resolution whats best

[Glanz]

what is the deal with resolution

which is best i know its a dumb question but what is a good value to stick with im sure a really low number will look crappy but what is a good resolution. does it just depend on the movie im ripping? i was just wondering this, ive tried many different ones and havent noticed a huge difference yet.

[Enchanter]

IMO, 640x() is the highest you should go for. The opposite is true for 320x(). Also, what resolution you should use depends on how much bitrate you are assigning for the video. 1000-1300 kbps is suitable for 640x() and the required bitrate goes down proportionally with decreasing resolution.

ive tried many different ones and havent noticed a huge difference yet.

And what are those values? I'm sure you will notice a striking difference between 640x() and 320x(). Even resolutions of 512x() and 640x() are markedly and visibly different (to my eyes).

[Glanz]

what is wrong with using 720 or up that high is it just wasted space your taking up or what

[ponyboy]

If you're using gordian knot - perform a compressiability test before doing the encode .. according to the guides and from experience it produces great results - I aim to get the figure it gives back just over 60% for whichever resolution I'm using

If you're getting a crazy high percentage say much over 68% you'll be able to increase the resolution without introducing noticiable compression artifacts ..

If your a good way under the 60% your probably better off reducing the resolution in favour of getting a cleaner encode.

If your not using gk i'd highly recommend it at least for your video stream .. still working out the best way to handle the audio stream.

[Enchanter]

Originally posted by Glanz
what is wrong with using 720 or up that high is it just wasted space your taking up or what

Personally, I don't see much benefit in using such high resolutions. Firstly, it requires more bitrate to achieve the same quality as a 640x() video. Secondly, it requires much more CPU power to decode in playback. I'll reserve the other point to myself as it is still very debatable.

[ponyboy]

If you are going for a fixed quality you may want to find a resolution you're happy with that isn't overly large and stick with it. But if you're encoding to a fixed size, say to fit on one cd - and a compressiablity test shows that you are gaining very little in quality by keeping a low resolution over a higher resolution - then why not increase the resolution to get better full screen play back results.

The resolution which produces a 60% compressiablity percentage for a 700mb encode most often is 608x256 .. sometimes a little less, almost never any larger.

[techno]

EVERY movie is different, Some res's are better than others.

when I do capturing and stuff, I ALWAYS make the final vid 352*288/320*240 why:

1) low file size
2) I can shut many people up because the way I do things, it makes it NEAR DVD quality or sometimes, DVD quality for that res
3) I just enjoy it


Some res's work better than others.

Like for example, my first DVD rip, east is east, when I did a 2 pass encoding in nandub, the res was 4xx*xxx and that was not bad, except a few artifacts (for a 1 CD RIP)

Then I changed it to 512*xxx and that was near perfect.

Then I increased it a higher res and it was perfect. no loss of quality and all on 1 CD


I then tested the ripping and encoding using DVDx (www.technosoft2000.co.uk/divx) and I chose, delebritly, fast motion codec with 6000 bitrate and a res of 4xx*xxx and it was NEAR DVD. no blocks, no artifacts, maybe the odd block in dark scenes, but other wise, perfect and only for 434MB!!!!!


I then decreased it a res, and well, it was PERFECT! NO ARTIFACTS, NO BLOCKS, nothing. just perfect! and also, the file size was lower!

wierd, I know but I am just tellin u my experiences and that any program u use and any res u use is always different.

Ideal res, 512*xxx (my opinion)

Techno