3 ms·

If you’re can’t tell the difference between 20Mbps and 200Mbps you need glasses. This isn’t even some audiophile-tier argument about an extra 60kbps in MP3 or w

by wyager 5y ago

If you’re can’t tell the difference between 20Mbps and 200Mbps you need glasses. This isn’t even some audiophile-tier argument about an extra 60kbps in MP3 or whatever; there are obvious compression artifacts in 20Mbps real-time-encoded CBR video, especially on any kind of remotely high-entropy scene. > high-quality rips of 1080p movies tend to be 5 Mbps This is nonsense. A decent 20-30GB BRRip will be at least 25-30Mbps. Also, it’s not a fair comparison because it’s not real time encoding. If you can afford to encode in 5% real-time speed you can get much better compression ratios.

crazygringo 5y ago
> If you’re can’t tell the difference between 20Mbps and 200Mbps you need glasses. I think you're the one imagining things here. Like I said in an earlier comment, I record h.264 in "ultrafast" CRF 14. Every guide that exists says this is below the threshold for indistiguishable from raw footage, and my own eyes agree after extensive side-by-side comparisons. I go as low as 14 because it's overkill. But there's simply no visible difference. And it's an average of 34 Mbps for the kind of stuff I shoot, which as I said is overkill already. 200 Mbps is insanely unnecessarily high, even for real-time encoding on a crappy CPU.
- wyager 5y ago
  > But there's simply no visible difference. What are you filming? It sounds like you’re streaming a video of your face; how are you capturing it? If your video is blasted with shot noise from a 10mm^2 sensor through an 4mm wide lens, where “1080p” is more of a recording convention than a faithful description of the resolving power of the system, I can see how 34Mbps might look as good as whatever you see uncompressed.
gsich 5y ago
>If you’re can’t tell the difference between 20Mbps and 200Mbps you need glasses. Can you provide examples? https://www.screenshotcomparison.com https://www.screenshotcomparison.com is suited for this especially.
topranks 5y ago
> especially on any kind of remotely high-entropy scene Unfortunately my job is pretty boring. Most of my video chats are low entropy.

by wyager 5y ago

crazygringo 5y ago

> If you’re can’t tell the difference between 20Mbps and 200Mbps you need glasses. I think you're the one imagining things here. Like I said in an earlier comment, I record h.264 in "ultrafast" CRF 14. Every guide that exists says this is below the threshold for indistiguishable from raw footage, and my own eyes agree after extensive side-by-side comparisons. I go as low as 14 because it's overkill. But there's simply no visible difference. And it's an average of 34 Mbps for the kind of stuff I shoot, which as I said is overkill already. 200 Mbps is insanely unnecessarily high, even for real-time encoding on a crappy CPU.

wyager 5y ago
> But there's simply no visible difference. What are you filming? It sounds like you’re streaming a video of your face; how are you capturing it? If your video is blasted with shot noise from a 10mm^2 sensor through an 4mm wide lens, where “1080p” is more of a recording convention than a faithful description of the resolving power of the system, I can see how 34Mbps might look as good as whatever you see uncompressed.

gsich 5y ago

>If you’re can’t tell the difference between 20Mbps and 200Mbps you need glasses. Can you provide examples? https://www.screenshotcomparison.com https://www.screenshotcomparison.com is suited for this especially.

topranks 5y ago

> especially on any kind of remotely high-entropy scene Unfortunately my job is pretty boring. Most of my video chats are low entropy.