[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by huhn

i used your shared encode settings and here are the files:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z20...ew?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tfy...ew?usp=sharing


on a first look 444 is doing fantastic better then i would have expected from the source.

the encode was done from the original ultrafast compressed lossless x264 source not the shared one the FFMPEG or x265 couldn't deal with it.

the 4:2:0 encode had --pool the 4:4:4 not i just copied the settings form you didn't notice before i even started encoding.

4:2:0: encoded 2322 frames in 620.47s (3.74 fps), 5152.00 kb/s, Avg QP:35.55
4:4:4: encoded 2322 frames in 837.02s (2.77 fps), 5152.05 kb/s, Avg QP:35.47

bilinear chroma 4:2:0: https://abload.de/img/420dota2k1ktm.png
4:4:4: https://abload.de/img/444dota2lkkf7.png
source: https://abload.de/img/lldota282j4c.png

The differences between the 444 and 420 versions are a lot smaller than each has from the source.

I wonder if content that could benefit from 444 needs to have the chroma-qp deltas reduced to increase bits spent on chroma. The automatic +6 qp in 444 could be quite material.

Of course, then the comparison is about whether there are cases where it's worth it to reduce luma bitrate to increase chroma bitrate.