If the output is not of good quality then set a lower CRF 23 and change it as per the output requirement.
This way, you can find a certain point where people DO find the difference in quality, and then you can conclude more confidently that one is better than the other due to higher quality/filesize ratio.In the beginning, let’s start with the default value i.e. It's not I'm trying to be picky.Ī better approach, as I have said above, is to fix bitrate instead of quality. So the "same quality" premise has to be very strict and objective.
In other words, there is a huge range of bitrates where average eyes can't tell difference. However, most of people can't tell any difference bwtween 600kbps and 1000kbps, using the same codec, either. Yes, he did say "there is no visible difference". And without having this, comparing file size is meaningless (because as stated by others, with lossy codec you can generate arbitrary file size by tweaking the parameters). My point is that even this wasn't proved by his experiment, because he failed to prove the two outputs have the same quality. So it (the choice of codec) is also a contributing factor."Īnd I get it.
I assume your point is "while both reduced the size (from an unchanging desktop, which is easily compressible), H.265 reduces the size even further. > was to show that the gains the original post made wasn't solely due to the video being an unchanging desktop I just assumed the reader would be able to make the mental leap I easily could have changed the values to lower the bitrate to get from 50% to 94%. I picked 2 based on the vendor's claim the 2 settings should look the same at half the bit rate. They just lose points for not showing their work (not that they did it, but you know).Įdit 2: I have no idea what the author of the post used for encode settings. So, I don't think the author's post is bogus. ~13%įfmpeg -i input.mov -c:v libx265 -crf 28 x265.mp4ĬRF values were taken from which states x265 crf28 should produce same visual quality of x264 crf23, but at half the size.
Next, I used the same 7.5MB source to transcode with x265 crf 28. I then used that as a source to transcode with x264 crf 23. There was no audio in the original recoding. For science, I just took a 10 second screen recording of my Mac with nothing but my tiny mouse cursor moving around for a few seconds which means a very static shot.
0 kommentar(er)
