Jump to content

PDoggy77

Crusaders +
  • Posts

    1,034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

PDoggy77 last won the day on June 6 2016

PDoggy77 had the most liked content!

About PDoggy77

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

31,116 profile views

PDoggy77's Achievements

Knight of the Round

Knight of the Round (11/12)

495

Reputation

Single Status Update

See all updates by PDoggy77

  1. Wow, with the right configs, HEVC can work wonders. I've been able to produce a lossless encode of The Boondocks at 150MB, without encoding audio, just optimizing video. Shit's crazy. I've been working at CRF19 though, so I might up it to CRF18 and see where that takes me. Here are some screens I took of a CRF19 sample I made a while ago, so not quite the quality I'm playing with now. Screens - screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/160092/

    1. Koby

      Koby

      That screenshot shows the exact opposite of your claims. The encode looks like garbage. Pixelation, line destruction, artifacts, and aliasing all created in your encode.

    2. PDoggy77

      PDoggy77

      1) Feel free to show me a better encode of this show anywhere

      2) The encode shown in those screens wasn't done with my final settings

      3) The original source was an old DVD, which was a 360p>480p upscale to begin with

       

      I honestly can't see any issues with the encode bruh. If you can do a better encode of this show, go for it. Do it. Show me these glorious PQ improvements I'm supposedly missing out on. This isn't some beautiful source here, those screens are legit caps of my DVDs. I never said it would look good, I wasn't expecting anything really, but I don't understand how you can expect my encode to look any better than my source dog. Sure, I could filter it but it would be such a tiny, modicum of improvement that it wouldn't be worth the time spent.

    3. Koby

      Koby

      The issue is you claim your encode is lossless when in fact your encode is worse than source.

       

      Your numbered points have nothing to do with the subject matter. Whether I can show you a better encode or do a better encode myself has nothing to do with your comparison or your claim.

       

      The fact of the matter is your encode is worse than the source you started with yet you're claiming it to be lossless. The fact that you don't even see one of the issues I mentioned just shows how inexperienced you are and why you shouldn't bother judging encodes at all.

       

      Increasing bitrate would solve the pixelation and possibly artifacts issues, but it's not going to solve the line destruction or aliasing being caused by settings or filters (if any) you're utilizing.

    4. Show next comments  3 more
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In