Nero Recode AVC vs. x264 - fair 720p profile comparison for speed/quality...

[sjchmura]

The HQ-slow present is obvioulsy crushed in terms of speed by recode avc 720p even with max options on. However, as I understand it, the profile is much more complex than what nero implemented.

So to do a fair comparison what portion of the HQ-slow profile 2-pass should be decrease to compare quality and speed for ourselves? Personally, at high bit rates, they both look so good.

[arfster]

The options are never going to be strictly comparable regardless of what you do, because of countless differing factors.

To my mind, you'd be better just to match two profiles for decoding speed, and then compare the quality.

[sjchmura]

But decoding speed on high end hardware is so good (purevideo) you are going to need crappy CPU/GPU to not get good 720p playback. Now with CoreAVC even low end cou can handle it...

[CruNcher]

But decoding speed on high end hardware is so good (purevideo) you are going to need crappy CPU/GPU to not get good 720p playback. Now with CoreAVC even low end cou can handle it...

Not generaly true for example i optimize my 720p encodings for 800 mhz in decoding complexity and that isn't easy to reach just 1 tool more and you allready have 10 fps more in decoding complexity but without a real visible quality gain.
And i can forget the low power mode of my Laptop then to be able to playback this and Bitrate is no factor here anymore then it was with ASP.

[akupenguin]

So to do a fair comparison
What is fair? If one codec has implemented a given feature and the other hasn't, why is it unfair to use that feature?
Or do you just want to compare quality at the same speeds?

[sjchmura]

I was looking to compare quality at similiar speeds. We have the HQ-slow (which is MUCH slower than recode maxed out) but, from my reading, alot more is being done.