OBS RECORDING SETTINGS GUIDE

Video Resolution Settings for a Professional-Quality Stream

Understanding how OBS handles resolution is critical for balancing visual clarity and performance.

Key Definitions:

• Base (Canvas) Resolution
  This defines the resolution of your working scene within OBS—the virtual space where all sources (e.g., gameplay, overlays, webcam) are positioned. Think of it as your native design layout.

• Output (Scaled) Resolution
  This determines the final resolution that is streamed or recorded. For maximum visual fidelity, it’s recommended to match this to your Base Resolution. However, if you're aiming to reduce CPU/GPU load or conserve bandwidth, consider downscaling.

Downscaling Method:

If downscaling is necessary, navigate to Settings > Video and choose Bicubic (16 samples) under the Downscale Filter. This filter provides a solid compromise between visual clarity and performance. While Lanczos offers sharper detail, it can be more demanding on your system.

Recommended Settings:

• Base Canvas Resolution: 2560×1440

• Output Scaled Resolution: 2560×1440 (adjust if downscaling for performance or platform limitations)

• Common FPS Value: 60 FPS (for smooth motion and responsiveness)

Using these settings ensures a clean, high-resolution output while maintaining system efficiency—especially important for competitive gameplay or high-motion content.

Balancing Visual Quality and File Size: VMAF Benchmark Overview

This section outlines the relationship between Constant Quality (CQP) values, VMAF (Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion) scores, and estimated file sizes. Use this data to determine the optimal balance between image fidelity and storage efficiency based on your project requirements.

Lossless (VMAF: 100)

• Use Case: Critical content preservation
  Estimated File Size: ~240 GB/hour
  Lossless encoding delivers uncompromised, pixel-perfect quality with a VMAF score of 100. This option is ideal for scenarios where absolute image integrity is required, such as visual effects pipelines or high-end archival workflows. However, the extremely large file sizes make it impractical for most routine recordings.

CQP 16–18 (VMAF: 93–94)

• Use Case: High-quality archival and editing workflows
  Estimated File Size: ~24–31.7 GB/hour
  This range represents the optimal balance between quality and storage. At CQP 16, the VMAF score reaches approximately 94.3, delivering near-lossless results. Even at CQP 18, quality remains above 93 with a noticeable reduction in file size. Suitable for professional use where detail retention is a priority.

CQP 19–22 (VMAF: 90–92)

• Use Case: General-purpose high-quality recording
  Estimated File Size: ~14–21 GB/hour
  This range offers excellent visual fidelity while significantly reducing storage requirements. With VMAF scores between 90 and 92, it’s well-suited for gameplay, tutorials, and content creation where clean image quality is needed without excessive file sizes.

CQP 23–28 (VMAF: 85–90)

• Use Case: Storage-conscious recording with acceptable quality
  Estimated File Size: ~6.8–13 GB/hour
  At this level, compression becomes more noticeable, especially in high-motion or detailed scenes. While still usable for many applications, visuals may begin to exhibit slight artifacts. Best for secondary recordings, drafts, or content where perfect quality is not essential.

CQP 29 and Above (VMAF: <85)

• Use Case: Low-storage environments with relaxed quality requirements
  Estimated File Size: Varies, typically <6 GB/hour
  Beyond CQP 28, perceptual quality drops below acceptable thresholds for most professional applications. Artifacts and image degradation become prominent, particularly in complex scenes. This range should be reserved for use cases with significant storage constraints and limited quality demands.

Personal Recommendation

Based on extensive testing and real-world application, a CQP range of 18 to 24 offers the most consistent balance between visual quality and file size. This range has proven reliable across a variety of content types and workflows. For projects that require additional storage efficiency, I may reduce the setting to CQP 28, but only when necessary, as quality degradation becomes increasingly noticeable beyond that point. Settings lower than CQP 28 are generally not recommended for professional use due to the presence of visible compression artifacts.

Conclusion

Achieving high-quality recordings in OBS Studio requires a clear understanding of the trade-offs between bitrate, perceived image quality, and storage consumption. Leveraging VMAF as a benchmark helps ensure recordings meet professional visual standards without excessive file sizes.

Whether you're producing content for publishing, archiving gameplay footage, or preparing for post-production workflows, these guidelines are designed to give you precise control over your recording quality. With the right configuration, you can maintain crisp, smooth footage while efficiently managing disk space.

Record with intention. Optimize with confidence.

Supplementary Analysis: x264 vs. NVENC HEVC – VMAF Efficiency Comparison

To evaluate encoding efficiency across different platforms, a parallel set of tests was conducted using the x264 software encoder (CPU-based) with CRF values. These results were compared against the NVENC HEVC hardware encoder, which served as the baseline for all primary testing.

The objective was to measure the file size required to achieve specific VMAF quality levels using each encoder. The findings confirm that NVENC HEVC offers significantly higher compression efficiency on supported NVIDIA GPUs—delivering comparable or superior perceptual quality at substantially smaller file sizes, particularly at higher resolutions and bitrates.

The following breakdown illustrates the relationship between VMAF scores and file size across both encoders, highlighting where NVENC HEVC provides clear advantages in real-world usage.

Important Note on File Size Estimates

The one-hour file sizes presented in this analysis are theoretical projections, extrapolated from 15-second test samples. While actual file sizes will vary depending on the complexity, motion, and type of content, the comparative trend between encoders remains consistent.

Key Insight

Across all tested VMAF levels, NVENC HEVC consistently delivers equal or superior perceptual quality at significantly lower file sizes when compared to x264. Additionally, NVENC offers a substantial performance advantage by offloading encoding tasks to the GPU, resulting in minimal impact on CPU resources and overall system performance.

Final Recommendation

For users with a modern NVIDIA GPU, NVENC HEVC is the preferred encoder for OBS Studio recording. It provides:

• Smaller file sizes

• Comparable or better video quality

• Minimal impact on gameplay and system performance
  
  

While x264 remains viable in certain contexts, NVENC HEVC is clearly the more efficient and practical choice for high-quality local recordings.

Where’s the Setting for AMD H.264 and Intel Quick Sync H.264?

At this time, this guide does not include detailed settings or performance benchmarks for AMD H.264 (AMF) or Intel Quick Sync H.264, due to the current limitations of my hardware setup. I do not currently have access to an AMD GPU, Intel CPU with Quick Sync, or Intel Arc GPU for direct testing.

As an independent creator working with a limited setup, I focus on delivering accurate, first-hand data based on the hardware I use daily. Expanding to cover additional encoders is a future goal as resources allow.

Interested in Collaborating?

If you use AMD or Intel-based encoding solutions and would be open to contributing test results or performance insights, feel free to reach out via Discord. I’d be happy to collaborate, include your data in future updates, and give full credit for your contributions.