I'm looking for a lossless video format in ffmpeg that isn't H.264 with lossless mode enabled.
Trouble is I can't find one that isn't both larger AND slower than H.264. I want to find one that is larger but faster...
Anyone here that use ffmpeg for lossless video encoding?
Should mention that YUV4MPEG is a bit too lossless for me, with 100 GB per 10 minutes of 1080p video...
But I'm surprised both ffv1 and huffyuv failed me.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
x265.readthedocs.io
trac.ffmpeg.org
twitter.com
>Trouble is I can't find one that isn't both larger AND slower than H.264.
Welcome to lossless video formats.
huffyuv failed you? How about iz?
>lossless
>video
kys 2bh stupid ass nigga
Pied Piper
you're the only one who doesnt seem to be trolling but what is iz?
>Wanting lossless to be small and fast than H.264
You are crazy
isnt the point of lossless encoding to have great speed at the cost of great file size?
thats not what i said. i want it to be faster than h.264 yet larger.
Lossy compression usually yields higher compression ratios by nature of the idea. E.g. at the most extreme end you could compress a frame down to a single color. Because of this, lossless compression is usually slower because there isn't as much work put into it.
>lossless compression is usually slower because there isn't as much work put into it
did you type that wrong or are you saying less work equals slower?
No, the point of lossless compression is to archive media in its original state without having to store raw video sizes. That way you can always re-encode or modify it later.
YUV444
yeah and that. im tired, sorry. i meant when it comes to live streaming and such.
regardless, still looking for a good lossless codec that can beat the speed of lossless h.264
What I was saying is that there is less R&D in lossless formats because there isn't as much of a point for commercial interests.
ffmpeg says: Unknown encoder 'YUV444'
>R&D
"research and demand"? im not english speaking so i don't really know all abbreviations
Research and development. Lossless isn't slower by nature, but it's slower because h.264 and other lossy compression algorithms are the ones that get all the funding. They get the funding because lossy algorithms will pretty much always yield higher compression ratios. So h.264 is fast because there is a small army of developers getting paid to make it fast.
H264 with YUV444 profile
i see, thanks. thats probably true
im having some success with "ffvhuff", which is a "Huffyuv FFmpeg variant". ill do some tests with it
you don't happen to have a command line in memory for that?
im currently using "-pix_fmt yuv420p" because that seems to have best compability
while im here i might as well ask if anybody think using that pixel format is good?
>great speed at the cost of great file size?
Not really.
The algorithms are still complex and the huge amount of data involved requires a lot of processing.
Just look at FLAC vs MP3. FLAC isn't faster or less resource consuming to process than MP3.
Na, that's full shit right there.
Lossless encoding is slower because the algorithms for compressing the data losslessly are more complex than lossy algorithms.
They're still converting all the data into another format, a completely different format to the original RAW data, but it still needs to return to the original RAW data.
>process
you're talking about encoding right?
i'd figure it should always take longer to encode with lossy format since the computer then have to figure out how to best compress it (figure out what to remove)
for example it's faster to convert an ogg audio file to wav than to mp3. as long as the HDD/SSD can keep up it should be the same with video codecs
sounds about right
it's the 'standard' input for most compression shit
see why: en.wikipedia.org
basically we're more sensitive to brightness so using a format that separates brightness and colour information allows some neat tricks like reducing the amount of colour data you store (yuv420 is only 1.5 bytes per pixel, for example)
it's not lossless (only yuv444 is) but you won't notice the difference, especially in video where each frame is only shown for a few milliseconds
if you're not just being autistic, use h264 with bitrate cranked way up and a low keyframe interval and it'll look mint
>if you're not just being autistic
here's the thing, im making a program that will offer two ways of encoding losslessly. one that makes large files but goes fast. the other that makes small files but goes slow.
im very surprised to find however that going faster than my slow option is very hard...
>i'd figure it should always take longer to encode with lossy format since the computer then have to figure out how to best compress it
That's backwards.
It is easier to encode a lossy format because the codec has a pretty good idea what to throw away.
Lossless codecs have a harder time because they have to compress everything perfectly so that it can return to it's original state. Lossy doesn't give a shit, so long as the differences are small enough it's fine.
converting RGB to YUV420 is trivial and pretty efficient on cpu (but also easy to do on gpu if you're not afraid of that stuff, just not really worth it because cpu can do it so fast)
problem for you is that there's not really a container format made for it or anything that knows what to do with it if you stuff it into avi or other common containers
i see your reasoning. though i know for example h.264 looks ahead several frames in order to determine which parts of the video won't change much over the next couple of seconds/milliseconds and then figures out what to remove from that. you'd think that all that comparing and figuring would be more demanding than what the lossless have to do: ok we have these bytes, lets stick them after each other and zip them. done! show's what i know...
so THAT'S why you can't play back so many codecs, it's the container format's fault
Lossless video doesn't exist in a digital format yet. As of today, you can only have lossless video in an analogical medium such as film.
woah.. though what about father time, won't he cause some loss?
BY THE WAY fellas, while we're here
What's the best lossless audio codec? As in fastest.
Is it FLAC?
You can't have everything kike.
It is easier to encode a lossy format because the codec has a pretty good idea what to throw away.
I don't know which is faster because I don't have any use for lossless, but that logic is broken. If calculating what to throw away is the major bottleneck of encoding, then lossless comes out faster because lossless always knows what to throw away.
/fa/ asf
>lossless video encoding
alright im leaving the thread now, OP out. thanks for the input
sage just in case
You do know that x264 and x265 support lossless encoding yeah?
x265.readthedocs.io
trac.ffmpeg.org