Anyone using the q264 with Quick Sync?

[ziggy1971]

If so, I'd like to know what others think about the quality/speed of q264.

I've never been a Quick Sync fan due to the lack of features, but, it seems that the quality is approaching x264 software encodes (especially lower bitrate < 4000kbps).

Some of the quams I had with previous versions of Quick Sync are:
- limited resolutions (custom resolution 854x480)
- frame rates (If I have video that's 23.976fps, I'd like to encode it to 23.976fps, not 24fps.
- video quality

Sure it is quick, but to me it's useless unless the quality and file size is comparable to x264.

[ziggy1971]

No thoughts or opinions?

I guess nobody uses the q264 encoder...
http://www.tetrachromesoftware.com/q264-index.htm

[Selur]

Asked for support of piped input when the project started, support for it never came so it wasn't that interesting for me.
I prefer QSVEncC.

[jagabo]

I haven't used a264 but I have used Handbrake's QS encoder. On a Haswell based CPU QS is close in quality to x264 at the veryfast preset, but not hugely faster (depending on core count). So, for me, the quality is too low for anything other than a quick test rendering.

[sophisticles]

It will be interesting to see what Skylake's GT4e bring to the table, there's some rumors that it QS has been updated to support HW encode and decode of HEVC and VP9, the latter feature could prove compelling.

[jagabo]

It will be interesting to see what Skylake's GT4e bring to the table, there's some rumors that it QS has been updated to support HW encode and decode of HEVC and VP9, the latter feature could prove compelling.

Most likely they will continue to be low quality, just at lower bitrates. In the best case scenario you might be able to use the same bitrate as an x264 encode at the medium preset and have similar quality. But then you lose compatibility with a lot of devices.