No, because HEVC encoder implementations are extraordinarily slow, so it defeats the purpose of the trick I just mentioned. The reason x264 is great is you get a very high quality copy and the performance of the encoder is exceptionally good on regular old x86 hardware. You could use HEVC/AV1; you'd probably use half the bits for 10-100x slower encode time.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 8:25 AM Eric Shepherd (Sheppy) < esheph...@mozilla.com> wrote: > You suggest H.264 here. Any thoughts on whether or not you can get better > results with HEVC? I would expect people to wonder if the newer codec can > get better results, so I figured I should ask. > > On June 13, 2019 at 6:36:38 PM, Jeremy Noring (jeremy.nor...@gmail.com) > wrote: > > Regarding "near lossless," the best option I've seen is using x264 with > "-crf 18 -preset ultrafast", which is basically a very high quality copy of > the video with a high bitrate due to the "ultrafast" preset. There's > minimal loss of fidelity, but it's also still relatively quick to do the > encode because x264 is exceptionally performant. > > > Eric Shepherd > Senior Technical Writer > MDN Web Docs <https://developer.mozilla.org/> > Blog: https://www.bitstampede.com/ > _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list dev-media@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
