> (I am assuming here that libturing is both slower and produces worse quality > than libx265, if this is not true, the following has of course little > relevance.) >
According to the reference I've circulated before we achieve a lower compression penalty but we are slower than libx265. Like I said this codec is a live project in continuous development. > I don't think comparing to a reference implementation makes sense if better > implementations exist and are used. The coding efficiency provided by the HEVC reference implementation (i.e. HM) gives you the "theoretical" limit a standard can achieve. Therefore understanding how far a codec is from this theoretical limit is a good indication on whether the development is heading in the right direction. Of course given the limitations of the reference implementation (i.e. no parallel processing, single pass RC, no shot change detection, etc.), it is also wise to compare with other practical implementations. ----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ----------------------------- _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list [email protected] http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email [email protected] with subject "unsubscribe".
