Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
6th May 2019, 18:14 | #2 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
It's "worth it" to go all the way to placebo if you're running a streaming business where your recurring CDN delivery costs are a huge expense, and being able to use a the slowest presets to reduce bitrate a few percent is worth the one-time compute costs to do this.
For home users, just use the slowest preset you can stand |
6th May 2019, 19:32 | #3 | Link |
Pig on the wing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 5,733
|
I'd expect the cost/benefit ratio to be quite low. Medium should already look quite nice, but you could try using slow but set --no-rect to gain some speed with hopefully a negligible quality tradeoff. Slow has some useful additions like a better motion search method and more rate distortion optimization going on.
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon... |
7th May 2019, 01:54 | #4 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 391
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
8th May 2019, 08:01 | #5 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
Yeah, that's what I generally do with x264 as well.
With x265 I often use 'slow' these days. It's quite good, though if you can stomach 'slower' there's some nice improvements. Honestly x265 is so good it's not really necessary unless you want to shave that last few percent. |
8th May 2019, 09:04 | #6 | Link |
Lost my old account :(
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 326
|
Why do you ask us that? Just look at your encodings and decide if you wanna spend 2x the time for the difference. How can we decide that for you?
I always use at least slow if possible, cause it shows a pretty nice improvements when going from medium and I dont mind the extra time cause its still doable for me. But I dont see much point going much lower then slow, especially with the new preset changes were very slow is now almost as placebo levels of encoding times. I think very slow is 15x times slower then slow now, and you will have to be very bitrate starved to be able to tell the two apart. If you are under crf~20 i wouldnt botter with something like very slow. And if medium isnt looking good enough, well just lower the crf if time prevents you from going slower. |
8th May 2019, 09:20 | #7 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 851
|
So you think medium is a good choice with CRF14~16 for a 4K movie (lower than 18 don't give expected results) ? I'm going to make some tests, and slow / no-sao / no-rect / deblock=-1;-1 seems to be good (I don't know if I must change psyrd). I haven't tried medium, I'm trying slower now just to be sure about difference but perhaps I'll try medium.
|
8th May 2019, 19:31 | #8 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
As of x265 3.0, slower is the preset that exercises most of HEVC's cool features at a non-punitive encoding time. Below slower, presets can have different kinds of artifacts. Veryslow and Placebo look pretty much like veryslow stylistically, but perhaps just a tiny bit better.
|
9th May 2019, 09:07 | #10 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 176
|
Your question is somewhat close to one I posed regarding the encoding of 4K sources and whether it's worth the time to encode. Basic answer is, it depends. Is the source material genuine 4K? If yes, then by all means encode at full 4K at whatever preset your heart (eyes, mainly) desire. If the source is not 4K, and is most likely a 2K DCI transfer, then upscaled for the final master, well, I've gone the route of resizing to 1440. 2K is 2048, and somewhere in between is 1440. Crop the bars and you have 2560 by X. A fairly decent compromise. Less time to compress and less space. Pick a higher CRF value and/or preset.
|
14th May 2019, 16:50 | #11 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
Wouldn't matter for HDMI playback. |
|
27th August 2019, 20:34 | #13 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Bit-for-bit, the GPU/ASIC encoders are going to produce markedly worse encodes than x265 at even medium. If you need real-time performance or can use high bitrates, not problem. But if you are trying to maximize compression efficiency even preset --faster likely is still quite a bit better than the best GPU implementation.
|
|
|