Better x265 medium or x264 slow?

[tormento]

The title tells it all.

I always used x265 on movies I love and x264 on movies I like.

Do you think that x265 preset medium crf 22 can outperform x264 preset slow crf 20 in quality?

[Arkana]

Not sure with slow but veryslow x264 surpass x265 medium at same bitrate (both CRF mode). At least from my own test.

[Boulder]

Originally Posted by tormento

The title tells it all.

I always used x265 on movies I love and x264 on movies I like.

Do you think that x265 preset medium crf 22 can outperform x264 preset slow crf 20 in quality?

Probably not. I'd say x265 needs at least --preset slow, preferably --preset slower. And --aq-mode 1

[gonca]

I always used x265 on movies I love and x264 on movies I like.

If movies are 4K HDR then it is a moot point.
Otherwise, use your eyes in your normal viewing conditions

[benwaggoner]

I have seen some oddball examples with very heavy, fine grain where --preset slow looked better than --preset slower. After a deep dive, it turned out that it was about --rd 4 versus --rd 6. For some types of noise, --rd 4 outperforms --rd 6 by a pretty big margin. This has been mostly an issue in 4K encoding.

But yeah, in general I prefer to use at least --preset slower.

[tormento]

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

I have seen some oddball examples with very heavy, fine grain

Latest movies use digital cameras with almost no noise if not in postproduction.

Older ones deserve some kind of denoising most of times.

I am not the person who calls pure noise "details".

[Kill3rWolf]

I got the same question as you, thanks for posting.

Curious minds want to know something, could you tell me about your PC configuration?

[tormento]

Originally Posted by Kill3rWolf

Curious minds want to know something, could you tell me about your PC configuration?

Intel i7-2600k @ 4.5 GHz
Asus P8Z77 WS custom bios
16 GB DDR3
Nvidia 1060 3GB
3 x Samsung 860 Pro

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by tormento

Latest movies use digital cameras with almost no noise if not in postproduction.

Rarely in production, often in post-production. Grain gives that "filmic" look, and makes it easier to composite in VFX, and to mix 2K elements with 4K production.

Older ones deserve some kind of denoising most of times.

I've seen the most severe issues in newer content with synthesized grain. Particularly when they try to get the feel by doing some per-pixel RGB randomization. Actual Super35 film grain has bigger, softer particles in practice.

I am not the person who calls pure noise "details".

Right, in the sense no one cares if each frame has its grain particles in the same place as the source. It's really about preserving the feel.

There is also some bad thinking around "creative intent" meaning preserving all the grain in the negative. If the creators watched the movie on a projector on a perf screen, they wouldn't have seen the grain either. I don't think we need to preserve fine grain that was never seen by the people who made it!

[Gravitator]

Parity in?: SD, HD, FHD, UHD.

[tormento]

Originally Posted by Gravitator

Parity in?: SD, HD, FHD, UHD.

Mostly 1080p

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by tormento

Mostly 1080p

I haven't found any 1080p content where slow > slower, and plenty of content where slower > slow. The biggest deltas are in things like text, animation, and graphics. Amp, rect, more B and reference frames, and more TU size options can help a lot.

[RanmaCanada]

I'd have to agree with Boulder. Preset Slow or Slower only, as Medium is just to janky. You should also be using CRF 17-19 for movies as per the spreadsheet that was posted here quite some time ago. Some of the settings may be outdated, but it's a great guide.

[tormento]

And for anime with no noise or grain at all?

[Boulder]

Originally Posted by tormento

And for anime with no noise or grain at all?

x265 might be better due to the larger CTU size it can use if the material is rather flat. --sao could be useful as well.

[tormento]

Originally Posted by Boulder

x265 might be better due to the larger CTU size it can use if the material is rather flat. --sao could be useful as well.

Isn’t that in animation preset already?

[Boulder]

--sao is in all tunings I think? It's just that most people use --no-sao to disable it as it can remove a lot of details from the video unless you use --selective-sao 1 or 2.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by tormento

And for anime with no noise or grain at all?

That kind of content start to really shine with --preset slower and higher. And gets more benefit from slower -> veryslow -> placebo.

Also --tskip really helps, by providing a non-DCT-like mode for TUs for flat content with very sharp edges, like text and animation lines.

--preset slower --tskip --tskip-fast will encode a lot faster and still look better than --preset placebo.

--tu-intra-depth 4 --tu-inter-depth 4 can also be great for this stuff, to allow for small TUs to encapsulate very sharp edges. With a min 4x4 TU plus --amp and --rect allows TUs to match the shape of a single sharp edge really well for better efficiency and better quality at a given QP.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by Boulder

--sao is in all tunings I think? It's just that most people use --no-sao to disable it as it can remove a lot of details from the video unless you use --selective-sao 1 or 2.

Have you found examples of content where you get visibly different output with the different --selective-sao modes? Do you have any examples to share?

Prior test data demonstrated perf improvements from --selective-sao, and that was the intent of the feature. Quality improvements weren't anticipated nor discovered in testing.

[Boulder]

Originally Posted by benwaggoner

Have you found examples of content where you get visibly different output with the different --selective-sao modes? Do you have any examples to share?

Prior test data demonstrated perf improvements from --selective-sao, and that was the intent of the feature. Quality improvements weren't anticipated nor discovered in testing.

Wasn't the intent more like using SAO in frames where it could be useful? As you well know, the default --sao eats details for breakfast and really cannot be recommended to anything but some very low bitrate encodes where details would be lost anyway. Or did you mix up --selective-sao and --limit-sao?

--selective-sao 1 has a very subtle effect on I-frames, whereas --selective-sao 2 already blurs P-frames quite a lot - even in rather still scenes so it's not motion related in any way.

PNG screenshot file sizes are a good way to compare the amount of blurring in my opinion.

I-frame:
lossless -- 3035 kB
ssao 1 -- 2804 kB
ssao 2 -- 2804 kB (tested that it works properly )

P-frame (the next after the I-frame):
lossless -- 2995 kB
ssao 1 -- 2895 kB
ssao 2 -- 2791 kB (especially the background is blurrier upon investigation, also hair)

B-frame (right after the I-frame):
lossless -- 2980 kB
ssao 1 -- 2751 kB
ssao 2 -- 2747 kB