>>1532724I know very little of the technical details about video codecs and compression, but like I said, using proper settings, yes, it'll be very easy to get reasonably high-quality videos to compress down to a relatively small filesize. You managed to increase the filesize because you basically used settings for completely lossless video, which even your source video certainly didn't use.
>>1532724>Isnt' there a way to "get a part of that video with the same quality"?Yes, but the filesize of your output file will depend on the settings you're using. If you want ZERO compression, the filesize is going to be enormous. If you want a small filesize, you're going to have to tolerate some loss of quality, resolution, or framerate. But the thing is that you can reduce the output filesize to like 1:100 of the original file and lose so little quality that you basically won't be able to tell much of a difference. If you're using proper encoding settings, you should really never see much difference in the output unless your source file is in some lossless or Bluray format. Try the settings I mentioned.
>CRF to 30>Tolerance to 2>enable high-quality (2-pass encoding) modeThe resulting output should be much smaller than your source file and still look decent. And then try reducing the resolution to something smaller like 720p, and then 480p. Generally speaking, if you want a high ratio of quality to filesize, you're going to need to experiment a bit. If you care about nice-looking files, get used to encoding your videos several times and making small adjustments in between. And for the love of god, DO NOT prioritize resolution unless it's a super short clip. High quality video at 480p will look much better than shitty quality in 1080p. Resolution is not the same thing as quality and detail. It just determines how much detail is *possible*. In general I like to start with lower settings and tune them up to get as close to my file size limit as possible.
