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. |
4th January 2022, 15:56 | #1 | Link |
Acid fr0g
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,582
|
Better x265 medium or x264 slow?
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?
__________________
@turment on Telegram |
4th January 2022, 16:49 | #3 | Link |
Pig on the wing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 5,733
|
Probably not. I'd say x265 needs at least --preset slow, preferably --preset slower. And --aq-mode 1
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon... |
4th January 2022, 19:22 | #5 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
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. |
4th January 2022, 20:10 | #6 | Link | |
Acid fr0g
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,582
|
Quote:
Older ones deserve some kind of denoising most of times. I am not the person who calls pure noise "details".
__________________
@turment on Telegram |
|
4th January 2022, 23:47 | #8 | Link | |
Acid fr0g
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,582
|
Quote:
Asus P8Z77 WS custom bios 16 GB DDR3 Nvidia 1060 3GB 3 x Samsung 860 Pro
__________________
@turment on Telegram |
|
5th January 2022, 01:21 | #9 | Link | |||
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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! |
|||
5th January 2022, 22:11 | #12 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
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.
|
5th January 2022, 23:24 | #13 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 331
|
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.
|
6th January 2022, 18:08 | #15 | Link |
Pig on the wing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 5,733
|
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.
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon... |
6th January 2022, 19:51 | #16 | Link | |
Acid fr0g
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,582
|
Quote:
Isn’t that in animation preset already?
__________________
@turment on Telegram |
|
6th January 2022, 20:18 | #17 | Link |
Pig on the wing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 5,733
|
--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.
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon... |
6th January 2022, 22:48 | #18 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
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. |
6th January 2022, 22:50 | #19 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
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. |
|
7th January 2022, 10:41 | #20 | Link | |
Pig on the wing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Finland
Posts: 5,733
|
Quote:
--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
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon... |
|
|
|