![]() Placebo has very very very narrow application, and IRL I can image only people who produce original RAW-content may need it to encode their content with minimal visual and technical losses ![]() So in conjunction with "grain" tune which in addition change following x264 parameter:Ĭode: -aq-strength 0.5 -no-dct-decimate -deadzone-inter 6 -deadzone-intra 6 -deblock -2:-2 -ipratio 1.1 -pbratio 1.1 -psy-rd :0.25 -qcomp 0.8 and AFAIK key parameters here:Īnd that parameters may have drastic effect on final quality ( especially -qcomp ) bumping up bitrate and retaining more visual details, but not always visually important. ![]() and all of those parameters bumps up bitrate On the same CRF value "placebo" produces larger file but have better quality because placebo uses more complex motion estimation algoritm ( -me tesa ) better subpixel refinement ( -subme 11 ) and do not skip P-frames which encoder decides not worth to pay attention ( -no-fast-pskip ). In that comparison veryslow preset had better CRF, so I compared CRF 22.50 "very slow" vs CRF 23.00 "placebo".Īnd I did it just to match same bitrate on "placebo" and "very slow". I think the logical conclusion would be: never use preset placebo. Finally I think that the only real case when we may need placebo is when we have very high quality source material and want to get as much from it as we can with x264 How did you come from to that conclusion when in your test preset veryslow was (ever so slightly) better than placebo? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |