To me, atm. the question is more:It's all subjective, really. You could get all three encoders to produce the same quality file depending on what settings you use.
The question is "which encoder at those settings produces that file in the least amount of time?"
Can x265/DivX265 produce the same quality (or better) than x264 at the same size for normal* data rates.
Speed is not that important to me, since I'm confident that:
a. new CPUs
b. normal implementation optimization
will, in the future, speed things up fast enough for it to be usable.
Ps.: *Personally 'normal' would be something like 1-2.5mbit/s for an (anamorphic) 576p and 4.5-11.0mbit/s for 1080p content.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 55 of 55
Until x265 can encode as fast as DivX265 then it should not even be considered in the comparisons. That said, I used -q 9 for x265 which produced almost the exact same file as DivX265 balanced at -q 8 and x264 medium at --crf 17.
Is divx better?
THEY WERE RECORDED BY SONY F65!!!! FANTASTIC QUALITY.
Date: May 2013,
Length: 5 s
Camera: Sony F65
Description: Closeup on female face, hair waving around. Black background
Resolution: 4096 x 2160 pixels
Frame Rate: 120 fps (progressive)
Bit depth: 16 bit
Data format: RAW
ffmpeg should be able to deal with raw yuv - i hope it can be piped to any commandline encoder as usual - or avisynth as frame server but then perhaps loosing 10 bits where i see definitely most h.265 gain from consumer standard 10 bit (accepted btw by DVB as Europe target consumer profile - 8 bit video era finally start ending).
whole discussion about h.265 is currently irrelevant - it is unavoidable - in future h.265 will go over h.264 but for now all implementations are limited and immature - comparing them to x264 which seem to be best open source h.264 encoder is unfair.
to really match h.265 vs h.264 it should provide at the same quality (subjective and objective) reduction of bitrate at least twice (as promised) - i hope with time we will see this kind of figures.
clear proof that h.265 is not ready to be deployed is lack of h.265 4k real time hardware encoders - there is a chance that they start being available somewhere as first half of the 2015, probably suffering from similar problems as at the beginning of h.264.
We need to be patient and support h.265 developers.
Last edited by pandy; 8th Jul 2014 at 13:14.
Stop trying to pose as a technical authority when it is obvious you are not.
There are no real scholars in this forum. All what the most experienced forum member know..is learnable within 2-3 months (with intensive learning)
What hapend with you? You switched to redneck mode Usually you are more relaxed and balanced personality in the forum.
Last edited by Stears555; 8th Jul 2014 at 15:44.
In the page of that YT clip, I found two VERY-pertinent comments:
Too early.And where do I display 8K?
divx hevc encoder is purposely limited from working with 120fps sources and for another I/O and cpu/ram are a huge bottleneck on my system.
i'm downloading some of the 1080p source for some test encodes.
Yep, i saw NHK stand in 2011 and 2012 on IBC (2013 i giveup) - but this is proof of concept not real encoder you can order and place in your headend...
For today non of major players on broadcast market offer h.265 4k 30fps (when 60fps?) capable encoder...
Even current DVB-T2 transmission test by BBC are made with help of the 4 h.264 encoders...
Most of the time if I want to watch something in HD..... well I shouldn't talk about that, but I can't wait to buy a UHD TV to watch SD free to air, or maybe 4k video which really only has 900p worth of picture detail. Did I start ranting.....
ANd of course this is true about Australia but... this is proof of concept, UHD for long will be niche not regular broadcast, lack of sources, high bandwidth requirements, probably h.265 mean that more and more SD services will be replaced by HD version - not bad from my perspective as HD is still OK for many people.
raw YUV 10 bit from link can be easily converted to avi trough ffmpeg with ffv1 lossless codec - files should compress quite nice (for example ShakeNDry_3840x2160_120fps_420_10bit_YUV_RAW_001.7 z from original 7z 1.75GiB to 1.45GiB avi)
@ffmpeg -f rawvideo -pixel_format yuv420p10le -video_size 3840x2160 -r 120.0 -i %1 -c:v ffv1 -an %1.avi
Last edited by pandy; 9th Jul 2014 at 12:34.
I'm not saying that x264 is always better than Divx265. But in those particular examples it is.
Last edited by jagabo; 9th Jul 2014 at 12:33.
Only one would be different and then we can compare it....
For an example.... if we compare DivX265 with x265, then File Size and the FPS is nearly same... then we can compare check the quality effectively...
If we compare x264 and x265... then if the the File Size and the Quality would be nearly same (if), the we can compare the Speed...