Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig: > Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers > ignore them.
there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected) comes with a logical cost there is also nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that every "look here how good xyz is" is based on best-case and never reflects the reality > 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. _______________________________________________ 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".
