HQ 1080p settings

[jonass21]

Just a general curiosity. I noticed when ripping my Blu-ray’s that the HQ setting uses h.264 and was just wondering why it doesn’t use h.265 which is supposed to be significantly better right? To be clear ripping Blu-ray’s using the HQ setting results in an exceptional quality rip, just wondering why the newer codec is available but not used by default.

[mduell]

It's slow, has limited player compatibility, and the efficiency isn't much better.

[jonass21]

Ah ok. Yeah i have been trying to rip a Blu-ray using h.265 and it is taking probably 3-4x longer than using h.264. Can’t be that much better quality.

[Deleted User 13735]

Ah ok. Yeah i have been trying to rip a Blu-ray using h.265 and it is taking probably 3-4x longer than using h.264. Can’t be that much better quality.

It certainly can't be of ANY better quality. It can only be smaller with the SAME quality.
Urban bunk.

[Woodstock]

Plus the advantages of h.265 in terms of quality-for-file-size get better above 1080p resolution. At or below, it's a few percentage points.

I personally don't plan to bother with h.265 my players all have hardware support for decoding it.

[Deleted User 13735]

h265 is mostly a gimmick to get you to buy new teevee equipment and computers.
4k 8 bit encodes sweetly in h264. I won't see UHD broadcasts in my lifetime.
There comes a point of absurd self-gratification. Like paying $300 for an ounce of facial cream.

[rollin_eng]

Ah ok. Yeah i have been trying to rip a Blu-ray using h.265 and it is taking probably 3-4x longer than using h.264. Can’t be that much better quality.

It certainly can't be of ANY better quality. It can only be smaller with the SAME quality.
Urban bunk.

This makes no sense, of course a h265 encode can be of better quality than a h264 one.

[Deleted User 13735]

No, in fact, x265 is a little worse at higher CRF. https://goo.gl/images/9vXrup

[rollin_eng]

No, in fact, x265 is a little worse at higher CRF. https://goo.gl/images/9vXrup

Without going into the issues on some random blog your statement of “It certainly can’t be of ANY better quality.” is simply wrong.

A h264 encode at RF40 will be worse quality than a h265 encode at RF20.

[Deleted User 13735]

And you are being schoolyard silly.

[rollin_eng]

And you are being schoolyard silly.

Sigh, fine.

The random blog you posted to is using a very old version of HB and thus old version of x265 and has a bunch of other issues the biggest of which is that settings on one encoder do not translate to another.

So while I think most people will concede that x264 can out perform x265 in SOME circumstances the reverse is also true, thus your statements are nonsense.