Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
ignore them.
On 8/16/2020 10:02 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
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.
Probably not; for a one-use file, I'd take whichever one is easier to deal
with (which might mean quickest to encode). And depending on the source
material, and well, everything in the chain, you might use another codec
anyway, there's nothing mystical/magical about x264 (and a few decidedly
unfriendly things- ref "moov atom location").
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?
"Never generalize."
I'd take any size estimate as a guess since your content and encoding
parameters are probably different. If my own tests of x265 showed 30%
smaller but 2x the encode time, I wouldn't bother.
Later,
z!
_______________________________________________
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".
