Which video size is better for 4:3, 320x240 or 384x288?
320x240 or 384x288
Collapse
X
-
depends.
320*240 is what I use ALL the time and get near DVD or DVD quality, using my methods.
but generally speaking, the higher the res, the better quality but bigger file size
If the source is great, then use 320*240, u will NOT lose quality
Techno -
Originally posted by Enchanter
Depends on your assigned bitrate for the video. IMO, it should either be 320x240 or 480x360 or higher. 384x288 is rather too 'in-the-middle' and won't make much difference as compared to 320x240.Comment
-
Again, it depends on your bitrate. Supposedly it is high enough for the higher resolution, then you will definitely see a large difference in quality. However, if it is barely enough for 320x240 only, then using a resolution of 480x360 will yield a video that not only looks less sharp than the lower resolution one (albeit with a higher resolution), but also with macroblocks (which are plain obvious and irritating) and picture warming.
For my encoding purposes, a bitrate of 400-500 is for 320x240 and the bitrate goes up proportionally with the resolution. You can make do with a lower bitrate, though you are more likely to get macroblocks. Experiment around and see which suits you. After all, different videos compress differently. Some compress with great ease and some are simply a bitch to compress.Comment
-
Every res has it's pros and cons. 384x288 is very good for PAL-TV-capture. By choosing half the hight you have no problem with interlaced material. For non-interlaced DVD-ripps a 384x288-ripp wouldn't really make sense.
320x240 is very low and only usefull for internet-video if you want to go below 400kbps. For DVD-Ripps it's nearly senseless, because you will not be able to see small details like i.e. the text on a sign. For DVD-Ripps I wouldn't go lower than 480x...don't trust in guidesComment
Comment