3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoMy 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 agoHe 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.