[Idea] x264 BD compliant "perfect" settings - faster version

[zoidberg]

I don't do avisynth frame serving to x264, just intermediate lossless files.

[Evit]

Any suggested settings for 720p and 576p encodes? Would the encode be faster than 1080p?

[Chewtobacca]

^ If you want BD-compliant 720p and 576p, start by looking here.  Encoding a given source at a lower resolution with the same settings ought to result in a faster encoding time. If you change settings that affect speed, obviously that has an impact.

[Evit]

Thanks Chewtobacca. I don't need it to be Blu-Ray compliant, I only need it for digital distribution

[Chewtobacca]

I don't need it to be Blu-Ray compliant, I only need it for digital distribution

In that case, you don't need --bluray-compat, --slices 4, or --fake-interlaced. And you probably don't need to worry about --vbv-maxrate or --vbv-bufsize either, unless you have a particular reason to do so. For digital distribution, I favor CRF encoding; there's no need to run a second pass. The command-line should look very simple.

[spoRv]

...but a BD compliant file would be nice, as it would fit perfectly in various cases - burned BD, video file, streaming. Just my 2€c!

[Evit]

@spoRv I just need a small file that can be played from the PC, I hope nobody burns 576p videos on BD discs!

@Chew CRF encoding would surely take less time to encode but isn't it a lot bigger?

[Chewtobacca]

@Chew CRF encoding would surely take less time to encode but isn't it a lot bigger?

Bigger than what? If you want a file for digital distribution, there's no reason to hit a particular file-size. If you don't like resulting file-size, increase the CRF value. But there's nothing inherent in CRF encoding that generates higher file-sizes.

[Evit]

I meant, to get the same final quality, wouldn't a CBR encode be much bigger in size than 2-pass VBR?

[Chewtobacca]

We're talking about CRF, not CBR. They're not the same.