the same in both though)
test 2 looked best…. thanks for all your hard work…
Hi, I tested them on a 10 year old 27″ Mac full screen, on a 5 year old 55″ Sharp tv at 1080p and a 2 year old 720p projector. No artefacts at all. The only things I noticed are file size and test1 being more saturated on all 3 displays, so maybe that is the reason why the test 2 file size is bigger, colors are more nuanced.
I forgot to mention that for me, test2 is better especially on the lower quality projector.
LOve you mate
I guess you have hit the nail 🙂
THis information is utterly encouraging and i am feeling, i was right all along in my mind on why similar bitrate for diff kinds of sequences,
FRom now on you ll see variable file sizes and different bitrates on files ( hopefully )
Again thanks for such a great feedback
matters a lot
I know how long it takes to test all these possibilities and this test was only small clips.
BRAVO on all your hard work
I think Test2 is the better of the 2 on my 55inch screen
Thatsd great news
I consider feedback directly from TVs as more on the reliable side 🙂
for me both look very nice. I could not tell the difference on my MB Air 11inch and VLC.
Best and thank you for your hard work!
I saw no difference – but I am not that good at this quality stuff.
No worries 🙂
At least you gave it your time
matters a lot 🙂
Hi, Scorp! To me, artifacts are noticeable in both clips, kind of hard to tell which one of them is better (watched them on a desktop at 1920×1080). Anyway, great seeing you working on the quality. Good job!
are the artifacts only in darker areas or in general ..
i can make them better but the size will have to go up , i am trying out new settings for two reasons first is to save some encoding time while keeping the quality same if not better.
Second is of course to add more quality ..
lets see how it goes
They are more pronounced in darker areas, but in light areas some tiling and blurring is also visible. Probably, would not matter if viewed from a greater distance. Maybe they come from the source? Anyway, it is hard to come across a film encoding that has no artifacts, and the file sizes are usually bigger, so it is always a trade-off. I wish there were some objective method to measure video quality.
would suggest you to watch these on a TV and with a minimum of 6 feet of distance
As i always say 😉 Its a flawed concept
Thanks, for the suggestion, Scorp! I do not have a TV presently, but I will certainly try this out if I ever get one. Lately, I started to pay more attention to the video quality, because I got a better monitor and all the compression flaws suddenly became visible. But huge files are difficult to keep, they occupy too much space, so that is yet another problem. Always a trade-off.
well since TV technology has changed with more bigger screens now , I am of the opinion that we should gradually move to all videos to 1080p & x265 =
smaller files , better quality for newer display tech and bigger screen sizes
Test2 video quality is btter.