NLMeans too slow in Handbrake?? Try this!
-
hisdivineshadow
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2024 3:41 am
NLMeans too slow in Handbrake?? Try this!
So, there are obviously titles that just have A LOT OF DETAIL that will make giant MKVs. When converting (compressing) in Handbrake, NLMeans is the gold-standard to knock 1/2 off the file-size (light-preset 'film' setting), but it is PAINFULLY slow (like 7fps on a powerful machine). So a converstion takes 5+ hours. IF the detail is there, then so be it, but what about early HD (tv shows in particular) that aren't really making the most of 1080 but still do offer a lot over SD? Try 1280*720 with the Lapsharp filter set to the Light-preset "Film" mode and honestly the perceptual detail will be easy as good as the original MKV, but about half the size and you still get to keep things like the wider HD color-space, switchable subtitles and audio passthrough.
Re: NLMeans too slow in Handbrake?? Try this!
NLMeans is a denoise filter in Handbrake. I almost never mess with that since I'm not opposed to film grain. Maybe I'm too old and/or my eyesight it too bad. 
When I think about getting to a smaller file size, a denoise filter does not come to mind. I find that transcoding a 1080p blu-ray rip, for example, with a two-pass, turbo first pass, x264, with the average bitrate set to 5000kbps produces reasonable results in a reasonable amount of time typically.
When I think about getting to a smaller file size, a denoise filter does not come to mind. I find that transcoding a 1080p blu-ray rip, for example, with a two-pass, turbo first pass, x264, with the average bitrate set to 5000kbps produces reasonable results in a reasonable amount of time typically.
Re: NLMeans too slow in Handbrake?? Try this!
Agree, denoise is a very effective way of reducing the output file size and output bitrate, no question. Noise is very bitrate expensive (as is high detail level). I've usually plugged on with NLMeans thus far and just left it running, keep the queue long.
For non-HD source content I can imagine 720p is probably adequate in most cases, but I guess it depends on the individual as to what the goal is and what balance between detail and bitrate is desired. And, potentially, how close you sit to your TV .. I don't even have a 4k set but 1080p at 40Mb is clearly superior to 1080p at 10Mb, particularly in high motion scenes (your average hollywood action blockbuster for example..!)
Other movies with a permanently high localised contrast (the ultra sharp look a la Superman vs Batman for example) and movies making use of modern ultra-sharp leneses and retaining deep depth of field (e.g. Avengers moves or in fact all-cgi content) also require a lot of bits to retain that detail.
For non-HD source content I can imagine 720p is probably adequate in most cases, but I guess it depends on the individual as to what the goal is and what balance between detail and bitrate is desired. And, potentially, how close you sit to your TV .. I don't even have a 4k set but 1080p at 40Mb is clearly superior to 1080p at 10Mb, particularly in high motion scenes (your average hollywood action blockbuster for example..!)
Other movies with a permanently high localised contrast (the ultra sharp look a la Superman vs Batman for example) and movies making use of modern ultra-sharp leneses and retaining deep depth of field (e.g. Avengers moves or in fact all-cgi content) also require a lot of bits to retain that detail.