Re: Re: h.264 tips?

On 02/20/2010 01:36 PM, Phil Ehrens wrote:

<snip snip>

> Note: I have confirmed with Dark_Shikari on #x264 that 2-pass is fully
>> functional at this time.  The goals between CRF and 2-pass are
>> different.  CRF allows you to specify an average quality setting for
>> your file regardless of the resulting size.  2-pass is more so used when
>> you want to keep the resulting file at a designated approximate size.
>>      
> There is a potential for misunderstanding when the difference
> is stated that way... The file size required to get the same
> "quality" with CRF could be three times the size of the 2-pass
> file. And by "quality" I mean subjective viewing quality, not
> PSNR, so I am not talking about what they talk about in #x264.
> CRF is very interesting, and it certainly has the potential to
> be a wonderful thing, but I think it's being oversold right now.
>    

Yes, I also meant subjective viewing quality (as that was how I 
understood it to be conveyed to me).  And I completely agree that the 
CRF is being oversold too.  I am continuing to do the 2-pass method.  
Now, I've even read about there being a 3-pass method, but it seems 
somewhat more complicated.  Do you know anything about 3-pass mode with 
x264 as the encoding backend?

> I will not discuss this further. This subject can only
> go in the direction of a holy war, and I'm not a Christian
> or a Moslem.
>
>    

Ah, you're WORSE!  You're a HEATHEN NON-BELIEVER and must be put to 
/dev/null!!!!

Just kidding :-)  You won't be starting a flame war with me about this, 
especially since we seem to be at least in somewhat agreement.  :-)

-Mishehu