What Is The Best Overall Video Format And Codec??

[DJboutit]

What is the best overall video format and Codec for smallest size video and best video quality??

[LMotlow]

This question again?
They just keep coming, don't they?

I'll summarize the several hundred other posts that have already appeared for this question during the past 10 years or more: No such thing as "best". Use what you like.

[jagabo]

AV1 right now.

http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/hevc_2017/MSU_HEVC_comparison_2017_P5...Q_encoders.pdf

But nothing plays it.

[johns0]

Mkv with H264 codec,avi is outdated.

[lordsmurf]

Right now...

- MPEG-2 (15mpbs+ and 4:2:2 if possible)
- H.264 in either MP4 or MKV container, CRF encoding

Again ... right now.

[Cornucopia]

"Best" must always be predicated by some criteria, priorities, application, audience.

My opinion is that the best is HFR (120/240fps), Stereoscopic, RAW 32bpp linear HDR float, 8k, rec2020/ACES, for video. And audio is 22.2ch+Atmos (or Binaural, Soundfield), LPCM, 32bit, 384kHz.
Obviously, that prioritizes quality over cost, bitrate/space requirements, playability, commonality.

Scott

[johns0]

MPEG-2 died like 10 years ago,i would never use that for any reason.

[LMotlow]

MPEG-2 died like 10 years ago,i would never use that for any reason.

LOL! And here's that one again! DVD still outsells BluRay and is a staple in broadcasting. Anyway a/v streaming is taking over, a favorite of users with dysfunctional eyesight and tin ears, who don't mind paying good money for digital leftovers of better quality material.

[stonesfan99]

I'd agree with the above posters who said MKV H264.

[Zero-11]

H.265/hevc

[KarMa]

Mkv with H264 codec,avi is outdated.

jagabo was talking about AV1, the soon to be released standard from AOMedia (Google/Netflix/Mozilla/so on), not the old .AVI the container.

[jagabo]

"Best" must always be predicated by some criteria, priorities, application, audience.

The OP specified:

smallest size video and best video quality??

I took it to mean the best quality at the smallest file size. But I suppose you could guess that was two separate questions: what gives the best quality, and what gives the smallest file size.

[pandy]

LPCM, 32bit, 384kHz

But why (i know We can but...)? You triggered my curiosity...

[Cornucopia]

It's not always about "just good enough". Better to have a cushion, wiggle-room.

And, contrary to what has been promoted here and elsewhere, I have been able to tell - with surprising consistency* - the difference between 44/48k sampling and 88/96k sampling, and to a lesser extent between that and 176/192k. Because as I have said before, it is not just judgement of traditional criteria of audio but also of things such as impulse response slew, and interchannel timing differences affecting imaging (where higher samplerates can make a difference). Surely you remember I'm all about the stereo3d/holographic video and the binaural/soundfield/3d audio.

And this also goes to technical ear training. Partly why I take some of those past studies with a huge grain of salt, because they only approach the A/B testing from a certain traditional perspective.

Scott

*not so much now that I'm older, but still better than most.

[hdfills]

Right now...

- MPEG-2 (15mpbs+ and 4:2:2 if possible)
- H.264 in either MP4 or MKV container, CRF encoding

Again ... right now.

the king has spoken .... take note

[pandy]

It's not always about "just good enough". Better to have a cushion, wiggle-room.

And, contrary to what has been promoted here and elsewhere, I have been able to tell - with surprising consistency* - the difference between 44/48k sampling and 88/96k sampling, and to a lesser extent between that and 176/192k. Because as I have said before, it is not just judgement of traditional criteria of audio but also of things such as impulse response slew, and interchannel timing differences affecting imaging (where higher samplerates can make a difference). Surely you remember I'm all about the stereo3d/holographic video and the binaural/soundfield/3d audio.

And this also goes to technical ear training. Partly why I take some of those past studies with a huge grain of salt, because they only approach the A/B testing from a certain traditional perspective.

Scott

*not so much now that I'm older, but still better than most.

384kHz@32 bits? IMHO even 16 bit with sufficient noise shaping will deliver more than 32 bits dynamics (theoretical), i doubt that without few tens of kV you will be able to push noise floor bellow -130dB. I mean those numbers looks good but for LPCM more than 24 bits is impractical from technology perspective... Especially that slew rate for Delta Sigma is rather slow when compared to pure monolithic DAC... but anyway thanks for an answer - was just curious.

[Cornucopia]

May not be necessary for end user, but for a producer it can be vital.

The OP wanted a superlative, I gave him/her a superlative. Is it practical? Not really. More my wish.
You don't have to approve - I understand.

Scott

[pandy]

May not be necessary for end user, but for a producer it can be vital.

...

You don't have to approve - I understand.

For work-flow may be not enough (considering existence of DSD512).
Not a manager, not my role and have no intention to be. You just triggered curiosity, that's all.
Thx!

[Hoser Rob]

If you really need to ask the OP's question then I think the best one would be the one he or she can figure out how to use.

[blud7]

There is no perfect codec but for quality and file-size

H264 is the King at the moment in mp4 or mkv container
H265 is better in some instances than h264 at similar bit-rates / file-size
AV1 will probably be better than everything else but it's not currently playable by all devices

[stonesfan99]

there is no "one-size-fits-all." too many variables affect what is best. most people would probably say h264-encoded video inside mp4/m4v or mkv container with aac 2.0 and/or ac3 5.1 audio. h265 will save some space at the cost of longer encoding times and less compatibility.