Reindl Harald <[email protected]> writes: > Am 16.08.20 um 16:48 schrieb Cecil Westerhof: >> I heard a lot that you should libx265 instead of libx264. I did not, >> because at some places that went wrong. (I think uploading. But it is >> several years ago, so I am not sure.) >> I am again playing with ffmpeg and creating new scripts. >> When using libx265 the file size is about a third smaller, but it >> takes about 2.5 to 3 times longer to generate the file. Is this >> normal, or a quirk at my side? >> For the moment I stay with libx264 > > what do you expect?
I did not expect anything, just noticed something. > H264 is also a lot slower and more expensive comapred ot codes from the > 1990s and you can't expect better quality and smaller files falling free > from heaven For the moment I will keep with 264. Especially because these files are only played once. Just wanted to make sure I was not overlooking something. By the way: when searching on the internet, I saw often said that 265 would be half as big as 264, but I see 'only' a third less space taken. Are the people saying 50% overly optimistic, or do I just have 'strange' videos? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list [email protected] https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email [email protected] with subject "unsubscribe".
