4 ms·
I was recently compressing some Blu-Ray rips to H.265 and made the rather funny discovery that H.264 in its film profile with some additional NR can achieve bet
by pdntspa 4y ago
I was recently compressing some Blu-Ray rips to H.265 and made the rather funny discovery that H.264 in its film profile with some additional NR can achieve better bitrates, a faster encode, and a smaller filesize at equivalent quality levels than H.265, for sources with heavy film grain.
For some reason ffmpeg's H.265 implementation doesn't have a film profile, I wonder why?
- ahartmetz 4y agoYou are probably talking about the x264 and x265 encoders? The former was created by some obsessed people, the latter by employees. x264 goes above and beyond being a "good implementation". It is also less tuned according to "objective" (actually terrible) metrics than most codecs. Simplistic "objective" metrics encourage blurry images and sometimes odd spatial and temporal distributions of blurriness. It would be nice to have a fantastic implementation of an h.265 encoder like x264, but alas.
- extraduder_ire 4y agoMy favourite novel things about x264 are probably the tuning preset called "touhou", literally for better encoding things that look like a bullet hell game, and that the highest quality preset is called "placebo".
- pdntspa 4y agoI can't edit the post now but you are correct. I thought the profiles were inherent to the spec, and I seem to be mixing up profiles and tunings, but it sounds like they're just implementation details in x264/x265 Still, it was really interesting that ffmpeg -i bluray:[filename] -c:v libx264 -crf 22 -tune film -preset slow -nr 500 produced a smaller file with higher visual quality than ffmpeg -i bluray:[filename] -c:v libx265 -crf 25 -preset slow for highly grainy inputs