You wouldn't expect the same bitrate reduction each time, because the bitrates of the sources are so different. Now re-encode the two mpeg2 encodes with x264 or x265. Take that same source again and encode it with mpeg2 at a low bitrate.
Take a pristine lossless source and encode it with mpeg2 at a high bitrate. I know nothing about x265 settings but the file sizes are somewhat relative. And yet, the episode is from a web release, and thus already compressed, and the result is amazing. I understand that if a file is already compressed, thinking that recompressing it will yield a better result is a pipe dream.
Why, for example, the episode is set to 680KB bitrate and yet it looks phenomenal but for my file the encoder, set at 18QBR, felt the need to allocate 9mb of bitrate and it pretty much looks the same?įrom reading guides I am under the impression that QBR maximizes quality by minimizing bitrates so that it is a better option over setting an average bitrate?
My original questions remain, in the screenshots does any of you see anything wrong with my settings? Google pretty much always points to Handbrake when I search for the "best" HEVC encoder, but is it really or are there other encoders out there who do the job better? Performance Comparison of H.265/MPEG-HEVC, VP9, and H.264/MPEG-AVC Encoders (pdf)Īctually it is professionally video as I am a director/videographer with 12 years of experience and so the source is not shaky at all I thought the reference to x264's 2 pass encoding was interesting, because they almost make it sound like 2 pass encoding is a recent x264 innovation. They mention adjusting the QP settings, but I'm not clear as to what was done there. Each test encode only consisted of 150 frames. The gop size was set to eight frames, and I-Frames were forced once every second. It's a few years old but it seems to me the effort they put into making the comparison between the reference h265 encoder and x264 "fair", crippled x264's compression ability, then they declared h265 produced the same quality (according to PSNR) with something like a 40% bitrate reduction. And they measure quality with YUV-SSIM, which doesn't necessarily relate well to "visual" quality. It doesn't give as good results as 2-pass VBR or constant quality encoding at similar bitrates. That's really only useful for realtime streaming. There is no general answer.Īlso note that the MSU tests use single pass ABR mode. HEVC might perform better regarding this. But you have people that encode to very little bitrates, starving encoders, there is even people posting here that would shock you with how low bitrates they are testing. Not sure why even to bother with fullHD (1920x1080). And it gets interesting only with higher resolutions as I mentioned.
This is the only reason to use HEVC - justified volume difference. Use 10bit for HEVC, not sure why to bother with 8bit. Then you start to increase quantizer with x265 to find out how high you can go to have visually the same result. To test HEVC just encode some sample with CRF using x264 and x265 and first you find apropriate CRF's getting the same volumes, then compare quality, that's a starter. No need to be in a hurry and encode into those latest codecs or worse to even re-encode. Not like there is the end of the World for new codecs.
Mediacoder x64 convert 4k h.265 to 4k h.264 2017 free#
Maybe someone would fix libvpx for VP9, maybe Eve (for VP9) will be free or some versions of it, maybe VP10/AV1 will surprise. Not as such for example encoding SD resolution, personally I cannot imagine encoding SD resolution to HEVC, what for.īut x265 is still in development. Detail seems to be gone using HEVC, using x265 for example (comparing to x264), so I'd say it is meant for higher resolutions so far, where there is enough pixels in the first place, like 4k and that bandwith savings can get huge also.
0 kommentar(er)
