shaqsalazar Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) Today i have been experimenting with the new x265 encoder. And i got to say the compression to quality ratio is outstanding. Let me explain, as some of you know my encodes are large in say mainly due to the fact that i make sure that out of the final size of the video that video stream itself is at least 950 MB - 1 GB of the final product. The rest of the final output is determine by the audio size which is loss-less. 850MB - 1 GB = video stream200 MB - 500 MB = audio stream both english track and japanese track add them together get a big filesize, every anime series various due to the amount of bitrate the anime BD source contents. Anyway i encode on CRF 16.0 settings, thats the reason for the huge video stream.Now encoding on the same CRF 16.0 settings on x265 i'm not getting the avg 850MB - 1 GB video stream output, but a 100 MB - 200 MB output.I'm getting the same 1 Gb quality at 1/5 the filesize, and thats amazing. (this is tested on a 25:00 min video) There are some downsize. One the when comparing the new encode to the original BD its much more brighter, i don't like that all(maybe its like tht because this video is being de-interlaced(BD source 1080i)). The other is it takes a long time to encode about 1 hr 45 mins per 25 min video on default settings. This encoder will change everything. But once i have gotten the encode completely i will be testing it out on various players to test the compatibly it has with those devices. If it satisfies my expectation. I will start using it as over x264 immediately. This means my encodes will no longer be 1.5 GB+ in filesize but more around 850 MB or less Recommended MINIMUM CPU's to use with this encoder are intel i7 quad-core's with hyper thread or better (6 core). Or AMD's 8-Core processor. Anything below these two CPU lines will be encode unbearably slow. Questions: To encoders...Have you started experimenting/testing out the new encoder?If so will you be using it over x264 in the near future? EDIT: encode complete output size 127 MB...Dear God. This encoder will change the world!!!! Will post screenshots soon... Edited January 21, 2014 by shaqsalazar 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnFlower Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 At the moment, x265 is only good for low bitrate encoding. If you like minimkv, then x265 is for you. Anyways, do post those screenshots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemmingllama Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 At the moment, x265 is only good for low bitrate encoding. If you like minimkv, then x265 is for you.Anyways, do post those screenshots. This is true, but eventually it will become the new standard if they can retain the quality whilst still decreasing file sizes. And I would say that you should maybe offer both x264 and x265 since many mobile devices will be unable to play x265. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry-Potter Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 Let me try out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaqsalazar Posted January 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) At the moment, x265 is only good for low bitrate encoding. If you like minimkv, then x265 is for you.Anyways, do post those screenshots. so far from encoding on default settings the x265 looks a little blur...going to try to tweak the settings to make it look more transparent to the BD TEST: BD Source - Good Luck Girl http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/58739 001 = BD Source002 = x265 encode - was encoded at CRF 10.0 - file size 600 MB video stream encoding time = 2 hrs Edited January 22, 2014 by shaqsalazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaqsalazar Posted January 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 sigh x265 is harder to use do to lack of direct avisynth support Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaqsalazar Posted January 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) ok got x265 to work with avisynth, also i tweak x265 to best encoding settings, basically same encoding settings i use with x264. But sadly its very slow, current encoding at 1.27 fps....on default settings it encodes at 7.99 - 8.5 fps. here are a comparison of what has been encoded so far http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/58758 at first glance look like it is transparent, but if you look closer you can see that the encode is slightly blurred. -o output.hevc ep1.avs --tune ssim --threads 12 --input-res 1920x1080 --fps 23.976 --me 2 --subme 7(max) --ref 4 --crf 10.0 --bframes 3 --rd 2 --aq-mode 1 --aq-strength 1 --no-psnrthose are the x265 encoding settings i am testing out going to try encoding next with no b-frames to see if i can get rid of the blurriness completely Edited January 22, 2014 by shaqsalazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaqsalazar Posted January 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 ok on these new settings, i have tweak i got rid of most of the blurriness and kept most of the detail. There is minimal detail lost compare to the Blu-ray. I can make it transparent but not worth since the encoding time will be pushing 20 hrs+. At these final settings it takes 3-4 hrs to encode one episode http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/58773 that's the comparison for the latest settings. The projected the file size is now at 600 MB no longer 150 MB. Its to be expected if you want a transparent like encode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnFlower Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 The point is, x265 is not anywhere near as optimised as x264. The major points being grain and fine detail. To get your x265 encode looking exactly like your x264 encode would require stupid settings and would net you very little in terms of space saving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaqsalazar Posted January 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) The point is, x265 is not anywhere near as optimised as x264. The major points being grain and fine detail.To get your x265 encode looking exactly like your x264 encode would require stupid settings and would net you very little in terms of space saving.yes exactly you are right...Anyway going to post three comparison...x264 final encode, x265 final encode, and x265 final encode (default setting) so far the x265 final encode(stupid settings) file size is at 703MB with out muxing the audio in yet Edited January 22, 2014 by shaqsalazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry-Potter Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 The encoder is not faster as they have promised!It's pretty damn slow!It needs a bit more work indeed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnFlower Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 The encoder is not faster as they have promised! It's pretty damn slow! It needs a bit more work indeed!Why would you care about speed? What really matters is the end result, and not how long it takes to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zack336 Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 x264 is good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cothdor Posted January 24, 2014 Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) x264 is good I don't know why people still use that and haven't made the move to x265... File size isn't an issue for me though considering my connection speed is 120Mb/s so I always go for quality over file size but it is good to see compression advancing. Edited January 24, 2014 by Cothdor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaqsalazar Posted January 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 x264 is good I don't know why people still use that and haven't made the move to x265... File size isn't an issue for me though considering my connection speed is 120Mb/s so I always go for quality over file size but it is good to see compression advancing. i understand what you mean BUT even if x265 is the same size as x264 version the x265 is has alot more detail loss than x264, and this is when encoding with x265 on high settings to prevent minimal detail loss. From what i gather from my experiment x265 is a failure AT making transparent encodes. Now if you don't care to much about quality but want a small file size video with decent quality then x265 is for you. But for encoders who aim for transparent encoding like me than x265 is failure. Maybe in a couple if months to a year it might get better but as it is right now it is a failure at making transparent encodes. BUT is is possible to make but it will take 2 days+ because you will be encoding at 0.03 fps or less and all you get is a similar filesize to the x264 equivalent which encodes at 20 fps+ taking only 30-45 mins to encode....all in all its not worth with no compression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsu.Ku.Yo.Mi Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 The encoder is not faster as they have promised!It's pretty damn slow!It needs a bit more work indeed!Why would you care about speed? What really matters is the end result, and not how long it takes to get there. Tell that to people who want to get an encode done with quick speed but same quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnFlower Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Tell that to people who want to get an encode done with quick speed but same quality.Those people don't matter here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draximum Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I prefer the really slow settings, and high quality results of x264. So far I'm not really loving the x265. But then again, I dont like 100MB MKV files either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyrus Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Encoder is slow as hell (at least the one that comes with DivX). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
professa X Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I'm a noob here with this stuf. So first shout out to all you encoders you guys are friggin amaizing to go through all this work for us. The detail in which you painstakingly work over would've made me run away a long time ago. I tried to do some muxing my self and just to get audio track synchronization was a pain. And you guys go to the video detail. With that said using the law of equivalent exchange i mean how far can you go with compression w/o losing quality. I dont think you can keep the quality of the BD and downgrade it's size becuz the size is packed with the quality. Isn't the reason you can compress the video is becuz your skimping some of the video quality? Again ima noob but logically i cant see how you can compress and retain quality. Its not like there just a bunch of useless data being used in the BD's is there? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now