Same file size 1080p or 720p? What will produce more detail?

[kinster]

Has anyone experimented with the same final file size and seen what a 1080p and a 720p produces as far as fine detail in the resulting video?

If so, what were the results?

Thanks in advance to anyone that has done this experiment themselves. It will save me hours of encoding time to find out myself.

[Groucho2004]

Originally Posted by kinster

Has anyone experimented with the same final file size and seen what a 1080p and a 720p produces as far as fine detail in the resulting video?

If so, what were the results?

Thanks in advance to anyone that has done this experiment themselves. It will save me hours of encoding time to find out myself.

I mostly downscale my BD copies to 720p and give them a bit more bitrate since there are very few movies that have that kind of resolution (such as some Pixar animated films -> Wall-E for example).

Here's a little Avisynth snippet which you can use to compare 1080/720:

#Test resolution loss for 1080 -> 720
a = last
Spline36Resize(1280, 720).Spline36Resize(1920, 1080)
Interleave(a, last)

[kinster]

How about something like The Tree of Life or Avatar? 1080p or 720p?

And thanks for that snippet. I'll have to read up on using Avisynth.

[Groucho2004]

Originally Posted by kinster

How about something like The Tree of Life or Avatar? 1080p or 720p?

I kept Avatar at 1080p. Fits nicely on a BD25 without too much compression. Also, I converted the DTS to 640 Kbps AC-3.
Don't know The Tree Of Life.

[kinster]

How about with enough compression to drop the file size down to around the 4 GB range?

[Sparktank]

Originally Posted by kinster

4 GB range

For Avatar?
Maybe if you resize to 360p for a mobile device.
The theatrical cut, that is. NVM the extended edition.

Just thinking about creating a DVD for portable's sake is too much to think about with DVD-9.
Even going to 704 anamorphic on 2 or 3 DVD-9's is asking a lot.

[kinster]

Was that post really necessary? Just because you view things differently than I do does not mean you need to look down your nose at what I am trying to accomplish.

[the_weirdo]

I'm not a native English speaker so I don't know if his response is offensive. But 4GB for Avatar is too much of bitrate-starving, especially if you think about keeping 1080p resolution. Don't know what you're trying to accomplish, though. If you want your encode look pretty... bad then you just go for that size.

[kinster]

Please, please stop. If your not here to answer my question and nothing more, then please move along.

Thank you in advance.

[Sparktank]

Originally Posted by kinster

Please, please stop.

We could say the same about your attitude.

No one was looking down their noses at you.
That's just your negative attitude.

Sorry you perceive things that way.

But, so far, I'm not disagreeing with what anyone has said.
Except for you.

So why don't lose the 'tude and try make yourself more clear and open to others.

[Sparktank]

Originally Posted by kinster

Thank you in advance.

And you're welcome.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by Sparktank

For Avatar?
Maybe if you resize to 360p for a mobile device.
The theatrical cut, that is. NVM the extended edition.

Just thinking about creating a DVD for portable's sake is too much to think about with DVD-9.
Even going to 704 anamorphic on 2 or 3 DVD-9's is asking a lot.

Avatar Extended edition with 192 Kbps audio on a DVD-5 would give an ABR around 3600. For a good 2-pass VBR, that could well be feasible for 1920x816p24 as a file (without Blu-ray encoding restrictions). Certainly going lower than 1280x528 would be a net loss in detail.

DVD-9 would definitely make 1080p a better experience than 720p.

360p, maybe if you were doing a CD-ROM .

[vivan]

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

Avatar Extended edition with 192 Kbps audio on a DVD-5 would give an ABR around 3600. For a good 2-pass VBR, that could well be feasible for 1920x816p24 as a file (without Blu-ray encoding restrictions). Certainly going lower than 1280x528 would be a net loss in detail.

Avatar is 16:9, and ~3600 bitrate for it will be around crf 26... That's way too bitstarved and it's better to switch to at least 720p.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by vivan

Avatar is 16:9, and ~3600 bitrate for it will be around crf 26... That's way too bitstarved and it's better to switch to at least 720p.

I believe it was 2.35:1 for the theatrical version and 16:9 for IMAX. I'm not sure which we're talking about here.

Avatar has very low noise which will let it get away with less bbp than other titles. That ABR is on the threshold where I'd want to see it both ways to know which would be better overall. There's also intermediate options like 1440x anamorphic.

My major point was that 1080p wasn't obviously crazy too high. It might well not be the optimal frame size for that content and that file size, but 1080p certainly would be better than 360p or even 480p.

[Skankee]

This x264 PSNR-Test could be useful:

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...4&postcount=44

[Groucho2004]

Originally Posted by kinster

Are all you people mentally handicapped?

Mods, please stop this troll from posting any more garbage.

[foxyshadis]

I'm restoring the posts and closing the thread. While the topic is interesting, and some people revel a challenge, it's best not to have it derailed by thin skins and naysayers.

This might be a good general topic for a new thread, though: How to find a good tradeoff with a low bitrate? A lot of the previous discussions centered on BPP and why it sucks or how to better estimate it, or using full compressibility checks, but someone might have a good idea on how to measure and optimize detail loss. Anyone feel like a contest?