On 02/20/2010 01:36 PM, Phil Ehrens wrote:
<snip snip>
Note: I have confirmed with Dark_Shikari on #x264 that 2-pass is fully
functional at this time. The goals between CRF and 2-pass are
different. CRF allows you to specify an average quality setting for
your file regardless of the resulting size. 2-pass is more so used when
you want to keep the resulting file at a designated approximate size.
There is a potential for misunderstanding when the difference
is stated that way... The file size required to get the same
"quality" with CRF could be three times the size of the 2-pass
file. And by "quality" I mean subjective viewing quality, not
PSNR, so I am not talking about what they talk about in #x264.
CRF is very interesting, and it certainly has the potential to
be a wonderful thing, but I think it's being oversold right now.
Yes, I also meant subjective viewing quality (as that was how I
understood it to be conveyed to me). And I completely agree that the
CRF is being oversold too. I am continuing to do the 2-pass method.
Now, I've even read about there being a 3-pass method, but it seems
somewhat more complicated. Do you know anything about 3-pass mode with
x264 as the encoding backend?
I will not discuss this further. This subject can only
go in the direction of a holy war, and I'm not a Christian
or a Moslem.
Ah, you're WORSE! You're a HEATHEN NON-BELIEVER and must be put to
/dev/null!!!!
Just kidding :-) You won't be starting a flame war with me about this,
especially since we seem to be at least in somewhat agreement. :-)
-Mishehu
