I have the RF value set to 18 for h.265 encoding and this video file original 150 MB and my HEVC encoded is 181 MB.
This isn't making me any sense. I tried a lot of combos last night and all of them were resulting higher file size when it's suppose to be drastically smaller because HELLO it's HEVC.
Only way I got it down was RF value all the way to the left (51) and optimize video set to Ultrafast. Let's juts say i will be doing that again
My goal is to archive the video in high quality video format and small file size.
Video code is software H.265(x265)
Original h.264 to HEVC h.265 bigger file size!
Forum rules
An Activity Log is required for support requests. Please read How-to get an activity log? for details on how and why this should be provided.
An Activity Log is required for support requests. Please read How-to get an activity log? for details on how and why this should be provided.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:40 pm
-
- Veteran User
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:06 pm
Re: Original h.264 to HEVC h.265 bigger file size!
That's now how this works. That's not how any of this works.worldtoipad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:41 amsuppose to be drastically smaller because HELLO it's HEVC.
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:58 am
Re: Original h.264 to HEVC h.265 bigger file size!
Don't take my word as gospel but I'm going to say that your source file may be too low res. I find that HEVC works better the higher the resolution (more space for the larger sampling areas ect) may just be that HEVC has more overhead or just cant be used to its fullest .
As an example I can get a 1080p video down to about 3-4GB (RF 20 - Slow) where as a similar 2160p video is about 6-8GB. Double the size and yet 4X more pixels. 720p on the other hand seems to have a lot more variance with some files being 500MB (same RF 20 - Slow) while others are 1.5GB+.
Just a guess based on my observations. Either that or some videos just don't benefit from the larger sample sizes ect (too random maybe) and yet still get slugged with a bigger overhead.
As an example I can get a 1080p video down to about 3-4GB (RF 20 - Slow) where as a similar 2160p video is about 6-8GB. Double the size and yet 4X more pixels. 720p on the other hand seems to have a lot more variance with some files being 500MB (same RF 20 - Slow) while others are 1.5GB+.
Just a guess based on my observations. Either that or some videos just don't benefit from the larger sample sizes ect (too random maybe) and yet still get slugged with a bigger overhead.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:40 pm
Re: Original h.264 to HEVC h.265 bigger file size!
I converted 720p file from H264 to H265. Original was 190 MB and trans coded 400MB. H265 substantially jacked up the size!Butcher9_9 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:09 am Don't take my word as gospel but I'm going to say that your source file may be too low res. I find that HEVC works better the higher the resolution (more space for the larger sampling areas ect) may just be that HEVC has more overhead or just cant be used to its fullest .
As an example I can get a 1080p video down to about 3-4GB (RF 20 - Slow) where as a similar 2160p video is about 6-8GB. Double the size and yet 4X more pixels. 720p on the other hand seems to have a lot more variance with some files being 500MB (same RF 20 - Slow) while others are 1.5GB+.
Just a guess based on my observations. Either that or some videos just don't benefit from the larger sample sizes ect (too random maybe) and yet still get slugged with a bigger overhead.
The codec information can be seen here http://imgur.com/a/cayfN
I'm not sure what I am doing wrong
- JohnAStebbins
- HandBrake Team
- Posts: 5712
- Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:21 pm
Re: Original h.264 to HEVC h.265 bigger file size!
For starters, you haven't posed an activity log. Without it we have no way to diagnose your problem.
Re: Original h.264 to HEVC h.265 bigger file size!
The simplest explanation is that the source did not have a "quality" of 18.
While it is often said we can stick to one RF, the assumption is that the source has the same or lower RF!
There is no point using a lower RF than the source, but there is no magical way to know what the source RF is. You can only guess (intelligently, sometimes) and experiment.
While it is often said we can stick to one RF, the assumption is that the source has the same or lower RF!
There is no point using a lower RF than the source, but there is no magical way to know what the source RF is. You can only guess (intelligently, sometimes) and experiment.
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:40 pm
Re: Original h.264 to HEVC h.265 bigger file size!
Oh I see. Didn't know this is how RF worked.nhyone wrote: ↑Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:57 pm The simplest explanation is that the source did not have a "quality" of 18.
While it is often said we can stick to one RF, the assumption is that the source has the same or lower RF!
There is no point using a lower RF than the source, but there is no magical way to know what the source RF is. You can only guess (intelligently, sometimes) and experiment.
I played a lot with RFs but from I can recall, having the RF high was leading to smaller file size but really ruining the video quality to the point the black region where showing large pixel. The source was 720p and pretty clear.
Going to re-run the encoding and report the logs to see what might be going on.
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:58 am
Re: Original h.264 to HEVC h.265 bigger file size!
180Mb is pretty tiny for a 720p x264 video (unless its very short) so one would assume that its very low quality.worldtoipad wrote: ↑Sat Apr 01, 2017 6:50 pm
Oh I see. Didn't know this is how RF worked.
I played a lot with RFs but from I can recall, having the RF high was leading to smaller file size but really ruining the video quality to the point the black region where showing large pixel. The source was 720p and pretty clear.
Going to re-run the encoding and report the logs to see what might be going on.