3 ms·

It's good for bitrate starved files, but x264 is actually still more efficient for transparent encodes. x265 currently can't handle noise very well. x265 is al

• gillianseed 12y ago
  >It's good for bitrate starved files, but x264 is actually still more efficient for transparent encodes. x265 currently can't handle noise very well. Yes this is my impression as well from the tests I've made. >x265 is also much slower than x264, but it's getting faster all the time. It will remain slower than x264 though, it uses more cpu consuming algorithms in order to cram out more 'quality per bit', that said it likely has a lot of performance improvements left to do.
  • xooyoozoo 12y ago
    >It will remain slower than x264 though, it uses more cpu consuming algorithms in order to cram out more 'quality per bit' At an abstract level, HEVC is AVC + refinement + new algorithms. Conforming bitstreams aren't required to use all or even most features, so in the long-term, I don't see why an HEVC encoder can't be a simple, straightforward superset of x264 (i.e. same speed for same quality).
    • gillianseed 12y ago
      Sure, but the whole point behind x265 is to provide better quality per bit than x264.
• jzelinskie 12y ago
  By noise, do you mean something like a grain filter? If so, that blows up the size of x264 encodes as well -- enough that people will usually go out of their way to remove said grain to improve the encode.