Answers.Body: <p>I'm not familiar with handbrake, but this is basically a math problem.</p>
  
  <p>First, you have to decide on a codec. One of the 'best' codecs in regards to quality/filesize-ratio as well as device-compatibility is H.264, so I would recommed you go with that.</p>
  
  <p>I've done a quick search on handbrake and it appears you can set the quality in two ways, either by choosing a Rate Factor (RF) or by setting an Average Bitrate (see screenshot, correct me if I'm wrong).</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/CJJmN.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/CJJmN.png" alt="Handbrake settings screenshot"></a></p>
  
  <p><sub><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HandBrake" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Source: Wikipedia</a></sub></p>
  
  <p>Since you want a ratio of 700 MB per 1 hour of video, let's do the math:</p>
  
  <pre><code>700 MB = 700 x 8 Mb =  5600 Mb
  5600 Mbit / 3600 s = 1,56 Mb/s = 1560 kbps
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>So to achieve this filesize average, set your Average Bitrate to <strong>1560 kbps</strong>. This is quite low for HD video, so make sure to check the <strong>2-pass encoding</strong> option, which will increase the quality at the cost of a longer encoding time (it does so by doing a first check or <em>pass</em> on the video as to how high a bitrate is needed for every part of it, so the encoder can better adjust the bitrate accordingly over the course of the video).</p>
  
  <p>One final note, the video you linked recommends you change the audio bitrate to 128 kbps. <strong>This is a bad idea</strong>. Given that we are already using up 1,56 Mbit per second for the video, the few additional bits per second that are needed for the audio won't make much of a difference regarding the resulting file size. And 128 kbps <strong>will</strong> sound bad; we are much better at detecting flaws in audio than in video. I highly recommend you set the audio bitrate to at least 256 kbps.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-30T12:57:04.983Z
Answers.Text: WaaW! thank you so much! for such detailed answer, i'm gonna try this! and revert to you,what is important in my computer to speed down this pocess ? the CPU or the RAM ? or even maybe the HDD ?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Xsmael
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-30T13:03:28.367Z
Answers.Text: A little bit of all. If you have a killer CPU but a slow HDD, the latter will be your performance bottleneck. Traditionally, video rendering only uses the CPU and no the GPU, but with the CUDA and OpenCL APIs, the GPU becomes a factor as well. I'm not sure if handbrake supports those libraries, maybe look that up on Google. RAM is also important, but a fast CPU and/or GPU (in case you're using the APIs named above) is most important. [Read this](http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/18483/xps-8900-for-full-hd-video-editing/18489#18489) for further reference.
Answers.UserDisplayName: MoritzLost
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-07-30T11:50:26.707Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-07-30T11:50:26.707Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: MoritzLost
Body: <p>I'm very surprised how the video i have recorded with my camera are so heavy for small length (i have 4GB for only 20min). I've been trying compression softwares like handbrake, but it doesn't reduce the size enough IMO, and decreases the quality when i want to compress too much.</p>
  
  <p>Just aside, you know those 700MB movies that last 1h and whose quality is still better than my video how come ? how do they do to compress ? do they use some professional expensive equipment ? or its just a matter of software ? </p>
  
  <p>please help me to understand this, and to find out a way to compress my videos to the maximum.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-30T10:13:23.727Z
Comments.Text: What size are you aiming for?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Gyan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-30T10:14:24.903Z
Comments.Text: the smallest possible, i'm tempted to say: to have same ration as 700MB for 1h of video, hence around 250MB for mi video of 20min
Comments.UserDisplayName: Xsmael
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-30T10:15:54.740Z
Comments.Text: What settings did you try in Handbrake?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Gyan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-30T10:22:46.747Z
Comments.Text: i followed this tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB0ji_3Uees) that claimed to reduce the size by 90% but did't work for me i also tried similar tutorials..
Comments.UserDisplayName: Xsmael
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-30T10:42:22.020Z
Comments.Text: Is it Full HD ?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Gyan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-07-30T11:14:39.780Z
Comments.Text: no just HD, and have to mention that i don't need super high quality, HD is just enough
Comments.UserDisplayName: Xsmael
Tags: <video><software-recommendation><video-quality><video-recording><compression>
Title: How do you dramatically reduce the size of a video while keeping the quality as much as possible?
UserDisplayName: Xsmael
ThreadText: # How do you dramatically reduce the size of a video while keeping the quality as much as possible?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-30)
  
  I'm very surprised how the video i have recorded with my camera are so heavy for small length (i have 4GB for only 20min). I've been trying compression softwares like handbrake, but it doesn't reduce the size enough IMO, and decreases the quality when i want to compress too much.
  
  Just aside, you know those 700MB movies that last 1h and whose quality is still better than my video how come ? how do they do to compress ? do they use some professional expensive equipment ? or its just a matter of software ?
  
  please help me to understand this, and to find out a way to compress my videos to the maximum.
  
  **Tags:** video, software-recommendation, video-quality, video-recording, compression
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: What size are you aiming for?  
  > **username_0**: the smallest possible, i'm tempted to say: to have same ration as 700MB for 1h of video, hence around 250MB for mi video of 20min  
  > **username_1**: What settings did you try in Handbrake?  
  > **username_0**: i followed this tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB0ji_3Uees) that claimed to reduce the size by 90% but did't work for me i also tried similar tutorials..  
  > **username_1**: Is it Full HD ?  
  > **username_0**: no just HD, and have to mention that i don't need super high quality, HD is just enough  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-07-30. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  I'm not familiar with handbrake, but this is basically a math problem.
  
  First, you have to decide on a codec. One of the 'best' codecs in regards to quality/filesize-ratio as well as device-compatibility is H.264, so I would recommed you go with that.
  
  I've done a quick search on handbrake and it appears you can set the quality in two ways, either by choosing a Rate Factor (RF) or by setting an Average Bitrate (see screenshot, correct me if I'm wrong).
  
  [![Handbrake settings screenshot](https://i.sstatic.net/CJJmN.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/CJJmN.png)
  
  [Source: Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HandBrake)
  
  Since you want a ratio of 700 MB per 1 hour of video, let's do the math:
  
  ```
  700 MB = 700 x 8 Mb =  5600 Mb
  5600 Mbit / 3600 s = 1,56 Mb/s = 1560 kbps
  
  ```
  
  So to achieve this filesize average, set your Average Bitrate to **1560 kbps**. This is quite low for HD video, so make sure to check the **2-pass encoding** option, which will increase the quality at the cost of a longer encoding time (it does so by doing a first check or *pass* on the video as to how high a bitrate is needed for every part of it, so the encoder can better adjust the bitrate accordingly over the course of the video).
  
  One final note, the video you linked recommends you change the audio bitrate to 128 kbps. **This is a bad idea**. Given that we are already using up 1,56 Mbit per second for the video, the few additional bits per second that are needed for the audio won't make much of a difference regarding the resulting file size. And 128 kbps **will** sound bad; we are much better at detecting flaws in audio than in video. I highly recommend you set the audio bitrate to at least 256 kbps.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: WaaW! thank you so much! for such detailed answer, i'm gonna try this! and revert to you,what is important in my computer to speed down this pocess ? the CPU or the RAM ? or even maybe the HDD ?  
  > **username_2**: A little bit of all. If you have a killer CPU but a slow HDD, the latter will be your performance bottleneck. Traditionally, video rendering only uses the CPU and no the GPU, but with the CUDA and OpenCL APIs, the GPU becomes a factor as well. I'm not sure if handbrake supports those libraries, maybe look that up on Google. RAM is also important, but a fast CPU and/or GPU (in case you're using the APIs named above) is most important. [Read this](http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/18483/xps-8900-for-full-hd-video-editing/18489#18489) for further reference.  
  
  ---
  
  