Re: Re: h.264 tips?

Andrew Church wrote:
> Just as an addendum (though I think it's been mentioned on this list
> before), PSNR isn't always a good measurement of visual quality, so take
> these results with a grain of salt.  Lower PSNR generally means lower
> visual quality, but depending on the actual image data, deliberate
> "errors" such as averaging pixels can help the brain fill in the missing
> detail on its own, causing the image to look better to a human viewer.

This is a very important point! Depending upon the source,
a significantly lower PSNR can look dramatically better -
When transcoding from VHS source, for example. PSNR is
mostly useful for things like determining whether 2-pass
encoding in x264 works or not ;^)