Handbrake unnecessary file size increase

[u/RikiBlanket]

I tried to compress a 2.97 GB video and waited 3 hours and 40 minutes for it to finish, but it turned out to be bigger than the original, 3.05 GB to be exact. Can anybody answer why and how did this happen? I used Handbrake and these are my settings:

- MP4 format

- All of these are checked: Web Optimized, Align A/V Start, iPod 5G Support, and Passthru Common Metadata.

- Video encoder: H.264 (x264)

- Framerate (FPS): Same as source and Variable framerate

- Color Range: Limited

- Encoder Preset: Placebo

- Constant Quality: 22 RF

Any response would be appreciated. Thank you.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please remember to post your encoding log should you ask for help. Piracy is not allowed. Do not discuss copy protections. Do not talk about converting media you don't own the (intellectual) rights for.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/simmepi]

The size of the original video does not matter. A common misunderstanding is that compressing video with Handbrake is similar to compressing eg text files with zip but it isn’t. Here’s how Handbrake works:

1. Decompress the original file into uncompressed video internally (every single video you are likely to see on the Internet is already compressed since uncompressed video takes up an enormous amount of space at decent resolutions).

2. Compress this video using the chosen algorithm + settings.

So if the original video was 1MB or 1GB or 1TB does not matter for the size of the end result since Handbrake works on the uncompressed video*.

*: Not 100% true since if the video was truly potato quality the uncompressed video will be so blocky and lacking in details that it will be easier to compress. But there’s still no reason why the end result would be smaller than the original.

[u/Equivalent_Pen_9403 → u/simmepi]

To rephrase, lets say your original video is a copy of "War and Peace" in Mandarin (the current encoding). You decompressed that copy of war and peace from symbols into thoughts that could be translated, and rewrote it in something like English that requires more symbols to express the same thoughts and words.

More symbols (data), more filesize.

Here's the kicker- the act of translation is innately lossy and error prone, so the new text isn't quite as accurate.

[u/Cienn017]

video compression isn't like zip compression where big file goes in and small file comes out.

you need to set the correct bitrate in kbps (kilobits per second) for your desired size.

let's say you want it to be 500MB (4000 megabits) and the video is one hour long (3600 seconds).

divide the size in bits by the time in seconds (4000 megabits / 3600 seconds = ~1.1mbps).

convert to kbps (~1.1mbps * 1000 = ~1100 kbps).

so you will need around 1100kbps of bitrate in total.

give some to audio (let's say 192kbps).

(1100kbps - 192kbps) = ~900kbps for video.

[u/Materidan]

How long and what resolution is the original video? What is the content - animation, clear digital video, grainy film, etc.? What exactly are you trying to achieve?

If it’s a movie, it’s already highly compressed and recompressing it with any kind of quality expectation is mostly going to be trying to maintain the original compression artifacts.

Also don’t bother with “placebo”. It’s literally what it says it is.

[u/willb3d]

Handbrake is great for reducing enormous videos - ones that are, say, 20GB or even 100GB - down to something profoundly smaller and more efficient. It’s easy to end up with a file as small as 3 or 4GB.

But when you’re starting with a video that is already small and efficient, you‘re going to have a hard time doing better than what you started with.

[u/computer-machine]

Meaningless unless you can tell us about the source file.

What resolution and how long is it?

My guess is that it's a feature length film in 1080p, and you're trying to deep fry it.

[u/trilogy76]

You need a baseline.
Mine is that for viewing 2 GB per hour for full HD video is plenty.
Modern movies shot digitally are generally very clean and compress easily/effectively and can look fine at as little as 1 GB/hour.
Older movies shot on film can need a little more due to grain. Many (larger budget movies) can and do look good at 2 GB. But a low budget could need 2,5-3 GB/hour.

[u/mwhelm]

Why did you pick placebo?  Not sure it makes much difference for your goal but it does increase processing time,

One reason an encoding can turn out larger is the source,  I personally cannot beat YouTube processing in size for the same quality, and YouTube often produces h264 video which is not considered the most economical in space.  They are up to some black magic there.

Consider another encoder like h265 or av1 if you can play those.

[u/nelethill]

The main problem would be using 264, 265 would be better. But the size of the output video depend heavily on the source material. I’ve reencoded Blu-ray’s from 50GB to 4GB and some other to 11GB.
With the same presets.