That is the new standard still in rollout. For the past 20 years though it was 1080i or 720p60 MPEG-2 up to nearly 19 Mb/s. Not trying to dispute but rather just adding more info and contextâbasically, that MPEG-2 is appropriate for HD and not just SD, but it needs plenty bandwidth/storage to be good. Now that my 5TB NAS is nearing full and still planning the expensive replacement, I am sensitive to storage requirements and prefer newer things that I believe have staying power. For example, even though AV1 still lacks good hardware decoding coverage outside modern PCs, I strongly believe there will be a lot going forward. Not only is it a vital part of Googleâs agenda with Android and YouTube, Apple is also onboard with its recent hardware.
Daniel, A person working in front of a computer is not 10 meters away from the monitor.
Nor in a 4K movie can we see a personâs acne, even if we wear glasses. We can never appreciate the small details of the actors!
If you want to do accounting on a phone, thatâs your problem.
Many people put huge fonts on WhatsApp, it looks like they are looking at road signs and guess what, they wear glasses just like you.
Does it really make a difference, does it look that bad, do I need 4K with h265?
Daniel, thank you very much, before I used âautopilotâ/CBR-VBR, my experience for my age, has been with HD onwards.
My tests have always been in HD, at first Xvid/avi with an average bitrate of 12 Mb/s, turned out better than the standard 6 Mb/s for h264/mp4.
When I let the video be exported at the best possible quality with KDEnlive, it gave me bitrates almost twice as high. So I have salomonically decided to set it manually.
strong text
@Austin , you are right, but these are not real situations, although it is true that resolutions have to be adapted. For study purposes at the university, a student walks around with his laptop, so I donât think he will see a substantial difference, going from HD to 4K, only that maybe his computer will clog up.
If the quality of the original video is well preserved, it looks good enough on full screen.
I have to admit that I did a little test with a low bitrate in h265, it looked amazingly good at 2 MB/s but nowhere near the original video.
The problem is that you export the video optimally and YouTube perverts them, how will the video look like once converted to all possible resolutions?
Does it give the impression that colors look more beautiful in low resolution, as if they were more realistic?
720p is your best bet. Thatâs because on smaller screens, differences in resolution are near-imperceptible for humans, so itâs not necessary to use a higher resolution. For larger screens, you might want to use full high-definition.
Thatâs probably why I didnât see the difference, but Iâm not as optimistic as you are 
@daniel47 
/One gram of artificial DNA could store the information of three million cds for hundreds - or even thousands - of years. In principle, this system could store all the digital information on the planet./ Nick Goldman
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/research/goldman/dna-storage/
Well, that doesnât sound very supportive, I donât particularly like wide screens, I prefer something more symmetrical! In the end whatâs left for me as an option, buy a phone every 4 years?
Does that mean exporting at 100% quality? If so, that may have been lossless mode depending on other settings. It retains quality far beyond what the human eye can detect. Thatâs why the file size was so big. It is much more common to export at 64% quality (CRF 18) because that is the threshold of human vision. The file size will be much smaller with no (or little) noticeable drop in quality. (These are libx264 quality numbers. They are different for libx265 and svtav1, but same idea.)
Aside from that question, I have no plans to reply to anything else. Our workflows have different requirements, goals, and audiences. You seem to have found something that works well for you, and that is great.
@Austin Well, my friend, Iâm convinced as long as the embedded video is the original, like the one you uploaded here.
In the âmultiversesâ of resolutions, I do like the idea of ââgoing from HD/720 to QHD/1920x1440 - 4:3.
Theyâve always said that people look fatter on TV, but now with the arrival of widescreen, or say.
I always view my phone vertically, so I donât see any advantage in putting it in full screen with âOpera Mini.â
Those parameters you mention seem to come predefined in Avidemux. With Kdenlive, if the video is just a few seconds long, OK; if not, it becomes enormous.
I didnât know that such a section existed here, the topics here were very hot, now Iâll start from the bottom up.
Screen proportions.
The Masons who promote these proportions to please movie theaters are complete idiots. Iâll tell you. The most attractive thing for people in entertainment videos, and most likely in all videos, is the image of a person. Thatâs why the ideal proportions were 4:3 and 5:4. When they switched to 16:9 proportions, it was of course bad, but bearable. But now Iâve watched a series with the new 21:9 proportions, the screen only shows noses, faces donât fit completely, there was no talk of placing one person in full height.
Or, as an option, there will be emptiness on the sides.
Artificial intelligence does not exist, it is all the tricks of marketers. There are neural network algorithms and what we are seeing now is the maximum they are capable of. Those who are trying to introduce them into their work are very bad people, whom I strongly disrespect as individuals.
Bitrate is the data transfer rate. But codecs encode this data in different ways, for example, in new codecs there are b-frames with which time filters do not work and they are also not used with lossless compression.
I make videos for YouTube with the h.264 codec, lossless option, gop 4, quality 100%. YouTube recodes all videos anyway, I think that you need to do it in maximum quality, the main thing is to fit into 15 gigabytes. I make videos up to 10 minutes long, different resolutions, they weigh from 1.5 gigabytes to 8 gigabytes. I save the videos, because I often watch them on my computer myself. The hard drive will last for some time. I take all the source files from the Internet. But what can you advise? Why do you think the av1 codec is the best, because high-quality videos downloaded from YouTube with the yt dl program are encoded in v9? You also need to understand that YouTube breaks videos into small pieces. Maybe the av1 and v9 codecs were invented for this?
Also, many wrote about the resolution and screen size, but no one wrote that the same screen size can have a different number of pixels. If there are few pixels on the screen, then high-resolution video may not be useful, but this needs to be checked, although logically it should be so.
I might write about my thoughts about TikTok some other time.
I actually had a 19-inch monitor, and it didnât look that long. Since the refresh rate was failing, I bought another one, but they only come in 22 inches and up. Honestly, I donât like it. It might be useful for splitting the screen in half, having a browser open, and using Excel, without having to buy a curved screen.
You donât know what a pixel is? A pixel canât be more than one color. The main characteristic of a monitor is not its size, but the supported resolution or how many pixels can fit on the screen. Hence, if the number of pixels on the video does not match the number of pixels on the monitor, then the video is usually scaled, and the video is also scaled when the player changes the screen size. Pixels are either deleted or drawn according to algorithms. Sometimes, when there is a defect or failure, a piece of video is shown.
All monitors have standard proportions, so I donât understand what âdidnât look that longâ means.
A curved screen is a flawed technology, since all this curvature works if a person is at a certain point. For example, I can put my feet up on the table or look from the bed.
The monitor on the right supports a higher resolution, itâs better. Itâs better for you not to buy equipment yourself.