X265 10-bit File Size Help

[Jackf94]

Hi Everyone,

I'm very new to HandBrake and would appreciate some help.
I've started to encode my BluRay collection to 10-bit h.265 videos using version 1.3.1 in Ubuntu 19.10. Preset is RF 20 at slow speed and ac3 5.1 640kbps sound. Processor is AMD Ryzen 7 2700 with 16 gigs of RAM.

My expectations of encoding to 10-bit x265 are 2-4gb a file however I'm getting 6-8. I'm just wondering if this is correct. I encoded Gladiator last night from the original blu ray under these settings and I got an 8.5GB file after roughly 8 hours. Should I use a slower preset? Or I'm wondering if it might be Ubuntu and I should encode on windows. Please help! Many thanks.

[rollin_eng]

Could you please post your HB logs, instructions can be found here:

https://handbrake.fr/docs/en/latest/hel ... y-log.html

[Jackf94]

I'm very sorry, I've just this minute installed Windows 10. If I get the same results I will post the log here and and reinstall Ubuntu and post the log from there as well.

[rollin_eng]

You should get the same result.

[Jackf94]

OK I will post the log once the encoding is done but until then, Does the resulting file size with the presets given sound odd or about right to you? Just your first impression before looking at the log.

[Jackf94]

Just started to encode John Wick with exactly the same settings as in Ubuntu. Already at 10 percent, current file size of 146mb with a stable ETA of around three hours. Ubuntu was ETA of around 8 hours and took around 10 minutes to reach 4 percent. I'm sorry I did not post the log from Ubuntu and I'm not making this up but this is a massive difference. Tomorrow if I can I'll dual boot and post two logs.

[mduell]

Sounds completely reasonable. With a quality target, output size will depend on the content of the source, in addition to the run time. I'm not sure what your expectations are derived from.

[JohnAStebbins]

I use similar settings for playback on amazon firetv devices. I get a range of file sizes depending on source material. For really clean HD content, 2 to 4GB is achievable. But a lot of action or a little film grain will result in much larger files. I would say I see as many 10GB files as I do 2.5GB files. 2GB is rare, and 4GB to 8GB is most common.

If you have sources with a bit of grain that you want to get better results with, try adding the NLMEANS filter. For example, applying NLMEANS to my James Bond collection took average file sizes down from 12GB to 5GB.

[JohnAStebbins]

Just started to encode John Wick with exactly the same settings as in Ubuntu. Already at 10 percent, current file size of 146mb with a stable ETA of around three hours. Ubuntu was ETA of around 8 hours and took around 10 minutes to reach 4 percent. I'm sorry I did not post the log from Ubuntu and I'm not making this up but this is a massive difference. Tomorrow if I can I'll dual boot and post two logs.

If the computers have comparable CPUs then you are not using the same settings. Which is why we must see logs.

[Jackf94]

It's the same one computer using the same processor and RAM Using the same GUI settings. H.265 10bit RF 20 slow variable frame rate ac3 5.1 for both windows and Ubuntu.

[JohnAStebbins]

HandBrake performs the same on windows and linux when using the same settings. So although you say the settings are the same in the GUI, we'll need to see logs to confirm since I've not seen a case yet where they perform different with the same settings.

[Jackf94]

Ok, I'll finish this encode tonight, get the log and do the same film with Ubuntu tomorrow and post results.

[Jackf94]

I'm just gobsmacked that John wick is at 41percent done and currently 654mb in size whereas in Linux gladiator was 8.5 GB in 10bit x265. Before, I encoded it x264, everything else same setting in gui and was 15gb in size. Anyway, thanks for getting back, will post logs tomorrow.

[JohnAStebbins]

Oh, are you comparing 2 different source files? You can't do that. Gladiator is a *very* different film than John Wick. Although I still wouldn't expect Wick to come in at less than 4GB, I *would* expect Gladiator to be at the higher end of the scale. It's got a lot of grain.

[Jackf94]

If John wick is currently at 52 percent and 980mb on RF 20 slow, I will expect gladiator to be larger, yes, but not 8gb. X264 maybe.

[Deleted User 13735]

Individual comparisons aside, there is no practical reason in encoding BluRay, which is always 8 bit, to 10 bit x265.
It's like putting a little gift in a big, fancy box that has no value of its own.

If you put your BluRay in an appropriate box, x264, or x265 8 bit for a little more compression, it will save you hours of rendering time over the heavier processing demands.

[rollin_eng]

Individual comparisons aside, there is no practical reason in encoding BluRay, which is always 8 bit, to 10 bit x265.
It's like putting a little gift in a big, fancy box that has no value of its own.

If you put your BluRay in an appropriate box, x264, or x265 8 bit for a little more compression, it will save you hours of rendering time over the heavier processing demands.

Practical reason include a possible reduction in size and possibly less color banding.

[Jackf94]

I'm aware of this. I'm encoding in 10-bit as I tried 8-bit x265 RF 20 slow and got significantly noticeable colour banding. I don't know any advanced settings which I'm sure are possible to negate this but I don't so 10 bit is the easier option and I'm happy with the results.

[JohnAStebbins]

Individual comparisons aside, there is no practical reason in encoding BluRay, which is always 8 bit, to 10 bit x265.
It's like putting a little gift in a big, fancy box that has no value of its own.

If you put your BluRay in an appropriate box, x264, or x265 8 bit for a little more compression, it will save you hours of rendering time over the heavier processing demands.

I've addressed this several times before, one such link
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=36432&p=171379&hili ... in#p171354

Encoding 8 bit sources to 10 bits has benefits in both file size and quality.

[Deleted User 13735]

I've addressed this several times before, one such link
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=36432&p=171379&hili ... in#p171354

Yes, and the +1 I replied to your post still stands.

In comparative output testing I did in 2014, I was unable to detect any bitwise interpolation or mapping at the Vegas output. Just a bigger bucket.

Hard to test this with interframe CRF -- too many untrapped variables. I think a clinical all-Intra CBR infrastructure must be needed to level the playing field.

10->10 bit 4.63 GB
8->8 bit 3.47 GB
8->10 bit 3.48 GB

[rollin_eng]

https://www.vegascreativesoftware.info/ ... /about-me/

Yes, and the +1 I replied to your post still stands.
In comparative output testing I did in 2014, I was unable to detect any bitwise interpolation at the output. Just a bigger bucket.
8bityuv.png 8->8 bit 3.47 GB
10-10bityuv.png 10->10 bit 4.63 GB
8-10bityuv.png 8->10 bit 3.48

What encoder and version and settings did you use? A single anecdote does not really mean much without context.

[Jackf94]

I have encoded a clip from gladiator 8gb source video in both Ubuntu 18.04 and windows 10 at the same settings in the HandBrake GUI. RF 20 slow ac3 5.1 nlmeans medium film. I've not encoded the full video as that will take over 24 hours total on both platforms. Both are done at 6 percent. I have the logs how do I attach?

[rollin_eng]

Post them here in code brackets or put them online somewhere and post a link.