But keep in mind, it still looks noticeably worse than the source. In other words if I wanted to take that 22GB Blu-ray down to 1GB, x265 will look better than x264. I will say where x265 shines over x264 is at very low bitrates. I've read that it's because x264 has been around so long and encoders have been fine tuned to that algorithm, whereas there is still much to learn about how to properly encode x265 video. For instance, I'll take a Blu-ray rip that weighs in at 22GB or so and re-encode it down to 5GB or so, and 9 times out of 10 a x264 encoding will look slightly better. I'm not sure if it's exclusively a Handbrake issue or what, but most x.265 videos do not look better at comparable bitrates. But don't worry about that)įor the past year I've played around with Handbrake encoding and x265 just does not seem worth the hassle to me. (If it's had motion interpolation applied, it's a whole other ball-game. The real decider will be the resolution you're happy with. I keep meaning to publish the tools I use to fix my content at home)īecause of the way the lossy video encoders work, upconverted content normally doesn't take up much more space, as the duplicated frames don't have much difference from the previous ones. 29.97 content is normally upconverted from 23.976, unless it happened to be shot in 29.97 (live TV is one example). Generally speaking, if 23.976 is available, that will be the format it was produced in. If you get duplicate frames, you may want to remove them if you're re-encoding, or require at the correct speed. You can often look up the standard it was produced in as a good guide, but if you're not sure, enable Frame-by-frame in VLC, and step through the file. You want to have the content in the original framerate it was produced at, ideally with as few conversions in possible in between.

Mad men bluray x265 720p