4 ms·

> 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 s

> 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.
- fireattack 6y ago
  My original comment is about his experiment can't prove H.265 is better than H.264 (and I think that's what he wanted to show). Of course modern video codecs can compress video very well regardless if the input is "unchanged image" or not. I was not arguing about this.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >and I think that's what he wanted to show). It wasn't. The test was whether reencoding was what's important, or the codec used. I'm the one that asked the question Dylan was kind enough to try and answer, your further testing would not answer my question any better.
    - fireattack 6y ago
      He was replying to stevenhuang, not you directly. stevenhuang said "Reencoding the same input file as h264 again but using FFmpeg defaults would probably yield similar file size reductions." So, it looks to me he was trying to refute that "using H264 again would yield similar file size reduction". If you think it's not, that's fine. Not something worth debating.

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.

fireattack 6y ago
My original comment is about his experiment can't prove H.265 is better than H.264 (and I think that's what he wanted to show). Of course modern video codecs can compress video very well regardless if the input is "unchanged image" or not. I was not arguing about this.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >and I think that's what he wanted to show). It wasn't. The test was whether reencoding was what's important, or the codec used. I'm the one that asked the question Dylan was kind enough to try and answer, your further testing would not answer my question any better.
  - fireattack 6y ago
    He was replying to stevenhuang, not you directly. stevenhuang said "Reencoding the same input file as h264 again but using FFmpeg defaults would probably yield similar file size reductions." So, it looks to me he was trying to refute that "using H264 again would yield similar file size reduction". If you think it's not, that's fine. Not something worth debating.