Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ngel
Hi to all,
i've starting recently experimenting x265 as an alternative to x264
I've done a test to a clip with the same bitrate, and the result is not what i was hoping.
These are the screens
Original
x264
--pass 1 --slow-firstpass --profile high --level 4.1 --preset veryslow --tune grain --bitrate 5414
--pass 2 --slow-firstpass --profile high --level 4.1 --preset veryslow --tune grain --bitrate 5414
x265
--pass 1 --slow-firstpass --preset veryslow --tune grain --bitrate 5414
--pass 2 --slow-firstpass --preset veryslow --tune grain --bitrate 5414
As you can see, x264 does overally a better job than x265.
In particular you can see banding and more "encoding artifact".
Is this the expected behaviour at this stage of x265 development or I'm missing parameters?
Thank you very much for your work
|
--tune grain are designed pretty differently for x264 and x265 IIRC. I wouldn't expect identical results even at the same net psychovisual preference. And from the still it isn't obvious to me that --tune grain is appropriate for this source. I would probably have tried --tune film in x264 (which doesn't have a x265 preset implementation).
These are relatively subtle differences; can you see the difference when playing at full speed?
Also, these are pretty high bitrates for VBR in either case. The point of x265 is for bitrates where x264 isn't good enough. Maybe try 2000 to see some bigger differences.