Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eXDee" data-source="post: 401813" data-attributes="member: 68077">Play with the bitrate/constant rate till you get what suits recordings. I was making guesses as i havent actually done a full conversion, just small files as tests while helping a handbrake dev debug it. (deinterlace was broken on windows when using freeview as the input)But as you can see yourself, Constant quality rate isnt liked by some codecs, its more advanced h264 (as far as i understand)So instead of constant quality, set a bitrate (with 2 pass/turbo first). Take a look at the guide above (thanks for that ireshine), and find your own settings which work well for you. I'd still keep h264 as the codec though if you want no quality loss if for example you're going to transcode it again onto a DVD. If you want to archive them as the guide above seems to be aimed at then lower settings are probably more ideal, but again i'd stick with H264 as it gives nicer quality even if it takes a lot longer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eXDee, post: 401813, member: 68077"] Play with the bitrate/constant rate till you get what suits recordings. I was making guesses as i havent actually done a full conversion, just small files as tests while helping a handbrake dev debug it. (deinterlace was broken on windows when using freeview as the input) But as you can see yourself, Constant quality rate isnt liked by some codecs, its more advanced h264 (as far as i understand) So instead of constant quality, set a bitrate (with 2 pass/turbo first). Take a look at the guide above (thanks for that ireshine), and find your own settings which work well for you. I'd still keep h264 as the codec though if you want no quality loss if for example you're going to transcode it again onto a DVD. If you want to archive them as the guide above seems to be aimed at then lower settings are probably more ideal, but again i'd stick with H264 as it gives nicer quality even if it takes a lot longer. [/QUOTE]

Verification