QuickSync
Forum rules
An Activity Log is required for support requests. Please read How-to get an activity log? for details on how and why this should be provided.
An Activity Log is required for support requests. Please read How-to get an activity log? for details on how and why this should be provided.
Re: QuickSync
We should have a test build available shortly after 0.9.9 final is released (currently in RC).
Re: QuickSync
Don't get too excited.
I have found that results from all accelerators less than ordinary and will not use them.
I have found that results from all accelerators less than ordinary and will not use them.
Re: QuickSync
It's not really meant for archival purposes. Off the top of my head, useful scenarios would be,
- Throw away encodes (i.e throwing something on a kids ipad for a road trip)
- Might be useful for publishers, podcast creates etc while they are on the road with ultrabooks and similar. Or even just pre-final quality renders of content etc.
- Or folk that just don't care or need the best quality / filesizes.
QuickSync is probably one of the better hardware encoders I've seen. It seems to fall around x264s ultra/superfast settings somewhere. They seem to be actively developing it unlike most other solutions so it seems to only improve with each new generation chip.
- Throw away encodes (i.e throwing something on a kids ipad for a road trip)
- Might be useful for publishers, podcast creates etc while they are on the road with ultrabooks and similar. Or even just pre-final quality renders of content etc.
- Or folk that just don't care or need the best quality / filesizes.
QuickSync is probably one of the better hardware encoders I've seen. It seems to fall around x264s ultra/superfast settings somewhere. They seem to be actively developing it unlike most other solutions so it seems to only improve with each new generation chip.
Re: QuickSync
I know that QS isn't meant for quality and have never seen encoded samples that didn't have visible flaws.
but for speed and like s55 say, encoding for mobile devices, it might be a nice speedy tool.
HB on a Core i7 3770 is pretty fast on the faster settings - so the question is weather QS might rival the fast settings in term of same quality but at different speeds.
And yes, Hashwell comes with more features in the QuickSync core, which might improve stuff in the future ... some say that we need to wait until the generation AFTER hashwell, before we get an rivaling quality to x264 ... who knows...
but for speed and like s55 say, encoding for mobile devices, it might be a nice speedy tool.
HB on a Core i7 3770 is pretty fast on the faster settings - so the question is weather QS might rival the fast settings in term of same quality but at different speeds.
And yes, Hashwell comes with more features in the QuickSync core, which might improve stuff in the future ... some say that we need to wait until the generation AFTER hashwell, before we get an rivaling quality to x264 ... who knows...
Re: QuickSync
Intel stated to improve QS quality with Haswell.
Re: QuickSync
On a chip like that QS offers the same quality/bitrate as x264 superfast, at about the same encoding speed. So there's little upside to it.Montago wrote:HB on a Core i7 3770 is pretty fast on the faster settings - so the question is weather QS might rival the fast settings in term of same quality but at different speeds.
Re: QuickSync
About the speed, I think it could be faster than superfast (assuming you're using a full QSV path - decode, scaling/filtering and encode). Haven't done any extensive compression efficiency testing comparing QSV to x264 yet, so regarding quality I really don't know.mduell wrote:On a chip like that QS offers the same quality/bitrate as x264 superfast, at about the same encoding speed. So there's little upside to it.Montago wrote:HB on a Core i7 3770 is pretty fast on the faster settings - so the question is weather QS might rival the fast settings in term of same quality but at different speeds.
Re: QuickSync
mduell wrote:On a chip like that QS offers the same quality/bitrate as x264 superfast, at about the same encoding speed. So there's little upside to it.Montago wrote:HB on a Core i7 3770 is pretty fast on the faster settings - so the question is weather QS might rival the fast settings in term of same quality but at different speeds.
On my i5-3570k QS converts much faster than ultrafast. Quality on most videos between ultrafast and super fast.
Re: QuickSync
I was thinking just encode, but that's an important note. Is the HB QSV support going to be just encode or full in the initial release?Rodeo wrote:About the speed, I think it could be faster than superfast (assuming you're using a full QSV path - decode, scaling/filtering and encode). Haven't done any extensive compression efficiency testing comparing QSV to x264 yet, so regarding quality I really don't know.mduell wrote:On a chip like that QS offers the same quality/bitrate as x264 superfast, at about the same encoding speed. So there's little upside to it.Montago wrote:HB on a Core i7 3770 is pretty fast on the faster settings - so the question is weather QS might rival the fast settings in term of same quality but at different speeds.
Re: QuickSync
Initial test build should have support for QSV decode of (8-bit) H.264, QSV deinterlace, and QSV encode. Not sure about the rest (anything is pretty much subject to change ATM, and many of the usual HB features will be missing when using QSV, but we'll fix it as time permits).