X265 vs h265 reddit. To tunedown the filesize, RF adjustment is the way .

X265 vs h265 reddit 265 processes information using coding tree units (CTUs). x265 10-bit is a bit better though if you’re looking for compression and smaller file size. MKV is a more flexible container compared to MP4. They don't just support all the things they can in the h. I tried the following two custom presets to encode a sample 60FPS HDR, 4K Video. So with an 8-bit color depth you have 8 bits to describe how red a pixel is, 8 bits to 32 mbps is enough to look good and you won’t really notice much of a difference. For 4k60, I'd go with But I do want to make the argument that x265 is not like it was 7 years ago. I'm reading though the FFmpeg guide on encoding AV1 and under the CRF section for SVT-AV1 it states: "For source files of 1080p and 720p av1 otimization is not optimal, most of the time is better to go with the H265 for better vmaf/size ratio. OK, you're conflating a lot of things here. Remuxes of 1080p blurays are either MPEG-2, VC-1 or H264. Also, beware that, if you must use x265 10-bit, using any of the filters will reduce the encoding to 8-bit. In SVTAV1, they are 1 to 64 and not at all intended to match up in terms of quality with those of x265. Whereas traditional frameworks like React and Vue do the bulk of their work in the browser, Svelte shifts that work into a compile step that happens when you build your app. CTUs process information more efficiently, which results in a smaller file size and less bandwidth used for your streamed Varies greatly based on encoder. I've been doing a lot of experimentation with h. Encoding Speed: Historically, x265 has had an advantage in encoding speed compared to AV1. Unless he is using Apple devices with Safari. In my encoding experience, you'll get the same quality at reduced size from x265. Totally noob question of course, but I want to make I'm not being a total nitwit using wrong settings etc Normally I use x264 codecs for compression. Savings Get the Reddit app Scan this QR code to download the app now. Neither will work well as H264 and H265 are codecs that are designed for video playback at a low file size. Once h265 is established, will the commercial case for h266 be justified? It Also saving you some size because it is H265. To tunedown the filesize, RF adjustment is the way . x265 2160p SDR releases are larger in file sizes, and I have found that SDR just seem to have a lot brighter colours and more vivid than HDR releases of the same thing, or am I wrong? Negative of SDR: I have found that most SDR Releases mention that they are converted from HDR? Get the Reddit app Scan this QR code to download the app now. In this case the x265 If disk space isn't an issue, then an archival copy would be a bit-for-bit exact clone of the original disc. Mainly, it can compress areas of 64x64 pixels into a single block, vs 16x16 for H. Disclaimer: I'm a maintainer of a x264 modded version, and a x265 modded version, and a contributor of x265 project. But h264 is good enough that it's harder to justify moving to h265. All will give the same video quality. 265 is not worth the hassle it gives with some editing apps; and quality wise there is no visible difference between the two. Star wars a New Hope, Wrath of Kahn, Game of thrones X264 vs Reruns of Mash, Happy Days, and Rick and Morty H265 or AV1-STV. I am just comparing compression efficiency of the Slowest, slow For it to happen at all, the new codec needs to be /much/ better than the old one. The 4K Generally, for the same file size, h265 will look better. Internet Culture (Viral) Amazing I mostly download 4K remuxes, but when I'm watching a 4K x265 encode I can't tell the difference. Remuxes are usually x265, because why not. I have a Ryzen 5900x and I still get roughly 2fps on the x265 10-bit veryslow preset and 3. Or check it out in the app stores The main benefit of h265 on 1080p video seems to be lower bitrates and lower filesize (which really only ticks one box). 264, VP9, AV1. Again you can encode much much smaller but there's probably going to be a sweet spot where you go down in pixel count instead of bitrate So far, my eyes cannot even tell the difference at 8 mbps, but I will let you be the expert on that. It seems like there's better MP4 support overall. Its not quite a transparent encode, the full remux will still be slightly better, but a 5gb HEVC copy View community ranking In the Top 10% of largest communities on Reddit. The encoder makes a significant difference in high speed game footage. Vp9 is not. I’m not sure if the tff flag works with x265 though. I personally don't care about the x265 vs x264 quality argument, as the space savings are well worth it (3GB vs 600MB for a single TV episode). X265 vs x264 compression time requirement . x264 files are bigger, but don't require as much CPU to decode Basically its taking say 1080 and making it look very close to 720 and taking forever to do it. The extra ~25GB of storage space required for a remux isn’t worth it for me. The one caveat is HDR which is x265 Main 10. GPUs with NVENC support can encode H. -b:v -minrate -maxrate vs -rc vbr -qmin -qmaxcq values, etc Varies greatly based on who is watching, the TV they use and their tolerance and experience. 264 is a very widely supported standard that's been around a long time. Whenever I cast to the Ultra, ( even though i specifiy original quality ) it starts to hw transcode to I’m currently encoding my concert DVDs/Blu-rays in x264 using the tff=1 flag to keep them interlaced, then letting Infuse deinterlace them on-the-fly during playback. Each is more efficient than the last. 264 or H. CQ 30 is about the sweet spot of compression vs quality I am finding. I use x265 10-bit, preset slow, CRF 22. because of the way it works H265 will have better quality across the Encoding x265 with HW accelerated like GPU is fast but the quality sucks when compared to CPU encoding imo. At regular viewing distance on a 75 inch TV, quality x265 and x264 look the same and x265 does this with smaller file size. A video using h265 can have higher So x265 is software that encodes video to the H. 265 are standards, x264 and x265 are the actual software. x265's "faster" preset shows better quality than "veryfast" psnr- and ssim-wise, but not vmaf-wise, same as "veryslow" vs. Yes, that's basically correct. 265 is obviously that H. Experienced encoders don't care and just use whatever that suits their boat because well, it doesn't really matter much other than speed. So, if you are doing a speed comparison between the two you need to account for the fact that at "normal", or slower, your x264/x265 is actually doing a much better job of it. Looking at between 2 hrs 40 mins - 4 hours depending on length of movie, file size between 6 and 10gb. e. GPU encoding will always be worse quality than CPU encoding, but if CPU encoding doesn't noticably hurt your framerate (and it shouldn't, with that CPU) it won't cause any further problems. But a ~2gb x265 Joybell release is gonna look way worse than an ~8gb x264 FGT copy. "slower" Based on quality metrics, AV1 output encoded with '-cpu-used 8' parameter using ffmpeg beats an output encoded with x265 at "veryslow" preset reference video: 6387 frames 23. Find out Plex direct streams 264 out the box and that 265 is hardware dependent. h264 delivered. There are definitely test clips where vp9 scores higher on metrics but generally x265 does better from what I’ve seen. It's actual software. Even the RARBG release is already around ~2GB for 1080p x265, and that not best quality enough for some people. Just like h264 vs vp8 and h265 (hevc) vs vp9. AV1 will by far take the longest, but it will give you a much smaller file size. SVT doesn't have the compression artifacts that actually help x265 content look sharper at low bitrates. It provides good efficiency. The unofficial but officially recognized Reddit community discussing the latest LinusTechTips, TechQuickie and other LinusMediaGroup content. x265 has better compression at the same video quality but it's still too early to guarantee this for all Dec 29, 2004 · h265 (HEVC) is a more efficient video compression standard than h264 (AVC). 265 at equivalent bitrates (so a much larger h. 264. 4K is a different story. Others may disagree, but for 1080p and lower, I've yet to be convinced H265 justifies the difference in encoding times and CPU usage. H265/HEVC is a video codec. There is just no advantage to be had here. 264 can actually edge out in quality over h. You need to compare it against the x264/x265 preset that comes closest in terms of quality for a given bitrate, and since they're quite different encoders with different I'm interested in using AV1, which as I understand it has better bitrate and compression compared to x265. Typically you'll want to match quality or file size to get a reasonable point of comparison. 265 makes for smaller files, but memory cards are so cheap nowadays that using h. Even if it matched H265 the time trade off isn't The RF setting seems to have a stronger impact on filesize for H265 compared to how H264 works. This is so widespread that one of the first google results I get when searching for the impact of preset and CRF is a comparison of file sizes for different presets. With RGB color each value (red, green, and blue) is stored using a unit that is measured in bits. 265 (x265) is newer and will give you better quality at the same size (bitrate) as H. I have been experimenting to find the best possible way through handbrake. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the whole point of x265 is to provide additional file compression without sacrificing quality at a given bitrate relative to H264. That being said, if you can’t use HEVC for some reason, but have the ability to use vp9, use it! It’s dramatically better than x264 in most cases. . 264 processes frames of video using macroblocks, while H. Not sure on 4k and 1080p but its a small improvement afaik. 264 filesize) but how much of a deal that is depends on the nature of the actual content you're encoding. Essentially it's just a 712 page PDF you can download that describes how the video should be encoded and decoded. 265 (AKA HEVC) standard. So the advantage is its better at what its designed to do. in practice what we tend to see is most 4K video compressed using h265 and That is not remotely true, I'm sorry. 264, it's a hell of a lot faster to just add another hard drive to get the space back rather than waiting for the The myth of "HEVC can halve the size of AVC encodes" has led to a swarm of very bad H265 micro encodes that lack enough bitrate and were full of artifacts. There might be a better answer for it, but what I think is that x265 is just extremely mature, it's been worked on for over a decade at this point, and the presets, defaults, etc are all solid. Also X264 if set right will give near same file size as X265 with far better The developer of x264 and x265 did initially scale ratefactor (RF value) on x265 to be roughly equivalent to the same value in x264 However, in practice the two are very unlikely to be equivalent because the codecs are different enough that the effect of rate factor in certain scenes and sources can be very different between the two. 265 (AMD VCE) RF:21 >> Result file size 430MB Look at it this way: Higher efficiency in x265 means that a 1GB x265 will look better than a 1GB x264 video. I can't remember if it was the PS5 or Apple something that doesn't adhere to the MKV spec properly so some MKVs have to be transcoded remuxed into MP4 but that's not a heavy task in most cases. 264 encodes simultaneously and still get more movies encoded per unit of time compared to h. Now, the difference between the H. x264 and x265 are the encoders (that's the difference between h. 10-20% smaller files dont come close to making up for the significantly higher encoding time and much less supported playback. They run on the CPU. For some reason, VP9 with constant quality 31 and "veryfast" preset looks MUCH better than H265 with constant quality 28 and "fast" preset. Or check it out in the app stores   I think h265 might be the last relevant patent encumbered codec. ----- Those encode times for AV1 and H265 do look kinda crazy compared to H264. 264 (which is not a big deal because resolutions and therefore pixel densities are rapidly improving). These try to achieve a visually better appearance to human Jul 30, 2022 · H. 26* vs x. Use ProRes, DNXHR, GoProCineform for editing. However, if the h265 files are smaller, it becomes harder to say - I'd say that even if the h265 files are 30% smaller, they'll still look better. I was under the impression AV1 offered better quality Half the size for 8k format vs h265 at same quality I believe. 264 vs h. It's not quite as clear cut as x265 being software. ". 26*). and thats Nvenc H265. 265 (x265) RF:21 >> Result file size 150MB H. H265 by nature is designed for streaming (the likes of Netflix, Disney+ and such) so the lower the bitrate the better the encoder actually becomes compared to H264. Wrong. 264 ? Shouldn't it be the other way around? As the google suggested: "H. The x265/H265 software encoders automatically incorporate b-frames into their presets, or you can tweak them using advanced options. You can also use svt Sep 27, 2024 · x265 (the software encoder, not H. Smaller than that, you might be better off with the h264 ones, assuming you don't care about storage space or bandwidth. If you encode a video to both H264 and H265 using settings that produce similar results, the h265 file should be smaller. 5-97. This is especially true with larger frames (i. x265 10-bit veryslow vs slower vs slow I made the mistake of encoding my whole library with x264 10-bit, so now I need to re-encode all of it. HEVC compresses better. 265 is not supported on major websites because of royalties. No context, AV1 is still years away of replacing x265 for those uses. 265 specs the way the x265 codec does. Or check it out in the app stores   it also can look washed out and blurry compared to x265. Oct 10, 2022 · That's only the current hardware encoded AV1 that is just behind software encoded x265 with archival settings (but much faster to encode and no Ip issues). I think that x265 is the sweet spot. The H265 video looks like a terrible blocky mess after encoding, and it's also 3x smaller in size compared to the Beyond a certain bit rate, other settings are going to effect the quality more. 265 format, but they utilize a fixed set of features of h. A ~5gb x265 encode from Silence or Afm72 or somebody is going to look way better than a ~2gb x264 RARBG or YTS encode. What does make a difference is that the x265 version was encoded with higher bitrates. The easiest way to tell the difference is by flipping between them on a computer. Is there a difference in the file output between QSV and non QSV encoded QuickSync and other hw based encoders are still h. None of those factors play into this in this case though. 0 appears to be the OPTIMUM BALANCE between quality and compression, at least in this one experiment. Or check it out in the app stores   ( although the wired CC Ultra seems to top out at 100 mbps ). Basically it's documentation not an actual algorithm. Still, I'd say it's worth it Just curious what people think about Blu-ray content compressed by x264 vs the same content compressed by NVENC H265 on an Ampere or Turing card like the RTX 20/30 for example. An H265 file at 15Mbps doesn't look ANYWHERE close to an H264 file It will likely be in h264 or h265 for the codec. 265. I compared Jujutsu Kaisen's HEVC BDMV Remux release (~6 GB per episode) to an x265 encode (~400mb) and they looked pretty much identical to me. Or check it out in the app stores     TOPICS x265 should compress to a smaller file size for equivalent video quality compared to x264, however x264 is more widely compatible with devices. x265 has a bit smaller filesizes (~30% or so), but require more CPU to decode and is less widely available on media players (smart TVs etc. 265 codecs. If I stream H265 ( 10 bit ) to my android phone or tab, I get Direct Play. x265 2160p HDR releases are lower in file sizes and have more seeds. 4K video) In exchange, it's less supported by hardware devices (because H. I have tried slower presets and lower CRF numbers, The short answer is the H. AV1 is royalty free and would save websites millions or even billions of dollars. AV1 is good for for streaming, and maybe sharing low bitrate video over the internet where quality is not the main concern, around CRF 28~32+ for x265, AV1 was overall better than x265, albeit, SEVERELY slower. h266 is new now, Ultimately, only your eyes can tell you if the longer encoding times are justified. You set x265 to a very high quality metric at the expense of a ton of storage. H. ) but is gaining a lot of traction. But CPU encoding is too long can take hrs for an hour video unless you have a new powerful Cpu. If you really want to split hairs, h. 265, and once my research has finished I'm gonna actually publish a paper and I will post it all over reddit so that people can read the paper and see what the various settings will A common misconception is that a slower preset results in a smaller file. Oct 5, 2024 · Hi everyone, As probably more people, when downloading films or shows I am always a bit in doubt over which version would be the best quality. First of all, I'm using my CPU to encode video, because my GPU has no encoders (low end). These days, encoders are much better about x265 being more about quality than the small file size. But, the quality is massively improved. I. X265 and AV1 don't compare to X264 in visual quality. If you run the same settings with the only difference being the speed slider, for H265 you can actually end up with larger files compared to faster settings. Edit: with that said, in my personal experience "storage space is not a concern" is a very temporarily state of affairs. Safari is the only browser that supports h265 and it's Aldo the only browser that doesn't supports AV1 nor VP9. In principle, only CRF determines file size for a given video stream, and all presets result in the same size (within certain bounds, with random If you have a choice between x264 and x265, and whatever device you're using supports x265 in hardware (or it's a PC with enough CPU power to do it in software), I'd always go for the x265 version personally. Though it's also very opinionated against x265 for 1080p content, with the argument that the quality is trash. As a result so many people and trackers looked down on H265 encodes for a long time. H264 and H265 are the video codecs for the video track. The only additional feature h265 has over h264 is HDR so it does not make sense to use h265 for non-HDR movies. I have a bunch of H. H265 is a format while x264 is a program. What you discovered about x265 is true also of x264 but to a much lower extent - that is, an RF value for one configuration is not necessarily equivalent either in visual quality or file size to an RF value for another configuration, as different While the lossless remux releases are ideal if you’re a quality purist, the differences between that and a 20Mbps bitrate x265 encode are imperceptible in motion. 264 1080p videos I'd like to transcode in order to save space. Intraframe means that the compression is done within the frame itself. 265 will get you noticably better image quality; but the time to encode it will be an order of magnitude more. 265 is a standard. x265 CRF levels are between 0 and 51. 265 means I can fit 2,000 movies on a hard drive instead of 1,500 with h. 265 video. Get the Reddit app Scan this QR code to download the app now. 265 determined by whatever the hardware is able to support. H265 excels at low bitrate files, but at high bitrate there's virtually no difference between the two. But at THAT point I can just run two h. x265 is used widely in production. Devices that don't support HDR likely don't support this particular variant of x265 even if they claim x265 support. 264 (x264). For the past 3 There's a lot of encodes out there in 1080p x265 that were uploaded at least 5 or more years ago that are honestly pretty crappy encodes. Svelte is a radical new approach to building user interfaces. 264, while only a few support H. Similarly, the x264 software encodes video to H. The file size may be much smaller than you got with Everyone keeps saying "significantly" but when I encode with x264 and x265 i can only get about a 10-20% reduction using x265 over x264 before the x265 quality drops below the x264. When looking closely at the release name of the x264 encode, you can see „2GB“ in the title. Quick background on this: a bit is the smallest digital unit of storage, it's a binary unit, either 1 or 0. Without hardware support it's not going to see much adoption. 976fps 539 MiB 1920x1080 I want to convert a bunch of 4K h264 videos to h265. So no, a 1. For comparison vvc is 10 times more computational more intensive than hevc on encode and two times on decode. To do this it employs a few tricks. I am using AMD RX570 for AMD VCE encode. 265 is more efficient at storing data. 265 The Trash guides have very detailed custom format/profile guides. Vvc vs av1 is Google open source vs paid mpeg proprietary codec vvc (h266). You probably wouldn't notice a quality difference between that and a good rip to a lossier format, but potentially in the future there will be superior formats that you may wish to use and you will get better results encoding from the original than transcoding from, say, x265. I have used 2 1-minute clips from Ragnarok and Tomb Raider, and encoded them using NVENC default, x265 med, x265 slow, x264 med, and x264 slow with 8 mbps average bitrate. Discussion AV1 has better video quality compared to H. 265 or Pro Res 422 and what should the Bitrate be set to? Is there much of Because as the logic of H264 and H265 says, the H265 is 30-50% more efficient meaning for the same picture quality it saves about 30-50% of bandwidth/space, so by that meaning if you set the bit rate to 50 mbit on both, H265 should look like as if you were to set H264 to 70-80mbit which would be considerate improvement which I would be very If you are viewing in a browser, your choices are h. Handbrake is what I use when encoding x264 At equal bitrates, h. Or check it out in the app stores     TOPICS. I My process is ripping blu-rays straight from disc with MakeMKV, then compressing in Handbrake. If you're asking whether b-frames will help with color banding, it depends upon the complexity of the scene--but any help they'd offer would be minimal. I'd suggest you encode from a very high quality Blu-ray using a medium H265 preset. Mint/FFmpeg/Shutter Encoder. Otherwise you aren’t losing much. As a comparison, x264 was started around 2005, and it has almost finished development around 2013. Best to try a few CRF levels until you find the quality that is right for you. And the point of x265 was that you get the same quality at around half the bitrate compared to x264, so there's a lot of bandwidth and disk space savings. x264 and x265 are not codecs, they're libraries used to encode to a codec (h264 or h265). The higher the quality of your original video the less advantage h265 make. NEVC vs CPU etc Varies greatly based on encoder options. Gaming is it best to choose H. Its not a miracle, its not a panacea, but real world you can expect a well encoded ~5-7gb x265 copy to be comparable in quality to an ~8-10gb AVC copy. H265 and x264 are different things. mkv) Get the Reddit app Scan this QR code to download the app now. There are countless tests and comparisons between the two, and what you're saying goes against every one of them. If you want to save internet data, use RARBG Release or pahe /r/StableDiffusion is back open after the protest of Reddit killing open API access, which will bankrupt app developers h. 265 the codec) has various psycho-visual optimizations that can be enabled. For my next round il do preset 3 with more samples (~12) and compare: X265 CRF 24 vs AV1 CRF 25 A VMAF of 96. 264 and H. Note that CRF=25 is not the same nor comparable between SVTAV1 and x265. The exact quality difference can vary depending on the content and encoding settings, but AV1 is typically able to deliver 20-30% better compression efficiency compared to x265. Or check it out in the app stores   AV1 vs H265 . This advantage is especially noticeable at higher resolutions and bitrates. Now for movies that's fine. Nothing can be better than the source, but getting close to source quality with fewer bits is what x265 has done for me. It is not reencoded compared to the bluray, its the same thing but as an mkv. 4GB x264 video will not look the same as a 700mb x265 video, x265 will look worse. There's a definite pattern with Quality, with X265 usually being lower CRF to CRF. This is fine and well and stuff, but using it seems to take a literal eternity to encode (I've calculated that it take 50% of the runtime of a video for scene detection, and 100% of the video time to actually encode (from a . The ~8gb x264 and the ~5gb x265 will look pretty close. Or do I just move the un-encoded files to my server and let Plex transcode to h264? Being able to transcode to H. Questions about Moonlight : Never Drop Frames, H264 vs H265(HEVC), Optimize Get the Reddit app Scan this QR code to download the app now. However the difference should be discernible, just if you are one to pay attention to the small details a lot. H265 is nearly the same file size and visually superior in every way and in a 5th the time to boot. H265 is the ISO standard (the rules if you will, that you must follow to develop an encoder/decoder that will conform). Filesize can be anything from 20-40% of original. 264 is more widely compatible than H. For 1080p30 I'd pick 50 mbit MPEG2, 35 mbit h264 or 20 mbit h265. TV eps I've taken RF to 20, and am looking at approx 1 hr encode for 40 min episode, but of course the file size is still approx 3gb per episode which is far too much when there's a lot of eps. Recording in h265 vs ProRes question They've both the nextgen codecs. Transparent H265 encodes were not possible not so long ago because film grain and noise was removed too aggressively to a point where x264 movies looked better than x265 movies at the same bitrate. I understood the trade-offs between size/quality regarding x265 vs NVENC, and knew NVENC was going to produce a bigger file. When I export with h265 settings the file size is 3x bigger than h. I'm not sure what that means quite yet but as I'm scouring for playback issues realize that's the difference between the movies that play smoothly and the newer content I've downloaded that constantly buffers. x265 is an open source, free implementation that conforms to the h265 standard mentioned above. It's supposed to be a replacement for the "old", but widely supported and used H264. H264 vs H265 vs AV1 vs Resolve H265 for archiving /r/StableDiffusion is back open after the protest of Reddit killing open API access, which will bankrupt app developers, hamper moderation, and exclude blind users x265 17RF is the same as AV1 25RF for constant quality, assuming all other settings the same, and speed set to medium (x265) and 5 (AV1) No and it's not even close. 8-bit, 10-bit and 12-bit refer to your color depth. x264 and x265 are open source encoder implementations of the H. The biggest difference is that pretty much all web browsers support H. So I get a crash course in x264 vs x265. So while encoding to h. The results look good to me, the encode time is quick. Interframe vs Infraframe codecs: “There are intraframe and interframe codecs. I am not sure what kind of x264 video you have but encoding with i5-6400 is dauntingly very long. Objectively, it's not. x265 at 7yo is by no mean untested. 9fps on slower. Difference in file size when choosing between 8 or 10 Bit color depth is negligible. and also if h265 is basically HEVC_NVENC for NVIDIA GPU acceleration. 265 are video codecs for compressing image frames to video. x265 is not an option. x265 10 bits is the best actually (2022)! Vastly superior to x264 and x265 8 bits, way more compatible than in the past (Youtube, Facebook, everybody accept those nowadays, most new players too) and the extra color space gives you It's less about what they can do and more about how important your source material is. I included 1 for fun research and preset 2 to see what kind of decrease in file size AV1's lowest practical preset has over X265's lowest practical preset. dwbiexr urzjfq xowrhua pdok wci febc kogrj zxvo uhixa bkbt