4 ms·
...but why? In my experience, using H.264 to encode screen captures gives you extremely high quality video for reasonable CPU and network expenditures. Is the
by dietrichepp 13y ago
...but why? In my experience, using H.264 to encode screen captures gives you extremely high quality video for reasonable CPU and network expenditures. Is the last 1% of video quality really worth it?
For a demo, you can try using FFmpeg + x264 using the x11grab input. It's very easy to adjust the amount of CPU used (by changing the preset) and the bandwidth (by changing the CRF, or by setting the bit rate).
- wmf 13y agoI would expect the rolling hash to be much faster than H.264 while also being lossless.
- sp332 13y agoLossless encoding is important for text, especially sub-pixel antialiased test.
- dietrichepp 13y agoCan you back that up? In my experience, when I replay an H.264 screen capture, I can't tell the difference. I'd be happy to post PNG screenshots. Keep in mind that H.264 does not have to be 4:2:0, it can easily be 4:4:4.
- sp332 13y agoIt sounds cool, I would be very curious to try it! Edit: If you're offering, I would like to see some screenshots. Also, what settings do you use for it?