i usually use this program to compress my mp4s for vimeo but it keeps hanging up on me. any other good ones that keep the quality but compress well?

i usually use this program to compress my mp4s for vimeo but it keeps hanging up on me. any other good ones that keep the quality but compress well?

Why do you want to re-compress? I get that you want a smaller video for uploading. Then why not just produce another MP4 version at a lower bitrate for Vimeo using your original clips and your original editor? It might take more time but that will produce a higher quality video and you do not need the hassle of another program.

I already made an H 264 of it it was an hour long hi-def project I got it down to 6 GB handbreak would get it down to about nine hundred megabytesbut the quality is pristine.
If I reconvert the H 264 file I made again the quality will not look nearly as good

To back up what Mark said, you shouldn't need to convert the H264 that you have already made. Just go to your original edited project file and export it to a lower bitrate MP4 at the same bitrate that you would get from Handbrake. That way you are not rerendering a copy.

Roger

Handbrake is state of the art in every respect, including, the best codec available for h.264, the x264 codec.

One shouldn’t blithely assume all compression codecs are created equal - they’re not. The meaningful measure is quality at a given bitrate. There are university studies. x264 wins! In some cases, by a mile, as the OP stated. I write all this with some authority, having started in webcasting in the dark ages of the 1990s, and, as an instructor who currently teaches a college course in compression and streaming. Handbrake is a primary tool, including not only best-practices x264, but also Lanczos scaling, and Yadif deinterlacing, with a not-bad batch processor.

For most NLE users, creating the slimmest and best render does indeed mean a two-step process, export in some mastering format from the NLE (DNxHD? Cineform?), then compress for distribution in Handbrake. Of course, creating the slimmest and best render isn’t always the task, as what an NLE creates natively can be good for many purposes, but not all!

To the original poster - have you updated to the latest version of Handbrake? That’s the first thing you could look at. Have you recently installed software that includes codecs, or, a codec pack? A re-install of Handbrake might fix that.

Thank you for your credentials and for your mini-lecture. But, did you read the original post? The OP says he already made an *MP4* (H264) file - he produced a delivery-codec video. Recompressing that MP4 video is not a good idea, no matter how good Handbrake is. And, no, the workflow you describe is not what all professionals follow. It makes no sense with today's modern NLE's and fast computers (have you tried Resolve Studio, for example?). We are no longer in the "dark ages."

The best advice: create with the same NLE another MP4 at a lower bitrate for YouTube using the original clips. Simple.

Actually, you know what is even simpler - just upload the MP4 file you already have. Unless you pay by internet time used, this will produce the best result on YouTube and is even less of a hassle. The higher the quality of the uploaded video, the higher will be the quality of the YouTube version.

Thank you for your credentials and for your mini-lecture.
Mini-lecture - guilty as charged!
But, did you read the original post? The OP says he already made an *MP4* (H264) file - he produced a delivery-codec video.
That’s not what I got out of the first post. In the following post, he explains that he has gotten better quality using Handbrake at .9GB than at 6GB out of his NLE. Other contributors seem to assume he’s wrong about that. He’s not.

The OP asked how to do quality equivalent to Handbrake, and got “you’re doing it wrong” in response. It didn’t seem very respectful to me, perhaps that is why I resorted to credentials and details to try to open some acceptance of alternative workflows.

He’s using a reasonable workflow if the focus is on quality at lowest bitrates. There are lots of reasons to create low-bitrate video, and Handbrake is about the best at this task. For some people, low-bitrate is key to maximum compatibility of video with various mobile devices. For others, low internet upload speeds means that if they can get good quality at low bitrates the Vimeo uploads can get done without the headache of waiting hours to see if the upload broke.
Recompressing that MP4 video is not a good idea, no matter how good Handbrake is.
I don’t see where the OP says he’s recompressing MP4 video, but presumably he’s coming out of his NLE with some codec for his export. The quality approach for going to Handbrake would be an intermediate or mastering codec, such as DNxHD, Cineform, or, if on Mac, ProRes422. However, a high-bitrate MP4 can be very good, depending on content.
the workflow you describe is not what all professionals follow. It makes no sense with today's modern NLE's and fast computers (have you tried Resolve Studio, for example?). We are no longer in the "dark ages."
Some people are living in the dark ages of internet access bandwidth. There’s a huge rural/urban split in the availability of broadband. Some are editing on laptops and using shared bandwidth at libraries and coffeshops.
The best advice: create with the same NLE another MP4 at a lower bitrate for YouTube using the original clips. Simple... The higher the quality of the uploaded video, the higher will be the quality of the YouTube version.
I agree. That’s usually good advice. Get the highest quality MP4 straight out of your NLE that you can afford the time to upload.

But, sometimes, that isn’t good enough quality. That’s where Handbrake can help, by producing excellent quality at lower bitrates.

Recompressing that MP4 video is not a good idea, no matter how good Handbrake is.
Why not? Since you refer to pros, well pros do that all the time, they render to an intermediate codec and encode H.264 outside an NLE.

H.264 is not inherently worse than other codecs, the quality depends on the bitrate and some other options.

The higher the quality of the uploaded video, the higher will be the quality of the YouTube version.
That's not true, above a certain bitrate it does not matter anymore since YouTube re-encodes the uploaded video.

It makes no sense with today's modern NLE's and fast computers (have you tried Resolve Studio, for example?). We are no longer in the "dark ages."

Resolve's H.264 is certainly not among the best implementations. x264 is far superior.

Mini-lecture - guilty as charged!

That’s not what I got out of the first post. In the following post, he explains that he has gotten better quality using Handbrake at .9GB than at 6GB out of his NLE. Other contributors seem to assume he’s wrong about that. He’s not.

The OP asked how to do quality equivalent to Handbrake, and got “you’re doing it wrong” in response. It didn’t seem very respectful to me, perhaps that is why I resorted to credentials and details to try to open some acceptance of alternative workflows.

He’s using a reasonable workflow if the focus is on quality at lowest bitrates. There are lots of reasons to create low-bitrate video, and Handbrake is about the best at this task. For some people, low-bitrate is key to maximum compatibility of video with various mobile devices. For others, low internet upload speeds means that if they can get good quality at low bitrates the Vimeo uploads can get done without the headache of waiting hours to see if the upload broke.

I don’t see where the OP says he’s recompressing MP4 video, but presumably he’s coming out of his NLE with some codec for his export. The quality approach for going to Handbrake would be an intermediate or mastering codec, such as DNxHD, Cineform, or, if on Mac, ProRes422. However, a high-bitrate MP4 can be very good, depending on content.

Some people are living in the dark ages of internet access bandwidth. There’s a huge rural/urban split in the availability of broadband. Some are editing on laptops and using shared bandwidth at libraries and coffeshops.

I agree. That’s usually good advice. Get the highest quality MP4 straight out of your NLE that you can afford the time to upload.

But, sometimes, that isn’t good enough quality. That’s where Handbrake can help, by producing excellent quality at lower bitrates.

He posted twice, so you must have missed the other post (which is understandable). In the other thread he said he had made an MP4 video and wanted to make a lower bitrate version of that. No matter how good Handbrake is, re-compressing that MP4 video will not make the video higher quality, even if it produces the best possible outcome compared to any other software program. It is not disrespectful to say that someone is doing something wrong (although it is possible that assertion is wrong); both responders before you (who had read both of the guy's posts) suggested the same thing, and at least one of them is a very experienced professional videographer who also happens to always be on the cutting edge of technology (I am not talking about me).

Since you refer to pros, well pros do that all the time, they render to an intermediate codec and encode H.264 outside an NLE.

I don't, I skip the middle step and render from the originated material straight to H.264. It's a waste of time to deal with intermediates.

However, that's not the issue. The OP was referring to transcoding H.264 back into a smaller H.264 for some reason. That is generation loss, and one shouldn't do that at all unless it absolutely 100% has to be done and there's no other option.

Updated handbrake
All good.
An hour program in edius will be big even if I lower nitrate
I can't get it under a gb.
But if I take it to handbrake it does.
And yes for me in handbrake,that process keeps the quality looking great.
The h264 was just under 7gb.in edius.
Handbrake got it to 800mb.
It looks great

A alternative for not leaving edius while you encode is the avc plugin from tmpgenc, this is also uses x264 codec and has a lot more options then the standard edius encoder.

The h264 was just under 7gb.in edius.
Handbrake got it to 800mb.
It looks great

While others might not agree, I don't see anything wrong with your current workflow when you work with edius, edius own h264 implementation for export is great for higher bitrate encodes but not for low bitrate ones as the image more easily falls apart. That's why I suggested the excellent avc plugin which gives similar results as handbrake but without having to leave edius.
Before I used this plugin I also first rendered out a 25mb mp4 file out of edius and then used that file in handbrake to make a much lower bitrate hd file with excellent results.

Does Edius do 2-pass VBR? That seems to be the difference between good quality high bitrate and good quality low bitrate.

Does Edius do 2-pass VBR? That seems to be the difference between good quality high bitrate and good quality low bitrate.
A two-pass encoding does not increase the quality of the encoding, it only makes sense to use if you require a video of a given size.

A two-pass encoding does not increase the quality of the encoding, it only makes sense to use if you require a video of a given size.

Yes, it increases the quality of the encoding because, in low bitrate scenarios, the second pass helps the encoder to allocate that bandwidth more efficiently.

Yes, it increases the quality of the encoding because, in low bitrate scenarios, the second pass helps the encoder to allocate that bandwidth more efficiently.
We are talking about an upload to Vimeo, there is no point to do a 2 pass encoding for that.

It would only make sense if the video has to be a given size, for instance when it is put on a optical disk.

We are talking about an upload to Vimeo, there is no point to do a 2 pass encoding for that. It would only make sense if the video has to be a given size, for instance when it is put on a optical disk.

Ideally, you're not uploading H.264 to Vimeo at all. I don't unless it's UHD, because I don't have a Pro account so I get into size limitations with ProRes on a Plus account.

However, that's not true. 2-pass VBR will give you better quality, especially in low bitrate situations, and is for a wide variety of solutions, not just optical disc. I don't know where you're getting this idea, but it's not true.

Ideally, you're not uploading H.264 to Vimeo at all.

Why not, there is nothing inherently wrong about H.264.

Unless you want to provide a download function for the original upload H.264 or H.265 is just fine. And also it saves bandwidth because these codecs provide both intra- and inter-frame compression.

I
However, that's not true. 2-pass VBR will give you better quality, especially in low bitrate situations, and is for a wide variety of solutions, not just optical disc. I don't know where you're getting this idea, but it's not true.
Feel free to do two-pass encoding sending your video to Vimeo and YouTue, I think you are wasting your time though.

Why not, there is nothing inherently wrong about H.264.

Lossy to lossy, like saving an MP3 file as a new MP3 file.

Feel free to do two-pass encoding sending your video to Vimeo and YouTue, I think you are wasting your time though.

I get paid to deliver well-encoded content to clients, so my time is worth money.

Lossy to lossy, like saving an MP3 file as a new MP3 file.

It depends on what bitrate you select, it not inherent to the codec.

H.264 and H.265 can be encoded all the way to lossless.

It depends on what bitrate you select, it not inherent to the codec. H.264 and H.265 can be encoded all the way to lossless.

The whole conversation on this thread is about taking an already compressed H.264 file and compressing it even more, has nothing to do with how much bitrate you can throw at H.264. In fact, the whole idea is to compress the file into a smaller file, hence where 2-pass VBR is probably a good idea if you at least want to see if you can avoid macroblocking from a (ultimately) third-generation compressed 8-bit 4:2:0 H.264.

It's also probably no more than visually lossless, and of course, you have to concur about generation loss. Taking an MP3 and saving it was a lossless WAV file doesn't make the audio lossless, even if you start at 320kps.

A alternative for not leaving edius while you encode is the avc plugin from tmpgenc, this is also uses x264 codec and has a lot more options then the standard edius encoder.

What Noa said!!! I stayed on the fence for a while but my work was piling up and the MPEG-4 export was not only lower quality straight out of Edius, it was also very slow. Downloaded the TMPEG plugins - you have a month to test them - and immediately purchased them. In my line of work I process a ton of videos and this setup works very well even on yesterday's PCs.

Quality is much better, and it's crazy fast compared to Edius. So there, you have the best of both worlds, Edius convenience/ease/etc and x264 quality... it's really a no-brainer.

If on Windows and want to use the x264 library as in Handbrake but you want a more configurable GUI with more options and presets try using VidCoder. You can throw almost any master at it. ProRes, AVI, DNxHD, MXF of various flavors. It does everything Handbrake does with more options.

https://vidcoder.net/

Chris Young
Sydney