Am 16.08.20 um 19:02 schrieb Cecil Westerhof: > 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?
people sell the typical much higher costs for encoding combined with untypical best-case results - nothing new the past 20 years no matter what topic _______________________________________________ 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".
