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. |
![]() |
#5841 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 22
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5842 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 386
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5843 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
change picture size mid-encode
My raw picture size varies from time to time. For instance, I get 250 frames in 1080p for the first 10 secs, and then another 250 frames in 720p in the second 10 secs, and so on. And i need to encode all these frames into a same HEVC bit stream. I found no appropriate command line option, and thus looked into the apis. The x265_encoder_reconfig() seems to be a possible solution, but I am not sure. Can someone share some ideas or experiences?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5846 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
Question is whether I have to create a new encoder when my picture size has changed or I just need to reconfigure my current encoder? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5847 | Link |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hamburg/Germany
Posts: 9,835
|
Considering you need a full decoder and bitstream reset anyway to change resolution, might as well create a new encoder? At least that is known to work.
__________________
LAV Filters - open source ffmpeg based media splitter and decoders |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5848 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: India
Posts: 11
|
X265 encoding in my system uses only Intel uhd graphic card(almost 100%) but Nvidia graphic card is not utilized(0% usage).
My graphic card GEFORCE MX150. Processor Intel i7-8550@1.8ghz Ram 16gb Encoder "x265_2.6+31-3712d13c09bf" with avs2pipemod. I searched in Google for solution but I don't got one. Please help |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5849 | Link |
German doom9/Gleitz SuMo
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany, rural Altmark
Posts: 5,963
|
The x265 encoder uses no GPU at all; no GPU offers any useful features which would actually speed up x265 without reducing the achievable quality. If your intel GPU is utilized, then the reason may be decoding the source via QuickSync?! Unfortunately you did not post any details about your AviSynth script. But anyway, no matter how the video source is provided, x265 will not use any GPU for encoding.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5851 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 337
|
x265 v2.6+32-b763c22920f6 (GCC 7.2.0, 32 & 64-bit 8/10/12bit Multilib Windows Binaries)
Code:
https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/commits/branch/default |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5852 | Link |
Broadcast Encoder
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 679
|
Exactly. I remember having this conversation before in 2015 when we were talking about x264-like OpenCl encoding acceleration. x265 team said that the encoder was still in the main phase of its development and many things were changing, so they didn't have time implement OpenCl. Now it's 2018, years passed, x265 has become a very good codec, with many enhancement since 2015. Perhaps it's time to implement OpenCl encoding acceleration?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5856 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 457
|
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 Quote:
![]() 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 Last edited by 3ngel; 24th January 2018 at 19:29. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5857 | Link |
Moderator
![]() Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,984
|
Quote:
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5858 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 457
|
@benwaggoner
Thanks for the reply, i'll try --tune film out of my curiosity. Concerning subtle differences, my concept was to use x265 for "archival purposes", but i realize reading more and more around that x265 currently (or by design?) isn't aimed toward "archival" (high bitrates) but for "streaming" (low bitrates) and you confirm this too Quote:
Thanks |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5859 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 48
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5860 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 48
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|