> On 2016 Jan 5, at 4:28 PM, Andy Furniss <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jim Worrall wrote: >> >>> On 2016 Jan 5, at 3:13 PM, Jim Worrall <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Currently I just get an empty ffmpeg2pass-0.log and pass 1 is as >>>> slow as pass 2. As expected he result is worse as well. >>>> >>> Uh-oh, I thought that’s what was supposed to happen (except for the >>> worse result part). I thought libx264 worked that way. I better >>> try it the other way! >> >> I just tested doing pass both ways. It is true that ffmpeg’s log >> appears to remain empty, while x265’s does not. But the output is >> identical as near as I can tell, and putting pass as an ffmpeg option >> was actually slightly faster (both passes about the same speed as >> opposed to pass 1 being a bit slower via x265-params. > > Hmm I just tried release x265 and with ffmpeg both my passes were the > same time, with x265-parans pass 1 was twice as fast. Quality was a bit > better min psnr wise with x265. Visually I could only really tell on the > first 10 frames - it seemed much the same after that. stats below show > that more was spent on I frames with x265-params.
OK, I bow to your greater knowledge and experience, and will start using ‘pass’ in x265-params. Thank you! _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
