I've tried the hardware encoders supported by Handbrake (h264/h265). It's very fast but the quality is lower than using the software-encoder. My question is, is this quality a limitation of the hardware itself or can we expect better quality with future versions of Handbrake?
Rendering h.265 at 50fps with my GPU instead of 2-3fps with software is very tempting but not that much if quality suffers.
Hardware encoding quality
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.
Re: Hardware encoding quality
These encoders (mostly) are fixed function so improvements come from new hardware with each generation.
If your running reasonably recent Intel CPU's for example. (I.e 4th gen or later), it's probably "good enough" for a lot of people.
With regards to quality, throw a bit of bit-rate at it, (or choose a higher quality level) to make up the gap. Yes you do get a larger file. Whether that's really a problem for you is down to your preference.
If your running reasonably recent Intel CPU's for example. (I.e 4th gen or later), it's probably "good enough" for a lot of people.
With regards to quality, throw a bit of bit-rate at it, (or choose a higher quality level) to make up the gap. Yes you do get a larger file. Whether that's really a problem for you is down to your preference.
Re: Hardware encoding quality
Unless time is a factor (which it shouldn't be for single copy personal use), there is no reason to use hardware encoders except for 4k x265, and yes, quality is lower than CPU.