HandBrake

please add h265 support

The experimental x265 encoder has already been added. Should be a nice encoder in a year or so when they finish implementing it.

s55 wrote:The experimental x265 encoder has already been added. Should be a nice encoder in a year or so when they finish implementing it.

An encoder is never finished

OK, usable then :/

it's usable and the VLC Media Player plays the files nicely. (DivX doesn't although they claim to support it lol)
But there is no advanced tab
and video tune features (film, animation, grain,...), profile selection (baseline,main,high), level selection and stuff like that aren't added, yet.

And most importantly: fine tuning is probably needed still to increase the encoders effiency and speed.

choices for x265 will probably expand over time. There are no plans to add an advanced tab for x265 or any other encoder. The x264 one is now deprecated. So basically it'll get left in until something breaks it or it gets in the way of doing something else.

You can still specify any encoder argument through the extra arguments box anyway.

Hi all!

I've done some tests with HEVC encoder, svn6185. Here are the results.
I'm using q=21.5, audio DTS-HD MA + AC3 passthrough. AVC preset = very slow, HEVC preset = slow, main profile

Under the dome, blu-ray rip :
S1E01 : AVC = 2.67 GB - HEVC = 1.53 GB (-43%)
S1E02 : AVC = 2.51 GB - HEVC = 1.64 GB (-35%)
S1E03 : AVC = 2.36 GB - HEVC = 1.31 GB (-45%)

If you just look the video stream size, we have:
S1E01 : AVC = 1904 MB, HEVC = 749 MB (-61%)
S1E02 : AVC = 1747 MB, HEVC = 857 MB (-51%)
S1E03 : AVC = 1699 MB, HEVC = 619 MB (-64%)

Because you use the same rate factor (RF, aka -q in HandBrakeCLI) doesn't mean the output quality is the same. The same RF will results in a different quality depending on which x264 settings you use, so you can't use the file size at a given RF as a measure of compression efficiency even with the same encoder. Doing the same with two different encoders means even less, if such a thing is possible.

OK, so it seems impossible to compare the compression ratio of HEVC and AVC ...!
Anyway, I get files with a quite similar quality and very different sizes. This comparison may not be scientific, but I'm not sure it's absolutely meaningless.

The comparison isn't helpful unless you also supply clips of source and encodes so that interested parties can *see* the relative quality or you can produce quality metrics like SSIM for both encodes so that the quality can be compared. The opinion of an untrained eye can't be trusted.

Well that is cool now H265 support also added. I've run my regular test too and noticed in quality no difference, but encoding took an hour longer, which otherwise takes only 9 minutes. File size is about the same. I'll later test with Bluray also, it was just DVD. Are the new Intel CPUs will receive H265 support or when will improving the encoding speed?

In my tests H264 has noticeably better video quality than h265. Maybe not that surprising, it's too early for h265. Maybe in a year. Also the encoding speed is extremely slow.

Thanks for adding HEVC encode support this will be interesting as time evolves