Handbrake av1 how to#

Activity Log Activity Logs help you receive better support.Community support Get help from real people.Troubleshooting common issues What to do if something goes wrong.

Using the queue Set up multiple encode jobs at once.Starting encoding Start encoding your new video with one click.Previewing your settings See what your new video will look like in a fraction of the time.Adjusting quality Easily increase visual quality or reduce file size.Selecting a preset Tailored settings for instant compatibility with many devices.

Handbrake av1 how to#

Opening a video source How to get your videos into HandBrake.

Checking for updates Staying up to date with the latest features and bug fixes.

Downloading and installing HandBrake How to get HandBrake onto your computer.

Where to get HandBrake The officially supported version.

About HandBrake What HandBrake is, does, and does not.

Quick start Learn how to make your first video in minutes.

And in the time that it would take to extract the required information from a user and do the necessary testing for them, they could've found the answer themselves by rolling up their sleeves and just trying things out. Which isn't what a lot of users want to hear, but with such a complex topic there are no simple answers. So as always, the only really useful advice is to just try things for yourself. So this would be quite a lot of work for something that at the end of the day isn't even that accurate, because the content being encoded also significantly affects the efficiency differences. And things can also change over time as encoders are being developed, with preset re-tunings, efficiency improvements, etc. So between multiple encoders, that's a lot of benchmarking to get any useful data. However, the issue is that this comparative efficiency varies based on content, profile, tune, scenecut settings, rate control method, bitrate, quality level, resolution, number of threads and probably a bunch of other things as well. This would allow users to make an informed decision much easier, Like when selecting a preset, its description/hover text says that it's 10% less efficient than the medium preset, for example.

I think what would be useful is having a description of the comparative efficiency of presets as part of the preset selection. Not that I disagree with 'placebo' being a better name for the preset in question, but it's an inconsistency nonetheless. And the x264-style preset naming isn't even fully consistent with its own naming scheme, since the fastest preset is named 'ultrafast', but the slowest preset is named 'placebo' instead of 'superslow' or 'ultraslow'. Numbers are pretty universal, require no translation, and the rule of 'bigger number mean faster encoding speed but less compression efficiency' is easy to explain and remember, as opposed to trying to remember the order of a list of English words (defeating the purpose of having a translation in the first place) and which word describes a faster speed than the other. Which makes sense, because they exist on the encoder side and furthermore are written/presented as proper nouns ('veryfast') instead of adverb+adjective ('very fast'), which isn't something you'd really want to mess with when translating. I think the final nail in the coffin in terms of user-friendliness is that the x264/x265 preset names are in English, and from what I can see, they're not translated in HandBrake. Well, for this level of user, the preset provides the stupid answer for them: 'Gee, I wanna encode ultra fast!' And they select the fastest preset possible instead of testing which preset has the best speed-efficiency trade-off for their use case. Just think how many people ask stupid questions like what preset should they use and end up getting stupid answers. And for that, describing something as 'fast' or 'slow' is not very useful and can mislead casual users. They're used to select a compute time / compression efficiency trade-off. Not only that, but for the same person but a different piece of hardware, the exact same preset can result in an encoding speed that's an order of magnitude different from the previous hardware, making the descriptor even more useless.Īnd that's really the crux of the issue unlike what the x264-assigned preset names would lead you believe, presets aren't used to select an encoding speed. One person's view of what constitutes a very fast, very slow, or medium encoding speed isn't the same as the next person's. The x264-derived preset names aren't very useful because what they describe is entirely subjective. It was only recently that I actually started thinking about it and concluded that numbers are actually the way to go.

I also though for a long time that using words for preset names was clearer than numbers, probably because I had used x264 and x265 for a long time.