3 ms·
How are they cutting corners? The wider aspect ratio would actually use fewer pixel data since about 80-240 vertical pixels (assuming 1920 width) would not be
by Osiris 13y ago
How are they cutting corners? The wider aspect ratio would actually use fewer pixel data since about 80-240 vertical pixels (assuming 1920 width) would not be encoded. If anything, those versions would result is slightly lower bandwidth charges than the 16:9 versions.
- jfb 13y agoThat's not how it works. They'll set a bandwidth target and regardless of the number of macroblocks going in, their encoder will attempt to hit that target; having less picture data per frame is largely immaterial, at least at the sizes being discussed.
- Terretta 13y agoParent is right, it's how it "should" work. Encode for a quality target not a bandwidth target, but with a bandwidth cap (of sorts, generally a virtual buffer average bitrate target to simulate refilling bit buffer at targeted line speeds when depleted by high motion or latency). Source: Built and operate a commercial transcoding cloud for studios. EDIT: Added "should". As jfb noted elsewhere in this thread, often poorly encoded content is shoved down aggregators throats by content owners or third parties in the workflow.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]