Quote:
Originally Posted by excellentswordfight
Its not weird, and these are the results I was anticipating, hence why I thought you were kidding.
Imo the use case for x265 with very low preset with very low crf value are very limited, especially for consumer ripping bellow 4K (and at 4K as well as going with that low of an crf value will result in massive bitrates) Cause the more bits you spend, and the closer to visually lossless you get the less difference will there be between AVC and hevc, and with very small difference it will be very hard to justify the speed cost.
And you cannot really use the same crf value between different encoders and expect simulair behavior that effeciency conclusions can be drawn from, you cant even do that between different presets in x265! Use 2pass and use a bitrate were you are starting to get a degraded picture with x264 and see if you can improve it with x265. Then dail in a crf value that corresponds with the bitrate range were you are please with the quality.
I ripp in the more 18ish range for 1080p blurays, and there I get away with a bitrate arround 6mpbs, were x264 would need closer to 8mbps. This is with a 2.5x speed penalty mind you, and that gives me maybe a 20% bitrate reduction (calculations based on my very subjetive eyes  ) |
Okay, thanks for the explanation, guys. I will need to do some substantially different tests.
As for 'lower bitrate at more-or-less the same quality' for x265, that's cute, but, in all honesty, for me only of interest if a (significantly) smaller output file would be the result. Setting CRF to 18 (instead of 14) would probably accomplish that already. So, the HEVC efficiency apparently is about similar output quality at lesser bitrates. I can live with that.
