Wired Pig

I have to say that at 96, the movies look good. I agree its not DVD quality, but it looks better than VHS - IMHO.

__________________
Be safe,

Glenn -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

'Bacon!!! I smell bacon!!!'
If you cant make fun of your own profession, who can?

poppajon

what do most of you encode at? i've bene doing at 128 just like the guide says, and i'm pretty happy with the quality and movie size.

poppaj

Talyn

Wired Pig (love that nick, btw)
This is not a flame, but I gotta say I was intrigued when I read you were encoding video at 96kbps. I just tried one myself and... sorry, but it's horrible. It's certainly legible, but nowhere even close to VHS. Pixel artifacts and macro blocks galore! If you like it, by all means more power to you - it certainly produces small files.

AstoundedEEG
No worries, mate :) just trying to pass along that there are a few more things you can do now than is described in those guides. I'm trying to get with fibrizio about making a new one with more info for people to choose from but he hasn't been on in some time.

Talyn

Quote:

Originally posted by poppajon what do most of you encode at? i've bene doing at 128 just like the guide says, and i'm pretty happy with the quality and movie size.

After a few hundred encodes, I've pretty much decided that for myself, I don't care too much for anything less than 160. Typically if I'm doing a DVD rip, I'm using 224, 230, or 288. I've done some trailers at 304 - looks fantastic, though I really have to look at it carefully and get real picky to tell it from 288 - but I wouldn't do a full DVD at that bitrate, simply because of the filesize involved. If I had a 1GB+ card, I'd think about it, but I've been quite pleased with the mid-200's at ~24fps fullscreen landscape.