I have a 1080p quality mp4, I want to take a part of it to make into a loop, but I don't want to lose quality, and I tried to make a webm , set high quality and CRF and tolerance to 0 and the result "seems fine" but it's more than 200mb, when the original video was 5 minutes and just had100mb.
Are there good ways to have a precise edition of a video, keeping the quality, and not taking lots of space. If possible also being able to edit by frames, because I want to make other loops but seeing the ratio of my first attempt compared tot he original, I'll run out of space before I finish.

>>1532706 (OP)
Lower CRF values result in less compression and higher quality. Standard CRF value for 1080p video is around 30. Try again, and start with a value of 30. If the quality of your output file is too low and you can tolerate a larger filesize, nudge the CRF value lower until you're happy with the result. If the filesize of your output file is too large and you can tolerate some loss of quality, do the same, but nudge the CRF value higher.

And of course, you can pack a much higher amount of quality/length into a smaller filesize if you resize the video to a smaller resolution, or if you can cut down on the framerate. Everything in compressing/converting video is about finding a balance. You're never going to get a high level of quality/framerate/resolution/length into a tiny filesize, so for each situation, you need to pick 1 or 2 things you want to prioritize, and loosen your tolerances on the other things. If you're editing videos to be posted on 4chan, you don't need to go higher than 720p, or really even 480p. Working with smaller resolutions is a great way to get some impressive looking files.

>>1532722
but I mean...
If I have a mp4, the file size is 100mb...
and it lasts 5 minutes...
5 minutes is 300 seconds
Shouldn't a 10 second video extracted from it be around 3-4mb then?
Isnt' there a way to "get a part of that video with the same quality"?
I mean, I'm trying to do this "project" with a bunch of video cuts which will be played after certain things are done, so I wonder what would be the best way to get these edits without losing quality or exceeding the expected file size?

>>1532724
I 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) mode

The 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.

Also

>1532724
>If I have a mp4, the file size is 100mb...
>and it lasts 5 minutes...
>5 minutes is 300 seconds
>Shouldn't a 10 second video extracted from it be around 3-4mb then?

Think of it like this.. The bitrate of a video is almost like a flow of water. Higher quality means higher flow. You can think of the file size as an equation of amount of flow * time. If you have 5 minutes of video and the file size is only 100 MB, then it's highly compressed, low-quality video with a low bitrate, or "flow". If that flow is like a garden hose, then lossless video is like a fire hydrant. 300 seconds of weak water flow from a garden hose is going to pale in comparison to how much water you'll get from 10 seconds of an opened fire hydrant.

Lossless video takes up an enormous amount of space, and will sometimes even lag your computer. It's very rare to encounter lossless video unless you're working with outputs from cameras/screen recording/editing software, or getting the files from Blurays. What you see on Youtube or streaming platforms is usually very low-quality and highly-compressed video. Be aware that most of the content you look at is rendered using low or medium encoding settings. Even if you use low-quality video as a source, using lossless settings will still result in enormous file sizes. Like using a garden hose to fill up a pool for 5 minutes. The pool will still take up a huge amount of space, even if the file you put into it is small. Your encoding settings are basically there to determine how big of a 'container' your file is for the information it stores. Which is why I say DO NOT prioritize resolution. It increases filesize without necessarily increasing detail. High resolutions should only be used when your source files have enough detail to fill it out, and you need to keep that detail.

>>1532731
>>1532736
Thank you a lot for these explanations. I didn't know how this "video compression" works, but these explanations made it easier to understand.
I have been using "webm for retards" and got webm files as result, so I wonder if there's something like this but for mp4, and if possible with "more precise ways to crop videos", I realized I can't get really precise with that software, but the frame precision and other stuff seemed fine.
Also, any way to make it generate a mp4 instead of webm?

Sure thing, anon!

>>1532752
>so I wonder if there's something like this but for mp4
So, WebM for Retards is actually just a GUI wrapper for a free program called ffmpeg. In other words, the program you're using is basically just ffmpeg (a very powerful tool), but with a nice interface slapped onto it that you can navigate with just your mouse. If you'd be comfortable with learning some basic commands and using a command line interface (basically a command prompt window), you could get this program to output all sorts of different file types. You could get better quality per file size from your files too. Check out https://ffmpeg.org/ if you're interested.

If that sounds too complicated for you, then I'd suggest you check out another free program called Handbrake. It's a bit more complex than WebM for Retards in terms of the settings you have, but it's overall very similar and will allow you to quickly and easily convert/edit video files. It can also output tons of different filetypes. Download that at https://handbrake.fr/

Being that Handbrake is slightly more complicated, I'd recommend consulting ChatGPT with your specific case. For example, "I have this video that's X seconds long and Y resolution, how can I use handbrake to encode a small clip from it, with low file size and good quality?" After doing that a few times, you'll start getting a feel for the settings you want.

One last option I've heard of is a program called Shutter Encoder (https://www.shutterencoder.com/), but I haven't used it myself and I can't necessarily vouch for how good or easy it is to use.

Good luck, friend.

>>1532780
>https://ffmpeg.org/
thank you, I'll check this out