|
You're right in a technical sense of
course - I meant "improved" over the one-time-use transcode for
watching / deleting when overseas.
I use different settings for recoding the ts files for keeping - x264 runs slower and at lower CRF, audio at higher bitrates. I chose my words carefully "retaining 100% perceived quality". *I* really can't tell the difference, having spent a fair bit of time with my nose against the screen looking for MPEG artifacts, blockiness, jaggies etc - it's taken a little time to tune. Others can of course choose their own settings. In a couple of instances though I'll still argue that perceived, if not actual technical, quality is improved: grainy films + where for example the BBC has telecine'd older material at ambitious resolutions and transmitted at equivalently ambitious bitrates, and programmes where the broadcaster forgot that modern screens no longer overscan and left a line or 2 of signalling at the top, as attached. There's an option to crop this during conversion. Richard On 16/06/2016 15:15, VDR User wrote: Yup, I see your reasoning behind it. Only one thing though... Transcoding is not going to give you improved quality regarding of what encoder and settings you use. Size can be reduced which is a plus but there's degradation with every trip a stream makes through an encoder. Encoding always has and always will be a one-way street in terms of quality. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Richard F <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: |
Attachment:
Drafts-290107.jpg
Description: JPEG image
_______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx https://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
