3 ms·

macOS and Windows 10 have included a license for H.264 and H.265 for a few years now (encode/decode are OS API calls). Linux does not, however GPUs like Intel'

macOS and Windows 10 have included a license for H.264 and H.265 for a few years now (encode/decode are OS API calls). Linux does not, however GPUs like Intel's QuickSync, nVidia's NVEnc/NVDec and AMD's VCEEnc/VCEDec have one. If you paid for the GPU or CPU with a built-in codec, then that included a license. ffmpeg can be compiled with support for your hardware encoder.

vetinari 4y ago
Windows 10 does not include a license for H.265; you have to purchase it separately[1]. There is a very well hidden, free "from device manufacturer" version[2], so unless you know about it, you have nearby zero chance finding it. Linux distributions and Firefox do provide H.264 support via openh264; it is sponsored by Cisco, who are already in the flat license territory, so all they have to do is track binary downloads (that's why they are separate download, or repository respectively). It also plugs seamlessly into linux multimedia framework (Gstreamer), so it is on the same level of integration, as Media Foundation codecs in Windows. There is no H.265 equivalent, still. The hardware based encoding is not equivalent to software one; it is optimized for dumping compliant streams with low latency, it does not concern itself with effective use of the bits available. I.e. exactly what software based, offline encoders are good at. [1] https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/hevc-video-extensions/9NMZLZ57R3T7 https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/hevc-video-extension... [2] https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/hevc-video-extensions-from-device-manufacturer/9N4WGH0Z6VHQ https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/hevc-video-extension...
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  > The hardware based encoding is not equivalent to software one; it is optimized for dumping compliant streams with low latency, it does not concern itself with effective use of the bits available. I.e. exactly what software based, offline encoders are good at. This isn't my experience with NVENC for h.264. Sure, software encoding can do somewhat (but not a lot) better (quality per bits), but at a fraction of the performance and using much more energy. For most cases were you're personally encoding video it's likely better to use a hardware encoder.
  - Cadwhisker 4y ago
    I have to agree with NVENC. I've benchmarked dozens of HW and SW encoders for quality (not just encoding speed) and it gives the best BD-Rate on average. For H.264, hardware can brute-force every possible Intra encoded macroblock and make rate-distortion-optimised QP/prediction decisions in real-time or better. This gets much harder for H.265, where brute-force is fairly impractical and the clever algorithm wins. A well-designed hardware codec can also run inter-frame block matching searches vastly more efficiently than software can.

vetinari 4y ago

Windows 10 does not include a license for H.265; you have to purchase it separately[1]. There is a very well hidden, free "from device manufacturer" version[2], so unless you know about it, you have nearby zero chance finding it. Linux distributions and Firefox do provide H.264 support via openh264; it is sponsored by Cisco, who are already in the flat license territory, so all they have to do is track binary downloads (that's why they are separate download, or repository respectively). It also plugs seamlessly into linux multimedia framework (Gstreamer), so it is on the same level of integration, as Media Foundation codecs in Windows. There is no H.265 equivalent, still. The hardware based encoding is not equivalent to software one; it is optimized for dumping compliant streams with low latency, it does not concern itself with effective use of the bits available. I.e. exactly what software based, offline encoders are good at. [1] https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/hevc-video-extensions/9NMZLZ57R3T7 https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/hevc-video-extension... [2] https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/hevc-video-extensions-from-device-manufacturer/9N4WGH0Z6VHQ https://apps.microsoft.com/store/detail/hevc-video-extension...

formerly_proven 4y ago
> The hardware based encoding is not equivalent to software one; it is optimized for dumping compliant streams with low latency, it does not concern itself with effective use of the bits available. I.e. exactly what software based, offline encoders are good at. This isn't my experience with NVENC for h.264. Sure, software encoding can do somewhat (but not a lot) better (quality per bits), but at a fraction of the performance and using much more energy. For most cases were you're personally encoding video it's likely better to use a hardware encoder.
- Cadwhisker 4y ago
  I have to agree with NVENC. I've benchmarked dozens of HW and SW encoders for quality (not just encoding speed) and it gives the best BD-Rate on average. For H.264, hardware can brute-force every possible Intra encoded macroblock and make rate-distortion-optimised QP/prediction decisions in real-time or better. This gets much harder for H.265, where brute-force is fairly impractical and the clever algorithm wins. A well-designed hardware codec can also run inter-frame block matching searches vastly more efficiently than software can.