alternatives to handbrake

[Jim Stamos]

i usually use this program to compress my mp4s for vimeo but it keeps hanging up on me. any other good ones that keep the quality but compress well?

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Jim Stamos

i usually use this program to compress my mp4s for vimeo but it keeps hanging up on me. any other good ones that keep the quality but compress well?

Why do you want to re-compress? I get that you want a smaller video for uploading. Then why not just produce another MP4 version at a lower bitrate for Vimeo using your original clips and your original editor? It might take more time but that will produce a higher quality video and you do not need the hassle of another program.

[Jim Stamos]

I already made an H 264 of it it was an hour long hi-def project I got it down to 6 GB handbreak would get it down to about nine hundred megabytesbut the quality is pristine.
If I reconvert the H 264 file I made again the quality will not look nearly as good

[Roger Gunkel]

To back up what Mark said, you shouldn't need to convert the H264 that you have already made. Just go to your original edited project file and export it to a lower bitrate MP4 at the same bitrate that you would get from Handbrake. That way you are not rerendering a copy.

Roger

[Seth Bloombaum]

Handbrake is state of the art in every respect, including, the best codec available for h.264, the x264 codec.

One shouldn’t blithely assume all compression codecs are created equal - they’re not. The meaningful measure is quality at a given bitrate. There are university studies. x264 wins! In some cases, by a mile, as the OP stated. I write all this with some authority, having started in webcasting in the dark ages of the 1990s, and, as an instructor who currently teaches a college course in compression and streaming. Handbrake is a primary tool, including not only best-practices x264, but also Lanczos scaling, and Yadif deinterlacing, with a not-bad batch processor.

For most NLE users, creating the slimmest and best render does indeed mean a two-step process, export in some mastering format from the NLE (DNxHD? Cineform?), then compress for distribution in Handbrake. Of course, creating the slimmest and best render isn’t always the task, as what an NLE creates natively can be good for many purposes, but not all!

To the original poster - have you updated to the latest version of Handbrake? That’s the first thing you could look at. Have you recently installed software that includes codecs, or, a codec pack? A re-install of Handbrake might fix that.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Thank you for your credentials and for your mini-lecture. But, did you read the original post? The OP says he already made an *MP4* (H264) file - he produced a delivery-codec video. Recompressing that MP4 video is not a good idea, no matter how good Handbrake is. And, no, the workflow you describe is not what all professionals follow. It makes no sense with today's modern NLE's and fast computers (have you tried Resolve Studio, for example?). We are no longer in the "dark ages."

The best advice: create with the same NLE another MP4 at a lower bitrate for YouTube using the original clips. Simple.

Actually, you know what is even simpler - just upload the MP4 file you already have. Unless you pay by internet time used, this will produce the best result on YouTube and is even less of a hassle. The higher the quality of the uploaded video, the higher will be the quality of the YouTube version.

[Seth Bloombaum]

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

Thank you for your credentials and for your mini-lecture.

Mini-lecture - guilty as charged!

But, did you read the original post? The OP says he already made an *MP4* (H264) file - he produced a delivery-codec video.

That’s not what I got out of the first post. In the following post, he explains that he has gotten better quality using Handbrake at .9GB than at 6GB out of his NLE. Other contributors seem to assume he’s wrong about that. He’s not.

The OP asked how to do quality equivalent to Handbrake, and got “you’re doing it wrong” in response. It didn’t seem very respectful to me, perhaps that is why I resorted to credentials and details to try to open some acceptance of alternative workflows.

He’s using a reasonable workflow if the focus is on quality at lowest bitrates. There are lots of reasons to create low-bitrate video, and Handbrake is about the best at this task. For some people, low-bitrate is key to maximum compatibility of video with various mobile devices. For others, low internet upload speeds means that if they can get good quality at low bitrates the Vimeo uploads can get done without the headache of waiting hours to see if the upload broke.

Recompressing that MP4 video is not a good idea, no matter how good Handbrake is.

I don’t see where the OP says he’s recompressing MP4 video, but presumably he’s coming out of his NLE with some codec for his export. The quality approach for going to Handbrake would be an intermediate or mastering codec, such as DNxHD, Cineform, or, if on Mac, ProRes422. However, a high-bitrate MP4 can be very good, depending on content.

the workflow you describe is not what all professionals follow. It makes no sense with today's modern NLE's and fast computers (have you tried Resolve Studio, for example?). We are no longer in the "dark ages."

Some people are living in the dark ages of internet access bandwidth. There’s a huge rural/urban split in the availability of broadband. Some are editing on laptops and using shared bandwidth at libraries and coffeshops.

The best advice: create with the same NLE another MP4 at a lower bitrate for YouTube using the original clips. Simple... The higher the quality of the uploaded video, the higher will be the quality of the YouTube version.

I agree. That’s usually good advice. Get the highest quality MP4 straight out of your NLE that you can afford the time to upload.

But, sometimes, that isn’t good enough quality. That’s where Handbrake can help, by producing excellent quality at lower bitrates.

[Cary Knoop]

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

Recompressing that MP4 video is not a good idea, no matter how good Handbrake is.

Why not? Since you refer to pros, well pros do that all the time, they render to an intermediate codec and encode H.264 outside an NLE.

H.264 is not inherently worse than other codecs, the quality depends on the bitrate and some other options.

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

The higher the quality of the uploaded video, the higher will be the quality of the YouTube version.

That's not true, above a certain bitrate it does not matter anymore since YouTube re-encodes the uploaded video.

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

It makes no sense with today's modern NLE's and fast computers (have you tried Resolve Studio, for example?). We are no longer in the "dark ages."

Resolve's H.264 is certainly not among the best implementations. x264 is far superior.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Seth Bloombaum

Mini-lecture - guilty as charged!

That’s not what I got out of the first post. In the following post, he explains that he has gotten better quality using Handbrake at .9GB than at 6GB out of his NLE. Other contributors seem to assume he’s wrong about that. He’s not.

The OP asked how to do quality equivalent to Handbrake, and got “you’re doing it wrong” in response. It didn’t seem very respectful to me, perhaps that is why I resorted to credentials and details to try to open some acceptance of alternative workflows.

He’s using a reasonable workflow if the focus is on quality at lowest bitrates. There are lots of reasons to create low-bitrate video, and Handbrake is about the best at this task. For some people, low-bitrate is key to maximum compatibility of video with various mobile devices. For others, low internet upload speeds means that if they can get good quality at low bitrates the Vimeo uploads can get done without the headache of waiting hours to see if the upload broke.

I don’t see where the OP says he’s recompressing MP4 video, but presumably he’s coming out of his NLE with some codec for his export. The quality approach for going to Handbrake would be an intermediate or mastering codec, such as DNxHD, Cineform, or, if on Mac, ProRes422. However, a high-bitrate MP4 can be very good, depending on content.

Some people are living in the dark ages of internet access bandwidth. There’s a huge rural/urban split in the availability of broadband. Some are editing on laptops and using shared bandwidth at libraries and coffeshops.

I agree. That’s usually good advice. Get the highest quality MP4 straight out of your NLE that you can afford the time to upload.

But, sometimes, that isn’t good enough quality. That’s where Handbrake can help, by producing excellent quality at lower bitrates.

He posted twice, so you must have missed the other post (which is understandable). In the other thread he said he had made an MP4 video and wanted to make a lower bitrate version of that. No matter how good Handbrake is, re-compressing that MP4 video will not make the video higher quality, even if it produces the best possible outcome compared to any other software program. It is not disrespectful to say that someone is doing something wrong (although it is possible that assertion is wrong); both responders before you (who had read both of the guy's posts) suggested the same thing, and at least one of them is a very experienced professional videographer who also happens to always be on the cutting edge of technology (I am not talking about me).

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Cary Knoop

Since you refer to pros, well pros do that all the time, they render to an intermediate codec and encode H.264 outside an NLE.

I don't, I skip the middle step and render from the originated material straight to H.264. It's a waste of time to deal with intermediates.

However, that's not the issue. The OP was referring to transcoding H.264 back into a smaller H.264 for some reason. That is generation loss, and one shouldn't do that at all unless it absolutely 100% has to be done and there's no other option.

[Jim Stamos]

Updated handbrake
All good.
An hour program in edius will be big even if I lower nitrate
I can't get it under a gb.
But if I take it to handbrake it does.
And yes for me in handbrake,that process keeps the quality looking great.
The h264 was just under 7gb.in edius.
Handbrake got it to 800mb.
It looks great

[Noa Put]

A alternative for not leaving edius while you encode is the avc plugin from tmpgenc, this is also uses x264 codec and has a lot more options then the standard edius encoder.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Jim Stamos

The h264 was just under 7gb.in edius.
Handbrake got it to 800mb.
It looks great

While others might not agree, I don't see anything wrong with your current workflow when you work with edius, edius own h264 implementation for export is great for higher bitrate encodes but not for low bitrate ones as the image more easily falls apart. That's why I suggested the excellent avc plugin which gives similar results as handbrake but without having to leave edius.
Before I used this plugin I also first rendered out a 25mb mp4 file out of edius and then used that file in handbrake to make a much lower bitrate hd file with excellent results.

[Gary Huff]

Does Edius do 2-pass VBR? That seems to be the difference between good quality high bitrate and good quality low bitrate.

[Cary Knoop]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Does Edius do 2-pass VBR? That seems to be the difference between good quality high bitrate and good quality low bitrate.

A two-pass encoding does not increase the quality of the encoding, it only makes sense to use if you require a video of a given size.