comparison DOCS/xml/en/encoding-guide.xml @ 16340:5ceeeb85804c

Avoid short forms.

16339:9d772123c27d

  25 fps things will sound right, even though the audio track (and hence the
  whole movie) has a running time that is 4% less than NTSC DVDs.
</para>

<para>
  Because the video in a PAL DVD has not been altered, you needn't worry
  much about framerate. The source is 25 fps, and your rip will be 25
  fps. However, if you are ripping an NTSC DVD movie, you may need to
  apply inverse telecine.
</para>

<para>
  After running <option>mplayer dvd://1</option>, we follow the process
  detailed in the section <link linkend="menc-feat-telecine">How to deal
  with telecine and interlacing in NTSC DVDs</link> and discover that it is
  24000/1001 fps progressive video, which means that we needn't use an inverse
  telecine filter, such as <option>pullup</option> or
  <option>filmdint</option>.
</para>

<para>

  exact same set of options on both passes, two pass encoding is almost
  twice as slow.
</para>
<para>
  Still, there are very good reasons for using two pass encoding. For
  one thing, single pass ratecontrol isn't psychic, and it often makes
  unreasonable choices because it can't see the big picture. For example,
  suppose you have a two minute long video consisting of two distinct
  halves.  The first half is a very high-motion scene lasting 60 seconds
  which, in isolation, requires about 2500kbps in order to look decent.
  Immediately following it is a much less demanding 60-second scene
  that looks good at 300kbps. Suppose you ask for 1400kbps on the theory

  will make a couple of "mistakes" in such a case. First of all, it
  will target 1400kbps in both segments. The first segment may end up
  heavily overquantized, causing it to look unacceptably and unreasonably
  blocky. The second segment will be heavily underquantized; it may look
  perfect, but the bitrate cost of that perfection will be completely
  unreasonable. What's even harder to avoid is the problem at the
  transition between the two scenes. The first seconds of the low motion
  half will be hugely over-quantized, because the ratecontrol is still
  expecting the kind of bitrate requirements it met in the first half
  of the video. This "error period" of heavily over-quantized low motion
  will look jarringly bad, and will actually use less than the 300kbps

  bitrate. Typically this would make high-motion scenes look completely
  awful, while low-motion scenes would probably look absolutely
  perfect, but would also use many times more bitrate than they
  would need in order to look merely excellent. At the other extreme,
  <option>qcomp=1</option> achieves nearly constant quantization parameter
  (QP). Constant QP doesn't look bad, but most people think it's more
  reasonable to shave some bitrate off of the extremely expensive scenes
  (where the loss of quality isn't as noticeable) and reallocate it to
  the scenes that are easier to encode at excellent quality.
  <option>qcomp</option> is set to 0.6 by default, which may be slightly
  low for many peoples' taste (0.7-0.8 are also commonly used).
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>

16340:5ceeeb85804c

  25 fps things will sound right, even though the audio track (and hence the
  whole movie) has a running time that is 4% less than NTSC DVDs.
</para>

<para>
  Because the video in a PAL DVD has not been altered, you need not worry
  much about framerate. The source is 25 fps, and your rip will be 25
  fps. However, if you are ripping an NTSC DVD movie, you may need to
  apply inverse telecine.
</para>

<para>
  After running <option>mplayer dvd://1</option>, we follow the process
  detailed in the section <link linkend="menc-feat-telecine">How to deal
  with telecine and interlacing in NTSC DVDs</link> and discover that it is
  24000/1001 fps progressive video, which means that we need not use an inverse
  telecine filter, such as <option>pullup</option> or
  <option>filmdint</option>.
</para>

<para>

  exact same set of options on both passes, two pass encoding is almost
  twice as slow.
</para>
<para>
  Still, there are very good reasons for using two pass encoding. For
  one thing, single pass ratecontrol is not psychic, and it often makes
  unreasonable choices because it cannot see the big picture. For example,
  suppose you have a two minute long video consisting of two distinct
  halves.  The first half is a very high-motion scene lasting 60 seconds
  which, in isolation, requires about 2500kbps in order to look decent.
  Immediately following it is a much less demanding 60-second scene
  that looks good at 300kbps. Suppose you ask for 1400kbps on the theory

  will make a couple of "mistakes" in such a case. First of all, it
  will target 1400kbps in both segments. The first segment may end up
  heavily overquantized, causing it to look unacceptably and unreasonably
  blocky. The second segment will be heavily underquantized; it may look
  perfect, but the bitrate cost of that perfection will be completely
  unreasonable. What is even harder to avoid is the problem at the
  transition between the two scenes. The first seconds of the low motion
  half will be hugely over-quantized, because the ratecontrol is still
  expecting the kind of bitrate requirements it met in the first half
  of the video. This "error period" of heavily over-quantized low motion
  will look jarringly bad, and will actually use less than the 300kbps

  bitrate. Typically this would make high-motion scenes look completely
  awful, while low-motion scenes would probably look absolutely
  perfect, but would also use many times more bitrate than they
  would need in order to look merely excellent. At the other extreme,
  <option>qcomp=1</option> achieves nearly constant quantization parameter
  (QP). Constant QP does not look bad, but most people think it is more
  reasonable to shave some bitrate off of the extremely expensive scenes
  (where the loss of quality is not as noticeable) and reallocate it to
  the scenes that are easier to encode at excellent quality.
  <option>qcomp</option> is set to 0.6 by default, which may be slightly
  low for many peoples' taste (0.7-0.8 are also commonly used).
</para></listitem>
<listitem><para>