Comparisons of x265 vs x264

[sneaker_ger]

@Sagittaire
I added your suggestions to the test. They make a strong difference.

[may24]

Hi all,
I'd like to jum on that topic.
I'm "archiving" a TV series and encode my SAT rip with x265. Now I'm looking for some better settings to preserve more details and keep a sharper image. (check the tuxedo)
I played a bit with the --psy-rdoq and --rdoq-level ... but still the result is below my expectations ;)
I also noted a slight "hint of green" in the encoded picture ...
Unfortunately the source recording is lost and all I have are the screenshots (sorry)
But what are your suggestions - besides lowering the CRF - to preserve more details ?
Adding --tune grain seems to have no (noticeable) effect with these settings ...

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Video Tools\avs2pipemod-0.4.2m\avs2pipemod.exe" -rawvideo "extra.avs"| "C:\Program Files\x265\x265-r1.7_482.exe" --preset slower --crf 19 --psy-rd 2.0 --psy-rdoq 10.0 --no-open-gop --input-res 1280x720 --input-depth 16 --fps 25 --output hol-18.h265 --input -

And here are the screenshots
Original:
http://forum.doom9.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15042&stc=1&d=1443429492

After encoding:
http://forum.doom9.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15043&stc=1&d=1443429555

[seandarcy]

Moscow State University has released its tenth video codecs comparison:

http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/hevc_2015/MSU_HEVC_comparison_2015_free.pdf

If I'm reading this correctly, they find that h.265 only gives <20% lower bitrates at constant quality. See graph 6.2.4 .

I realize using "objective" quality metrics is problematic, but still, I'd have expected something like 50% .

sean

[birdie]

Moscow State University has released its tenth video codecs comparison:

http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/hevc_2015/MSU_HEVC_comparison_2015_free.pdf

If I'm reading this correctly, they find that h.265 only gives <20% lower bitrates at constant quality. See graph 6.2.4 .

I realize using "objective" quality metrics is problematic, but still, I'd have expected something like 50% .

sean

For grain free source shot in perfect lighting conditions that can be true (x265 can use CTUs up to 64x64) - unfortunately real world often involves pseudo-artistry (so grain is added more or less artificially into modern movies which are shot digitally) and low quality recording equipment (like smartphones) which adds a huge amount of noise even at perfect lighting conditions.

[iwod]

Just to add my own conclusion from the thread.

Basically anything below 2000Kbps, x265 will win. Which is basically my target bitrate ( 1000 - 2000kbps )

Will x265 be now focus on tuning the higher end bitrate? Can we consider the lower end tuning be done? Or are there still some low hanging fruits?

[Boulder]

Making statements based on bitrate is dangerous. Bitrate depends completely on the source.

[Jamaika]

I also noted a slight "hint of green" in the encoded picture ...

You use new version x265 1.8.0.205.

[HarryM]

At CRF=23 is x265 quality-comparable to x264. But with 60% filesize.

[HerpaDerp]

Is it just me, or does HEVC look worse than x264 in some instances? I feel like HEVC is not really all that impressive. I looked at the hollywood film grain example on the previous page and x264 simply does a better job at preserving the film grain, whereas hevc blurs a lot of that detail out.

How does HEVC work with 4k footage compared to x264 at similar bitrate settings? To me, that sounds like that's where HEVC might shine - correct me if I'm wrong.

Do HEVC encoders still need several years for improvement? I remember x264 went through an ass load of updates over the years before it got to where it is today.


http://abload.de/img/1575_org_4dlhw.png
http://abload.de/img/1575_x265_upsj2.png
http://abload.de/img/1575_x264_yryml.png

[benwaggoner]

Is it just me, or does HEVC look worse than x264 in some instances? I feel like HEVC is not really all that impressive. I looked at the hollywood film grain example on the previous page and x264 simply does a better job at preserving the film grain, whereas hevc blurs a lot of that detail out.
A bunch of improvements to --tune grain got checked in last week. They might help a lot.

https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/commits/all

How does HEVC work with 4k footage compared to x264 at similar bitrate settings? To me, that sounds like that's where HEVC might shine - correct me if I'm wrong.
The larger block/TU sizes available in HEVC gives it a further efficiency advantage at large frame sizes. I'd say it's >50% more efficient at 3840x2160.

Do HEVC encoders still need several years for improvement? I remember x264 went through an ass load of updates over the years before it got to where it is today.
"Need" is subjective. But they've certainly improved a LOT in the last 18 months, in both speed and quality. Certainly x265 has a lot more room for improvement than the rather mature x264. And HEVC is a more complex standard, so there's a lot more ways it can be optimized, particularly psychovisually. So we may be years away from a x265 that hits a quality "steady state" like x264 has been the last couple of years.

[SaboraPie]

HI, comparing the codecs x264 (r2665 8-Bit) and x265 (1.9+104 10-Bit), in x265 it appears to me this defect in zone of gradients and, apparently, more evident when the original video has high noise.
Why is this? Can be it prevent or blur at bitrates so low (about 750kb)

The config in x264 is present Very Slow (Film) and the x265 idem (Grain), both in two pass mode and about 750Kb. No other changes.

[sneaker_ger]

Can you try without --tune grain? I have seen a similar defect using it. https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/issues/250/

[SaboraPie]

Can you try without --tune grain? I have seen a similar defect using it. https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/issues/250/

Yes, It's best without --tune grain (It is supposed to keep but deleted it?¿). X264 also still better for static scenes and noisy.

[foxyshadis]

Yes, It's best without --tune grain (It is supposed to keep but deleted it?¿). X264 also still better for static scenes and noisy.

Without FGM, x265 can't really be better than x264 at film grain; at best it can be the same but slower, but in practice, it's more aggressive about smoothing to save bits. Use x264 for retaining full grain at high bitrates. For lower bitrates with grain smoothed out a bit, x265 always wins hands down.

[blublub]

What would you consider high/low nitrates for encoding an 720p HDTV source fume fro. Satellite TV ?

I used crf 17 or 16 before but I now have files were I do not need very good quality, so crf if 20 or 21 would suffice - better x264 or 265?

Any suggestions?

[asarian]

HI, comparing the codecs x264 (r2665 8-Bit) and x265 (1.9+104 10-Bit), in x265 it appears to me this defect in zone of gradients and, apparently, more evident when the original video has high noise.
Why is this? Can be it prevent or blur at bitrates so low (about 750kb)

The config in x264 is present Very Slow (Film) and the x265 idem (Grain), both in two pass mode and about 750Kb. No other changes.


Yikes! Those distortions are pretty awful! I was just thinking of giving x265 a chance; but, after seeing this, never mind. :)

[benwaggoner]

Yikes! Those distortions are pretty awful! I was just thinking of giving x265 a chance; but, after seeing this, never mind. :)
Remember, tune grain<>film. x264 has a --tune grain as well. x265 needs it's own --tune film for apples-to-apples.

[Leo 69]

I don't know how you guys but I'm done with x264.
I'm now encoding Alvin and the Chipmunks (source - blu-ray remux) into 10-bit x265 crf=18 with tune=grain (so far we don't have "film" tune so I stick to this to retain detail) and other options maxed out...and I must tell that this is incredible. I have never seen this low bitrate when I tried x264 on this exact film last time. Haven't done a direct comparison between codecs yet, but I can already tell that from .hevc file which is in the Staxrip temp directory (which I can mux into .mkv at any time) - I cannot distinguish the result from the original blu-ray file. I'm now at 60% of encoding and the bitrate is ~5200kbit/s. Of course, the speed is slow as hell (0.95 fps on my i5-3570k@4500Ghz), but the result is well worth it.
Encoding with the latest x265 64-bit GCC build 1.9+150

[asarian]

I don't know how you guys but I'm done with x264.
I'm now encoding Alvin and the Chipmunks (source - blu-ray remux) into 10-bit x265 crf=18 with tune=grain (so far we don't have "film" tune so I stick to this to retain detail) and other options maxed out...and I must tell that this is incredible. I have never seen this low bitrate when I tried x264 on this exact film last time. Haven't done a direct comparison between codecs yet, but I can already tell that from .hevc file which is in the Staxrip temp directory (which I can mux into .mkv at any time) - I cannot distinguish the result from the original blu-ray file. I'm now at 60% of encoding and the bitrate is ~5200kbit/s. Of course, the speed is slow as hell (0.95 fps on my i5-3570k@4500Ghz), but the result is well worth it.
Encoding with the latest x265 64-bit GCC build 1.9+150


Haven't given up on it just yet. :)

Skylake is currently the only CPU line I know of that supports hardware acceleration of x265. Without it, your typical i5-based media center is going to suffer (badly).

And what media player out there actually supports 10-bit video?! (Windows Media Player? Kodi?)

[asarian]

Remember, tune grain<>film. x264 has a --tune grain as well. x265 needs it's own --tune film for apples-to-apples.

You're right about that. So, to the powers that be..... can we have a '--tune film' setting, pretty please?

[Leo 69]

Haven't given up on it just yet. :)

Skylake is currently the only CPU line I know of that supports hardware acceleration of x265. Without it, your typical i5-based media center is going to suffer (badly).

And what media player out there actually supports 10-bit video?! (Windows Media Player? Kodi?)

Hi,

As for Skylake, I don't care much -- I have Nvidia GTX 960 :p

The best media player for me for the last few years has been Daum PotPlayer. It decodes 10-bit HEVC nicely with built-in codecs (with HW-acceleraction, of course). LAV decoder, as I know, can do the same for any other player.

[asarian]

Hi,

As for Skylake, I don't care much -- I have Nvidia GTX 960 :p

The best media player for me for the last few years has been Daum PotPlayer. It decodes 10-bit HEVC nicely with built-in codecs (with HW-acceleraction, of course). LAV decoder, as I know, can do the same for any other player.

I have a GTX 980 (and an i7 980X). :p My PC would be able to handle it just fine. My poor i5-based Zbox ID92, however, not so much.

I actually prefer a low-power consumption Zbox-type solution for a media player, with built-in graphics, and hardware accelerated support for your fav codec.

I'll look into that Daum media player you mentioned, though. Thx.

[Leo 69]

Yep, give a good try to this player. Many people I advised it to literally fell in love with it. I just don't see anything more advanced in terms of how deep you can go with setting it up, user-friendliness and reliability. VLC is not my cup of tea at all, for example, starting from its shortcut.

[Leo 69]

Having said all positive about my impression about current state of x265, I should admit that it's still not suitable for very HQ, sharp sources. Washes out detail too much with any settings you'd think of. "Retain grain" helps a bit, but still tiny details go away for good.

[asarian]

Having said all positive about my impression about current state of x265, I should admit that it's still not suitable for very HQ, sharp sources. Washes out detail too much with any settings you'd think of. "Retain grain" helps a bit, but still tiny details go away for good.


And for the 'codec of the future', that's simply unacceptable. Honestly, for what it stands for, and the huge impact on your CPU, it really ought to be *significantly* better than x264.

Still, I shouldn't judge too harshly, as it's (relatively) still in its early stages of development.

While you're at it, could you maybe give me an example command line of the highest quality you're currently outputting? I so happened to decide to play with x265, this very day. :)

[Leo 69]

Hi mate,

I agree that it could be the "result" of early stages of development. Maybe we have to wait another 3-5 years for it to reach acceptable state and then forget about x264.
Anyway, to the settings for x265 I encoded "Alvin and Chipmunks" (2015), which turned out a very good encode anyway:

Writing library : x265 1.9+150-00ea3784bd36:[Windows][GCC 5.3.0][64 bit] 10bit
Encoding settings : wpp / ctu=64 / min-cu-size=8 / max-tu-size=32 / tu-intra-depth=1 / tu-inter-depth=1 / me=3 / subme=7 / merange=57 / rect / amp / max-merge=3 / temporal-mvp / no-early-skip / rdpenalty=0 / no-tskip / no-tskip-fast / strong-intra-smoothing / no-lossless / no-cu-lossless / no-constrained-intra / no-fast-intra / open-gop / no-temporal-layers / interlace=0 / keyint=250 / min-keyint=23 / scenecut=40 / rc-lookahead=50 / lookahead-slices=4 / bframes=8 / bframe-bias=0 / b-adapt=2 / ref=6 / limit-refs=3 / limit-modes / weightp / weightb / aq-mode=0 / qg-size=64 / cbqpoffs=0 / crqpoffs=0 / rd=5 / psy-rd=2.00 / rdoq-level=2 / psy-rdoq=1.00 / no-rd-refine / signhide / deblock=-6:-6 / sao / no-sao-non-deblock / b-pyramid / no-cutree / no-intra-refresh / rc=crf / crf=18.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=1 / ipratio=1.40 / pbratio=1.30

[asarian]

^^ Brilliant! Thx. :)

[asarian]

Wait, you're running with 'qpmin=0'?!? That's just lossless, right?

[Leo 69]

No no, it's a default setting, I believe.. meaning qpmin=0 is the start of allowed qp range going up to 51 (qpmax=51).

[benwaggoner]

You're right about that. So, to the powers that be..... can we have a '--tune film' setting, pretty please?
You can be one of those powers yourself!

This thread was the community trying to figure this out. A good a time as any to revive it.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=172458&highlight=tune+film

[ndkamal]

I put some pictures x264 R2664 and x265 V19 R165 with / without grain

24 x264 R2664 (2 Mbps) (672x368) :

http://5.t.imgbox.com/vpZ5Rtf2.jpg (http://imgbox.com/vpZ5Rtf2)

24 x265 V19 R165 (1.6 Mbps) (672x368) :

http://t.imgbox.com/XAzSM7AG.jpg (http://imgbox.com/XAzSM7AG)

24 x265 V19 R165 with tune grain (1.6 Mbps) (672x368) :

http://7.t.imgbox.com/3FTv2H9c.jpg (http://imgbox.com/3FTv2H9c)

Alliance x264 R2664 (5 Mbps) (1280x544) :

http://0.t.imgbox.com/9fqh1eQu.jpg (http://imgbox.com/9fqh1eQu)

Alliance x265 V19R165 (4 Mbps) (1280x544) :

http://6.t.imgbox.com/xq9NEPCS.jpg (http://imgbox.com/xq9NEPCS)

Alliance x265 V19R165 with tune grain (4 Mbps) (1280x544) :

http://0.t.imgbox.com/nVoah89N.jpg (http://imgbox.com/nVoah89N)

[benwaggoner]

I put some pictures x264 R2664 and x265 V19 R165 with / without grain

I was able to get to your Imgbox, but there wasn't any indication which frame was from which encoder.