This is a general question so I'm not going to post logs.
Because I have limited storage I compress videos from my Canon camera at 2000-2500-3000k using h264. I evaluate videos by taking a screenshot of the same frame at different bitrates to compare results in VLC using no filters... and as could be expected, the general rule is... higher the bitrate the more detail it seems to have... and the bigger the screenshot file is. This has always been the case as I increase bitrates using h264.
But when I compared a h264 video @ 2500k to a h265 video @ 2500k... expecting the latter to have more detail given the codec is more efficient... it doesn't. There seems to be a significant lost in detail... and thus the file size of the screenshot jpg. I tried as much as possible to shoot the videos using no filters such as sharpening or grain.
Now, maybe this is a nutty way to gauge quality... but it's seemed to work for me.
Any thoughts?
How Efficient Is h256 encoder?
Re: How Efficient Is h256 encoder?
What size are you encoding to? If it's less than 1080p, the maturity of the x264 encoder often beats out the x265 encoder in getting "bang for the bits". At or above, x265 starts to win.
But that bit rate is rather low for high resolution video. Have you considered that storage doesn't cost what it used to? And if you're taking the video, it's probably worth it to keep the original in the best resolution you can, even if you distribute lower resolution; once you remove the resolution, you aren't going to get it back later.
And h.265 encoding does limit your playback devices compared to h.264.
But that bit rate is rather low for high resolution video. Have you considered that storage doesn't cost what it used to? And if you're taking the video, it's probably worth it to keep the original in the best resolution you can, even if you distribute lower resolution; once you remove the resolution, you aren't going to get it back later.
And h.265 encoding does limit your playback devices compared to h.264.
Re: How Efficient Is h256 encoder?
Limited devices for playing back h265 is the reason I don't yet use it. And yes, I'm compressing 720p so maybe that explains what's going on here. I shoot way too much video on vacations... sometimes 150 clips a day... and 15 years worth is piling up which is why I don't shoot higher than 720p. If I switch out my main drive then I'll have to buy all new backup drives make sure the files fit. But I wanted to at least give HEVC a chance.
Re: How Efficient Is h256 encoder?
You might want to consider some "expandable storage" in the form of a Network Attached Storage server. I currently have two attached to my network, both 8-drive Synology, the larger of which is 70TB (8 10TB drives configured to tolerate 1 drive failure). It's not a cheap solution, but it works.
Why do I have two? The first one stopped working due to a power problem, and a new one was bought. Drives from the old one were installed in the new one, and it came up configured just like the old one. I then upgraded the drives one-by-one from 4TB to 10TB. Then I used the old drives to experiment with the old unit... Tore it apart, checked all the connections, put it back together, and it worked. It's now a backup for critical stuff on the main system. "Critical" means something I don't have elsewhere...
Why do I have two? The first one stopped working due to a power problem, and a new one was bought. Drives from the old one were installed in the new one, and it came up configured just like the old one. I then upgraded the drives one-by-one from 4TB to 10TB. Then I used the old drives to experiment with the old unit... Tore it apart, checked all the connections, put it back together, and it worked. It's now a backup for critical stuff on the main system. "Critical" means something I don't have elsewhere...
-
Deleted User 13735
Re: How Efficient Is h256 encoder?
Thank you for sharing your impressions. You feel you didn't need to share even your source resolution, fps, and bitrate?
The reason I ask is because the encoded bitrates you quote are generally considered too low for anything but some tame SD source, so making any quality comparisons, especially subjective ones, is a nonstarter. Compression differences between x264 and x265 are reduced at lower bitrates.
Also, a terabyte of storage is fifty bucks.
Without actual source and encoded samples, (not screenshots), controlled testing conditions, quantified data, and yes, encoding logs, the strongest reaction anyone could reasonably make is to say, "hmm....."
The reason I ask is because the encoded bitrates you quote are generally considered too low for anything but some tame SD source, so making any quality comparisons, especially subjective ones, is a nonstarter. Compression differences between x264 and x265 are reduced at lower bitrates.
Also, a terabyte of storage is fifty bucks.
Without actual source and encoded samples, (not screenshots), controlled testing conditions, quantified data, and yes, encoding logs, the strongest reaction anyone could reasonably make is to say, "hmm....."
Re: How Efficient Is h256 encoder?
Sorry about that. It was a general question. I'm years behind in compressing old videos. Source: an older $200 Canon camera... 25fps, a whopping 19.6kbs for 720p AVC according to MediaInfo. That's almost twice the bitrate compared to my new Panasonic which has a much sharper picture.
-
Deleted User 13735
Re: How Efficient Is h256 encoder?
It seems you have started two threads and gotten the same answers. Imagine that.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39218
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39218