Producing objective metrics of the performance of video codecs is notoriously
difficult. Or at least it isn't - given enough access, you can calculate a
signal-to-noise ratio through the codec, but that sometimes doesn't do a very
good job. Wavelet codecs are sort of notorious for producing
One thing I noticed when comparing x264/x265 to Nvidia counterparts is the
Nvidia encoder tended to get rather ugly in the chroma as you leaned
towards smaller files a lot sooner than x264/x265 would, and not by a small
margin. During tests where I was using VMAF results to compare I could get
Am 06.08.22 um 20:11 schrieb jatmvp ctf:
I thought quality goes in pair with size
there *may be* some correlation *but* you have speed/quality/size to
assign and can only chose two as you can only have two of cheap/quick/good
you need a ton of cpu-usage to squeeze out the last bit of
Thank you all for your responses!!! :)
Thank you Gabri Shally, and I must say that I was both surprised and
astonished too, about those quality score and size output.
I thought quality goes in pair with size. I got quality 36 (higher is
better, yup?) on libx265 and it looks better when I watch
Am 06.08.22 um 11:25 schrieb david stephen:
all implementation is same
and from this point on you should be quiet
___
ffmpeg-user mailing list
ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user
To unsubscribe, visit link
What you have to remember is, things like H.265 and H.265 are standards for
DECODING. They're not standards for encoding. Not really. Your encoder
can do whatever it likes so long as a decoder that meets the standard can
correctly handle the data stream. Encoders can take many different roads,
on both command, you didn't give any option about bitrate or quality
target, so the implementation may freely choose those.
if you see output near the end, nvidia give quality of 19 while libx265
give 36, so the size would be different wildly.
___
David Stephen, you really do not have any idea of what you're talking
about. All encoders are not the same. Encoders differ a very large amount.
On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 2:59 AM david stephen
wrote:
> dont believe such thing like this more fast than this. what all terms exist
> it just
dont believe such thing like this more fast than this. what all terms exist
it just marketing. like say implementation h265 from nvidia more fast.
implementation h265 from other company more slow and good size. all
implementation is same. its about default config that set into preset like
CUDA,
> On Aug 6, 2022, at 2:02 AM, jatmvp ctf wrote:
>
> Maybe my question is not correct. If both encode H.265 but I thought the
> performance ability (to create compression ratio) should be the same or at
> least comparable.
>
> That means CUDA version is only for some purposes and traditional
Am 05.08.22 um 18:38 schrieb jatmvp ctf:
Different implementation of same standard should not behave way different I
assume, or not have same features or performance (at least).
says who?
H265 has tons of features, optimizations and options as H264 had and in
both cases even with the same
11 matches
Mail list logo
