4 ms·

> Not really sure why this is so unbelievable No one is saying that. Everyone knows H265 is better than H264. Just saying your number is meaningless without ei

> Not really sure why this is so unbelievable No one is saying that. Everyone knows H265 is better than H264. Just saying your number is meaningless without either fixing the bitrate or the quality.

dylan604 6y ago
Sure. Don't believe some random dude from the internet. But if you're not going to go through the hassle of running the tests on your own, your "meaningless" claims are meaningless. Have you spent time in your career as a compressionist? Have you encoded hundred of hours in various codecs looking at the best tweaks to get the highest visual quality for the smallest file sizes? The test files that I produced resulted in the h.264/crf23 with a bitrate of 970kbps while the h.264/crf28 result with a bitrate of 800kbps. The h.265 used less bitrate to achieve half the filesize. I have stacked the 2 videos and toggle between the two. There is no visible difference. I have done this experiment. It is up to you to do the same thing to see if you can replicate the results or not. That's science. But it is much easier to just post "no it doesn't" comments on the internet.
- fireattack 6y ago
  Yes, I have spent hundreds of hours in comparing video encoder results, but that's beside the point. One don't need to have done that to be able to tell your experiment is flawed. All you have is literally one datapoint, 970kbps h264 has "no visible difference" compared with 800kbps h265, and I believe that. But maybe 800kbps h264 also doesn't have visible difference from it. Maybe there is just not much difference to notice from 500 to 1200kbps, for your specific video. Again, my point is your experiment has too few samples (literally 1 pair). Using that to conclude anything is the exact opposite of "scientific" method. I never say "h265 isn't better than h264" or "your result is wrong"; just your result doesn't prove the former. If you insist to use just one sample, you could at least use the same bitrate (2-pass if you want to have better rate control) and say "hey, the h265 one is visibly better!", and that would be more convincing.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >Again, my point is your experiment has too few samples (literally 1 pair). This experiment was to show that the gains the original post made wasn't solely due to the video being an unchanging desktop. There were enough samples done to show that claim seems to be false, though more data could change that. Basically, you're misunderstanding the theory tested, and while your complaints would make sense testing a different theory, they don't discount the experimental evidence for the tested theory.
    - fireattack 6y ago
      > was to show that the gains the original post made wasn't solely due to the video being an unchanging desktop I assume your point is "while both reduced the size (from an unchanging desktop, which is easily compressible), H.265 reduces the size even further. So it (the choice of codec) is also a contributing factor." And I get it. My point is that even this wasn't proved by his experiment, because he failed to prove the two outputs have the same quality. And without having this, comparing file size is meaningless (because as stated by others, with lossy codec you can generate arbitrary file size by tweaking the parameters). Yes, he did say "there is no visible difference". However, most of people can't tell any difference bwtween 600kbps and 1000kbps, using the same codec, either. In other words, there is a huge range of bitrates where average eyes can't tell difference. So the "same quality" premise has to be very strict and objective. It's not I'm trying to be picky. A better approach, as I have said above, is to fix bitrate instead of quality. This way, you can find a certain point where people DO find the difference in quality, and then you can conclude more confidently that one is better than the other due to higher quality/filesize ratio.
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >My point is that even this wasn't proved by his experiment, because he failed to prove the two outputs have the same quality. If the gains were purely due to an unchanging image, both conversions should have chopped the file size to basically nothing. Any file size difference due to quality would be dwarfed by reduction due to compression of like 600 images down to a handful.

> Not really sure why this is so unbelievable No one is saying that. Everyone knows H265 is better than H264. Just saying your number is meaningless without either fixing the bitrate or the quality.

dylan604 6y ago

Sure. Don't believe some random dude from the internet. But if you're not going to go through the hassle of running the tests on your own, your "meaningless" claims are meaningless. Have you spent time in your career as a compressionist? Have you encoded hundred of hours in various codecs looking at the best tweaks to get the highest visual quality for the smallest file sizes? The test files that I produced resulted in the h.264/crf23 with a bitrate of 970kbps while the h.264/crf28 result with a bitrate of 800kbps. The h.265 used less bitrate to achieve half the filesize. I have stacked the 2 videos and toggle between the two. There is no visible difference. I have done this experiment. It is up to you to do the same thing to see if you can replicate the results or not. That's science. But it is much easier to just post "no it doesn't" comments on the internet.

fireattack 6y ago
Yes, I have spent hundreds of hours in comparing video encoder results, but that's beside the point. One don't need to have done that to be able to tell your experiment is flawed. All you have is literally one datapoint, 970kbps h264 has "no visible difference" compared with 800kbps h265, and I believe that. But maybe 800kbps h264 also doesn't have visible difference from it. Maybe there is just not much difference to notice from 500 to 1200kbps, for your specific video. Again, my point is your experiment has too few samples (literally 1 pair). Using that to conclude anything is the exact opposite of "scientific" method. I never say "h265 isn't better than h264" or "your result is wrong"; just your result doesn't prove the former. If you insist to use just one sample, you could at least use the same bitrate (2-pass if you want to have better rate control) and say "hey, the h265 one is visibly better!", and that would be more convincing.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Again, my point is your experiment has too few samples (literally 1 pair). This experiment was to show that the gains the original post made wasn't solely due to the video being an unchanging desktop. There were enough samples done to show that claim seems to be false, though more data could change that. Basically, you're misunderstanding the theory tested, and while your complaints would make sense testing a different theory, they don't discount the experimental evidence for the tested theory.
  - fireattack 6y ago
    > was to show that the gains the original post made wasn't solely due to the video being an unchanging desktop I assume your point is "while both reduced the size (from an unchanging desktop, which is easily compressible), H.265 reduces the size even further. So it (the choice of codec) is also a contributing factor." And I get it. My point is that even this wasn't proved by his experiment, because he failed to prove the two outputs have the same quality. And without having this, comparing file size is meaningless (because as stated by others, with lossy codec you can generate arbitrary file size by tweaking the parameters). Yes, he did say "there is no visible difference". However, most of people can't tell any difference bwtween 600kbps and 1000kbps, using the same codec, either. In other words, there is a huge range of bitrates where average eyes can't tell difference. So the "same quality" premise has to be very strict and objective. It's not I'm trying to be picky. A better approach, as I have said above, is to fix bitrate instead of quality. This way, you can find a certain point where people DO find the difference in quality, and then you can conclude more confidently that one is better than the other due to higher quality/filesize ratio.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >My point is that even this wasn't proved by his experiment, because he failed to prove the two outputs have the same quality. If the gains were purely due to an unchanging image, both conversions should have chopped the file size to basically nothing. Any file size difference due to quality would be dwarfed by reduction due to compression of like 600 images down to a handful.