[Implemented] VP9 support
Forum rules
*******************************
Please be aware we are now using GitHub for issue tracking and feature requests.
- This section of the forum is now closed to new topics.
*******************************
*******************************
Please be aware we are now using GitHub for issue tracking and feature requests.
- This section of the forum is now closed to new topics.
*******************************
Re: [Planned] VP9 support
Prey, since I started compiling hb myself to include fdk-aac: Is there a patch available that simply replaces vp8 by vp9 w/o the necessity to change any gui? The default build uses "--enable-vp8-encoder --disable-vp9", but I guess there would have to be some renaming to be done. Rationale is that probably no one uses vp8, but some people might use vp9 no matter how slow it is.
Re: [Planned] VP9 support
I don't think renaming would be enough and the reason they don't include it, yet, is afaik usability and not that it's hard to implement
Just use ffmpeg instead
Just use ffmpeg instead
Re: [Planned] VP9 support
True dat - just tried it, plus and in the most reccent libvpx 1.5.0 or master some minor changes occurred that break the build. Pity, but I will *never* give up home to use my beloved hb to web-encode for all current browsers (i.e. aac+h264 and opus+vp9) ... hope dies last, and I'm positive we'll see vp9 inclusion once vp10 is released :->Djfe wrote:I don't think renaming would be enough and the reason they don't include it
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:32 am
Re: [Implemented] VP9 support
New Years Eve 2016 and the VP9 speed is still terrible. It manages to reach about 50% usage on 2 threads out of 12 on my i7-4930k for a total CPU usage of around 10%.
It's so sad this can't be used to full effect. I upload so much stuff to YouTube and I hate seeing it get re-encoded every time
It's so sad this can't be used to full effect. I upload so much stuff to YouTube and I hate seeing it get re-encoded every time
Re: [Implemented] VP9 support
Youtube will re-encode regardless of what you upload.
Re: [Implemented] VP9 support
Just wait for VP10, it is the one which is improving now. Or for the major project from Microsoft, Google, Adobe, Nvidia, etc - http://aomedia.org/Agamemnoid wrote:New Years Eve 2016 and the VP9 speed is still terrible. It manages to reach about 50% usage on 2 threads out of 12 on my i7-4930k for a total CPU usage of around 10%.
It's so sad this can't be used to full effect. I upload so much stuff to YouTube and I hate seeing it get re-encoded every time
Re: [Implemented] VP9 support
to add to what mduell said:
Use H.264/x264 with High Profile, the source fps (try to make sure the source records in 30 fps or a multiple of it, but don't convert to that fps) and the source resolution
The Bitrate should be between 8 and 16mbit/s
for the audio use something like 196kbit/s or 256kbit/s aac
stuff I didn't mention probably doesn't matter or is up to you
Use H.264/x264 with High Profile, the source fps (try to make sure the source records in 30 fps or a multiple of it, but don't convert to that fps) and the source resolution
The Bitrate should be between 8 and 16mbit/s
for the audio use something like 196kbit/s or 256kbit/s aac
stuff I didn't mention probably doesn't matter or is up to you
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:32 am
Re: [Implemented] VP9 support
I do that, my gameplay is recorded in 30fps lossless and I encode it at source frame rate profile 4.0 RF 20 Very Slow preset and the bitrate is just a touch under 8mbit/s. Sometimes if I download the 1080p copy from YouTube it's the exact same file, sometimes it is not.Djfe wrote:to add to what mduell said:
Use H.264/x264 with High Profile, the source fps (try to make sure the source records in 30 fps or a multiple of it, but don't convert to that fps) and the source resolution
The Bitrate should be between 8 and 16mbit/s
for the audio use something like 196kbit/s or 256kbit/s aac
stuff I didn't mention probably doesn't matter or is up to you
Yes YouTube processes everything, they create 720p and 480p versions and such. But when the 1080p version is the identical file it looks spectacular, when it's not the same file it looks worse with artifacts I can see easily.
My understanding was that YouTube was less likely to convert VP9 files. Does anybody know differently? Can you prove it? I'd love to know so that I'm not wasting time.
Google announced in September 2015 that they aren't doing VP10 any more, instead contributing to AV1.ddwrt wrote:Just wait for VP10, it is the one which is improving now. Or for the major project from Microsoft, Google, Adobe, Nvidia, etc -