3 ms·
These look great! It’s amazing how much better hardware gets annually. The only thing I was hoping for that wasn’t mentioned was hardware-accelerated VP9 encodi
by gallerdude 6y ago
These look great! It’s amazing how much better hardware gets annually. The only thing I was hoping for that wasn’t mentioned was hardware-accelerated VP9 encoding, but we can’t get everything we want in life.
- daneel_w 6y agoIf we were to imagine that VP9 hardware encoding by Nvidia would hold the same standard as their H.265 hardware encoding then we can stop holding our breaths, as we have not missed out on anything of any value what so ever. For H.265 their encoder is fast, yes, but the quality per bitrate is complete rubbish, requiring higher bitrate than a good H.264 encode yet still contrives the gruesome trick of looking far worse, which entirely offsets all and any point with H.265.
- gallerdude 6y agoOh interesting, I didn't know the Nvidia encoder was regarded as trash. What tools can one I use to evaluate visual quality of a video file? My proxy for quality has always been bitrate, but I know that bitrate is just chasing visuak quality anyways...
- fomine3 6y agoSSIM is popular but now VMAF is considered good index.
- fomine3 6y agoNo. Turing's NVEnc for H.265 is great for speed (as usual) and good for quality with Bframes support when compared to other HW encoders. (Ice Lake's encoder is also good but it's released later). It shouldn't be complete rubbish. IMO it's usable not only for streaming but also for archiving. Don't compare quality with x265, that should be good quality and slow.