2 ms·
> x265 outperforms libvpx for almost all resolutions and quality metrics, but the performance gap narrows (or even reverses) at 1080p. It's not clear if this m
by corysama 10y ago
> x265 outperforms libvpx for almost all resolutions and quality metrics, but the performance gap narrows (or even reverses) at 1080p.
It's not clear if this means libvpx is sometimes better than x265 at resolutions > 1080p or <= 1080p. I think the author intended "occasionally better when <= 1080p"
- MBCook 10y agoI read it as "at 1080p they become equal or libvpx is better"
- sirclueless 10y agoRight, the question is which direction you are going when you hit 1080p. Are you going down from 4k? Or up from 720p. In context, it's likely they mean "1080p [or higher]", but it's arguably ambiguous.
- uraza 10y agoIt's a little more clear in the abstract. (At http://spie.org/OPO/conferencedetails/digital-image-processing#session-7 http://spie.org/OPO/conferencedetails/digital-image-processi...) > x265 outperforms libvpx in most cases, but the performance gap narrows (or even reverses) at the higher resolutions. So libvpx is sometimes better than x265 at resolutions > 1080p.
- wallacoloo 10y agoIt sounds as though they tested at only 3 discrete resolutions (none of which were > 1080p, btw), so I think it's a strict equality.