Vote for the best x264 preset, for the uploads shared in the internet!

[kotuwa]

Vote for the best x264 preset to use, to share in the internet.
To get max storage and bandwidth efficiency overall...
More than 1000 users would download it.... Could be much more...
(DDL or Torrent, not to share with Youtube/Vimeo etc)

I use "veryslow"... And i think it is good for this situation...

Posted this poll to know what others think...

[redwudz]

JMO, but 'very slow' seems like a real waste of resources unless you have a really crappy slow/CPU and system and a real lot of time to kill.
Most modern systems should be able to handle a speed of 'medium' or faster, with a good quality output, though I don't know where you get those 'settings'.

[sneaker]

JMO, but 'very slow' seems like a real waste of resources unless you have a really crappy slow/CPU and system and a real lot of time to kill.
Most modern systems should be able to handle a speed of 'medium' or faster, with a good quality output, though I don't know where you get those 'settings'.

That does not make any sense. Age of system has nothing to do with the quality of the x264 output, it only affects speed.

[Selur]

Placebo still has some gain over veryslow in some really odd cases, so the max storage/bandwidth efficiency will be provided by placebo.

[kotuwa]

JMO, but 'very slow' seems like a real waste of resources unless you have a really crappy slow/CPU and system and a real lot of time to kill.
Most modern systems should be able to handle a speed of 'medium' or faster, with a good quality output, though I don't know where you get those 'settings'.

LOL... Are you kidding?
Because you are a Super Moderator!

Your post shows that you have no idea about presets.....

That is why you have mentioned "really crappy slow/CPU" in that way....
It is a preset used in x264.... Not just a word that means encoding is veryslow....

Fast new systems can encode veryslow preset faster.... In fact, it is new powerful systems are the ones that uses verysloe and placeboi.... while old slow systems take lot of time, users looking for faster presets to get the job done in decent time....

I suggest that if you voted, you may have misvoted!...

[racer-x]

I generally use veryslow to make the file size smaller. However it tends to use high reference frame (unless you specify otherwise) and that may cause playback problems on some devices. My TV doesn't like high reference frames for example.

If you are after efficiency, look to vp9 or hevc instead. Again playback problem may occur.

[fritzi93]

Very Slow. I used to use Slower.
It's not like I do encodes every single day, so no hurry. And I built this computer with encoding in mind anyway.

[Hoser Rob]

JMO, but 'very slow' seems like a real waste of resources unless you have a really crappy slow/CPU and system and a real lot of time to kill.
Most modern systems should be able to handle a speed of 'medium' or faster, with a good quality output, though I don't know where you get those 'settings'.

LOL... Are you kidding?
Because you are a Super Moderator!

Your post shows that you have no idea about presets.....

That is why you have mentioned "really crappy slow/CPU" in that way....
It is a preset used in x264.... Not just a word that means encoding is veryslow....

Fast new systems can encode veryslow preset faster.... In fact, it is new powerful systems are the ones that uses verysloe and placeboi.... while old slow systems take lot of time, users looking for faster presets to get the job done in decent time....

I suggest that if you voted, you may have misvoted!...

You have really outdone yourself there. And not in a good way.

This is the dumbest of all these dumb polls.

[_Al_]

kotuwa:

It is never a problem to comperes the video "the heck out of it", so Selur provided logical answer, but your poll makes no sense regarding of playability. Anybody could set placebo settings, high or no limits for buffers, high bitrate (set with high bitrate or low CRF). But encoding business is business to know who are you actually encoding for. Hence no valid poll here, it is not specified for whom you encode. If you encode for a person that uses not older computer or solid HTPC only, heck, crank up settings and it will be fine. You save some space or download volume in your case, but is it worthy limiting number of devices you can actually play that video with?

Video is being compressed in regard so people have no problem to actually play it on devices without problem. As racer-x mentioned, high reference frame count and other settings cranked up may give "no play" flag on hardware device or even stuttering using device with weak processing power. So at least you should specify --ref 4 with those "crank up" settings but then it makes less sense to use that placebo settings in the first place. Placebo would perhaps set -ref 16 and that might be a heck of of memory in case of HD video (you did not specify anything), not mentioning UHD, more difficult to process on devices, some might simply refuse to play it etc.

[Jamaika]

Vote for the best x264 preset, for the uploads shared in the internet!

Preset "veryslov" enough for Youtube / Vimeo / Google. Just a by pass=1. Is it worth it to use the codec VP9 at low bitrates? Not really, because not everyone has a new computer.

What settings take into TV and what bitrate to use on a pendrive? That nobody knows. I do not happens for TV capabilities.

[racer-x]

On second thought, this poll really is stupid. Unless you know what your downloading audience is, you can never determine what the best preset to use is. If you upload to youtube, then it gets re-encoded anyway.

I generally use veryslow on videos I post here because I don't care if people can view them or not. If I wanted to get maximum viewing I would either use fast, or at the very least make sure to use --preset medium --keyint 30 --level 4.0 --bframes 3 --ref 4

Anyway this poll is totally useless for anyone who seriously wants to create compatible videos on the web. Disregard my vote...........

[kotuwa]

To all the guys...

This is not about uploading to Youtube/Vimeo etc....
Do not assume that the post is that general...
When I said this is downloaded more than 1000 times, you have to think that the file we encode is the one which is being downloaded...
That means the time we invest to encode would cost us once, but it would help more than 1000......
1 guy, encoders suffer from time, 1000 or more benefit from quality/bandwidth...
If this is about youtube/vimeo, then time to encode is only 1 time thing, then it would be about encode time vs upload time...
So, I edited the OP.

And regarding ref counts and playability....
Compatibility won't affect by the preset most of the time, but the profile....
Ref count and Bframes like stfuff changes, it is about the question itself!...
More ref, more bframes, more space efficiency while costing time...

This is not asking about which preset is best....
This is a specific question asking about a certain scenario.... It is more than 1000 users download the encode as it is...

[Detmek]

It's simple. Use the slowest preset you can afford and set correct parametars for compatibility, if you need to worry about it. If you are asking is it worth to use presets like Slower, Very Slow or Placebo, that depends if you think if 1-2% gain in quality is worth 2-4 time longer encoding time. It's up to you.

[newpball]

It's the bitrate that matters most.

Some people think they can get quality with crappy bitrates and a lot of tinkering with options and Avisynth filters.

That's like putting a bunch of spoilers on some Ford Fiesta and now thinking you got a Ferrari race car.

A good bitrate is what matters most.

[_Al_]

Ok generalizing yet again about "some people", let me go at it as well,
true, bitrate is most important, but some people do not give a damn about quality, as long it is not that bad and too big for download. And kids are watching those on tablets and even phones today. BD bitrates would not work for them as well. I'm sure you realize that you posted in thread about internet download. We do not know what is kotuwa talking about, but most probably a movie.

[newpball]

Ok generalizing yet again about "some people", let me go at it as well,
true, bitrate is most important, but some people do not give a damn about quality, as long it is not that bad and too big for download. And kids are watching those on tablets and even phones today. BD bitrates would not work for them as well. I'm sure you realize that you posted in thread about internet download. We do not know what is kotuwa talking about, but most probably a movie.

"Sharing" movies on torrents for thousands of users?
I see where this is going.

[_Al_]

edit: you managed to fix your answer, yes, this is not YouTube thread

[newpball]

This is not "YouTube" thread.

I know, that's why I changed my reply.

[_Al_]