I believe it can handle MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 direct streamcopy editing, but will let you edit other formats as well since it just uses the system's codecs (but will need to re-encode). It will do DIRECT STREAM COPY editing which means no wasted time transcoding/re-encoding raw edits, saving a huge amount of time. To add to Brumby and Dave's excellent advice: I've been using Womble for years to prepare videos for my YouTube channel.
#Handbrake fast recompress archive#
I do not archive the rendered version, only the Handbrake version I upload. But most of my videos though get maybe a 5 fold decrease in file size by using Handbrake over what I render in. On the other hand, one of my outdoors video with tons of motion and tress and whatnot won't compress well at all, in which case I usually don't even bother with Handbrake, I just upload the rendered version. My screen capture videos for example compress down to ridiculously small files sizes, with no loss in quality. The final file size will depend upon how much moving content is in your videos. The standard constant quality factor on Handbrake is 21 or 22, and I use 19 which is really guilding the lilly, for no good reason than because I can. More than good enough for Youtube and almots any other platform. Handbrake is so good, even the standard quality factor, it's almost impossible to tell the difference from the original footage.
Even if you have the world's best video camera, and you render to 1TB of uncompressed raw video (some of my videos could be! ) and upload that to youtube, the playback quality will be no better than a version heavily compressed (that is 1/100th the files size) with Handbrake and uploaded. Quote from: EEVblog on February 15, 2016, 10:35:58 am Basically it comes down to the quality available on youtube.
0 kommentar(er)
