5 ms·

Just for clarification - I completely agree with the testing that you have done here. I think you've proven that it's easier to get better results with CRF sett

Just for clarification - I completely agree with the testing that you have done here. I think you've proven that it's easier to get better results with CRF settings alone and that they're likely using x264 as the encoder behind the scenes. I should have prefaced my commentary and noted that it was a response to the ("clarified") claims in this thread, from Beamr, about what the Beamr service actually provides. In response to your tests, they claimed they were selling intelligent settings and "the lowest bitrate". I just provided a means of testing this aspect as well.

Daiz 14y ago
>I just provided a means of testing this aspect as well. I agree that it would be an interesting test, but seeing that they're not actually offering a real cloud encoding service for users yet, the only people who could run tests against their product are people working at Beamr Video. Which obviously wouldn't make for very reliable test data. (By the way, it's "CRF", not "CFR". "CFR" generally refers to "constant framerate" in the context of videos and video encoding, whereas x264's "CRF" stands for "constant rate factor" - but as said, people generally just call the CRF mode "constant quality mode".)
- pudquick 14y ago
  Thank you, fixed