> It's only recently been possible to actually use x265 for transparent encodes, previous versions of x265 removed film grain/digital noice to such a degree tha

> It's only recently been possible to actually use x265 for transparent encodes, previous versions of x265 removed film grain/digital noice to such a degree that the quality was worse than x264 at equivalent bitrates. I've noticed this recently - Slow RF16 encodes were _visually_ worse (as in during casual watching I was asking if the source was really this bad, and when I went back to compare it was not[1]). Going to Slower is not tenable (a movie encode already takes ~8 hous, going to Slower makes it take nearly 2 days) (and I'm not even sure it would help), and increasing the RF to 14 would mean as I'm as well off keeping the original file (in some cases, RF16 is already almost as big as the original). [1] Random framegrab, not checking the labels until after - in every case, it was obvious which was which.