I put the Who? in Mishehu wrote: > > 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?
The historical meaning of 3-pass referred to encoding audio separately. But you can also do 3 or more passes of video encoding with progressively refined logs. I experimented with this once and found that it was pointless... One pre-pass is sufficient to get the necessary data for an excellent encode. x264 may have some novel option that has nothing to do with these traditional definitions, but I would be skeptical of any claims made by developers about their own product. For the benefit of those here who don't know, the first pass in a two-pass encode collects data about the complexity of the various "scenes" in a video, and then balances the allocation of bits over time optimally. The benefits of 2-pass are, in a general sense, inversely proportional to the average bitrate chosen, but two-pass will ALWAYS produce better quality high-action scenes than ANY other method - For reasons that should be self-evident.
