Quote:
Originally Posted by kanaka
And the result... xvc give better compression, but it is not so amazing.
0007QDNTE7P37UMM-sample_q25.xvc - 562.9 kB
0007QDNTE7P37UMM-sample_q36_c4_kf120.webm - 744,9 kB
|
It is really hard to draw useful comparisons when both bitrate and subjective aspects are different between two encodes. In the absence of a highly accurate objective metric, double-blind subjective rating of different encodes that then get BD-rate calculated are the gold standard.
For someone doing private testing where that's not feasible, I recommend using 2-pass encoding and compare encodes at the same bitrate.
Also, remember we are comparing encoders, not the actual bitstream formats. The bitstream's capabilities provide an upper bound on what an encoder can do. But the psychovisual and rate control features of a given encoder can make a bigger difference than those between bitstreams. Hence x264 beating libaom in lots of real-world scenarios even though AV1 is inarguably the more capable bitstream. But x264 is just a much more mature and tuned encoder than libaom.