![]() The output from mediainfo may indicate the actual encoder. I'm not sure which encoder was used, but it could indicate that x265–an efficient encoder–could have been used. ![]() This library is responsible for muxing the file. Your H.265 input was created by ffmpegĪs shown in your console output: encoder: Lavf58.34.101, which is the libavformat library version. So if you take a H.264 input that was made from an inefficient encoder, then re-encode it using an efficient H.265 encoder you may see significant file savings despite compression unfriendly encoding artifacts present in the source. ![]() Your H.264 input may have been created by a hardware encoder which sacrifices quality-per-bit for encoding speed. Some encoders are crap no matter the format. So it may be unfair and unrealistic to compare H.264 to H.265. H.265 is a newer generation format than H.264, and in ideal situations H.265 can provide significant file size savings (but it can be much slower to encode).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |