<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: is 2 pass encoding really worth it?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/</link>
	<description>A blog about nothing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:14:03 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: wardy</title>
		<link>http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-273908</link>
		<dc:creator>wardy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 03:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-273908</guid>
		<description>I think 2-pass mode gives always - or almost always - the best quality for your output files. In some cases, you won´t get the desired good quality due to a bad conversor. So if you want it better use a better software. And finally, don´t forget to set the appropiate adjustments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think 2-pass mode gives always &#8211; or almost always &#8211; the best quality for your output files. In some cases, you won´t get the desired good quality due to a bad conversor. So if you want it better use a better software. And finally, don´t forget to set the appropiate adjustments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: YPI</title>
		<link>http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-204140</link>
		<dc:creator>YPI</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:26:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-204140</guid>
		<description>Great explanation microchip. I always knew  pass-2 is better, but din&#039;t know why.
Thx!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great explanation microchip. I always knew  pass-2 is better, but din&#8217;t know why.<br />
Thx!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-137876</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 08:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-137876</guid>
		<description>Whenever i encode a DVD with the H.246 codec in 2pass, i set the maximum file size to 800 MB with aac-Audio to 128kbit in stereo. Videosize without downsize. The H.264 codec is really great and the results breathtaking, but encoding takes really, really long.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whenever i encode a DVD with the H.246 codec in 2pass, i set the maximum file size to 800 MB with aac-Audio to 128kbit in stereo. Videosize without downsize. The H.264 codec is really great and the results breathtaking, but encoding takes really, really long.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rip a DVD in Ubuntu easily with DVD::Rip at David&#8217;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-67754</link>
		<dc:creator>Rip a DVD in Ubuntu easily with DVD::Rip at David&#8217;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-67754</guid>
		<description>[...] Matusiak Blog [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Matusiak Blog [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: giovanni</title>
		<link>http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-44415</link>
		<dc:creator>giovanni</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-44415</guid>
		<description>Thanks microchip! Very useful explanation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks microchip! Very useful explanation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: microchip</title>
		<link>http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-37466</link>
		<dc:creator>microchip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-37466</guid>
		<description>ahhhh the never ending discussion about which encoding mode gives the best possible quality when encoding. Well, you have 1-pass, 2-pass, 3-pass (in x264) and fixed-quant modes. If you do not care that much about file size then the best mode will be in constant quality (fixed-quant). However if you do care about a file size but still want to obtain good to excellent quality, then 2-pass or 3-pass is the option for you. 

you said you cannot see the difference between a 1-pass and a 2-pass mode. You may not see it but it&#039;s there. Do a small test, for example encode only 1 chapter of a DVD in 1-pass mode and then do exactly the same but this time use 2-pass. For both tests enable the PSNR option (or for x264 also the SSIM one) and you&#039;ll definitely see the difference between 1- and 2-pass (make sure to use exactly the same options in both tests). Maybe your eyes are not so tuned to spot differences in quality that easy or maybe you have a &quot;bad&quot; monitor, i don&#039;t know, but a 2-pass encoding at a (very) low bitrate will definitely beat 1-pass mode. This comes from the fact that the encoder is &quot;dumb&quot; when used in 1-pass mode and cannot predict the complexity and motion of a future frame, which eventually leads to blocking and other weird effects, unless you give it a bitrate high enough to eliminate these issues, but then you&#039;ll be wasting bits. Not so when using 2-pass mode since the first pass will be used to store information of every frame to a log file and then when the second pass starts, the encoder will read the log file with the frame/motion/complexity information for each frame and base its decision how much bitrate to allocate for each frame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ahhhh the never ending discussion about which encoding mode gives the best possible quality when encoding. Well, you have 1-pass, 2-pass, 3-pass (in x264) and fixed-quant modes. If you do not care that much about file size then the best mode will be in constant quality (fixed-quant). However if you do care about a file size but still want to obtain good to excellent quality, then 2-pass or 3-pass is the option for you. </p>
<p>you said you cannot see the difference between a 1-pass and a 2-pass mode. You may not see it but it&#8217;s there. Do a small test, for example encode only 1 chapter of a DVD in 1-pass mode and then do exactly the same but this time use 2-pass. For both tests enable the PSNR option (or for x264 also the SSIM one) and you&#8217;ll definitely see the difference between 1- and 2-pass (make sure to use exactly the same options in both tests). Maybe your eyes are not so tuned to spot differences in quality that easy or maybe you have a &#8220;bad&#8221; monitor, i don&#8217;t know, but a 2-pass encoding at a (very) low bitrate will definitely beat 1-pass mode. This comes from the fact that the encoder is &#8220;dumb&#8221; when used in 1-pass mode and cannot predict the complexity and motion of a future frame, which eventually leads to blocking and other weird effects, unless you give it a bitrate high enough to eliminate these issues, but then you&#8217;ll be wasting bits. Not so when using 2-pass mode since the first pass will be used to store information of every frame to a log file and then when the second pass starts, the encoder will read the log file with the frame/motion/complexity information for each frame and base its decision how much bitrate to allocate for each frame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: undvd: dvd ripping made easy ~ numerodix blog</title>
		<link>http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-36860</link>
		<dc:creator>undvd: dvd ripping made easy ~ numerodix blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:17:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.matusiak.eu/numerodix/blog/index.php/2007/01/27/is-2-pass-encoding-really-worth-it/#comment-36860</guid>
		<description>[...] is 2 pass encoding really worth it? Matusiak in Serie A!! [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is 2 pass encoding really worth it? Matusiak in Serie A!! [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

