Honest thoughts on HEVC / h.265

Honest thoughts on HEVC / h.265

Other urls found in this thread:

builds.x265.eu
4archive.org/board/g/thread/54761943
videoquality.pl/preset-settings-x264-quality-compression-speed-test/)
slhck.info/video/2017/02/24/crf-guide.html
my.mixtape.moe/vraqvb.mp4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Almost my whole collection of 500+ films plus a whole bunch of TV shows is encoded with HEVC.
That's what I think of it.

I shrunk my porn collection from 10TB to 3TB with H.265 HandBrake (this is with better quality than H.264 at same settings, and I would've only have shrunken it to 6TB with H.264)

Goot shit, and fuck Brazzers for having 5GB 1080P video scenes. Speaking of Brazzers; encoding a 5GB video with H.265 results in a 1GB video file, while H.265 would be something like 2,5GB while still looking worse (using the 1080P VeryFast Preset in HandBrake but changed it to H.265 and same FPS as source).

Keep in mind though, that if the source file is already compressed like fuck, H.265 will look worse than H.264 (Brazzers 480P is already compressed to stupid small file size for H.264 (like 200MB or something)

The content of the video also depends. A video with a white background will be incredibly smaller than something shot in the woods with rustling leaves etc.

>while H.265 would be something like 2,5GB

meant H.264 my apologies

Hue saturation in cranked up on that picture.

>make picture comparing image quality
>make it 500x333 pixels

was it worth it?

no

Played one movie on my phone yesterday(using mx player with hw+ on), the phone got very hot. I'd rather waste more space.

I didn't encode any of it personally. I get all my stuff from release groups specialized in HEVC. It's absolutely worth it having a collection in beautiful quality that takes pretty much half the space an AVC one would take.

Sup Forums has an IP counter, you know?

it's gonna save the ass of streaming services once they all go 4k. That's what I think of it.

>Sup Forums has an IP counter, you know?
Related how? My IP was already counted before that post. There was no way to tell if it's you or not.

Yep, H264 is showing its age. Source and encode tuning will affect quality more than the codec itself though.

...

Great codec will domine media industry and blu ray but gigant web will change AV1

Can you share the handbrake configs?

>Yep, H264 is showing its age.

explain?

It's just an older codec, advances in tech and psy shit push ever onwards. The patent threats have also probably slowed innovation within it.

After much deliberation: It's an amazing video codec with now widespread hardware decoders (for 8-bit at least) and should become the norm for most content. Commercial streaming should still be VP9 though as it incurs no fees for companies.

Here is an encoding guide from a few months ago if anyone wants it:

>newbie encoding guide v1.0 [05-17-2017]

>Video codec
Use HEVC, hardware decoders for it are plentiful.

>Quality
Use CRF unless you desperately need to fit your video in a specific streaming bandwidth (ABR) or inside a specific storage medium such as a 1GB file size or dvd (ABR 2 pass). 22 CRF means a good quality compared to original and 16 CRF means high quality compared to original. Using any other CRF beside 0 for lossless encodes should be avoided.

>Preset
The "fast" preset should almost always be used as it gives you the best balance between video compression efficiency and encoding speed. Faster ones give you terrible compression efficiency and slower make encodings take longer with little improved compression efficiency.

>Encoder
Staxrip should be used for most things unless you really need advanced controls, in which case MEgui will suffice.

>10-bit or 8-bit encoders
Generally 10-bit ones will help out with color banding and improve compression efficiency 5-20% compared to 8-bit ones but at the cost of less hardware decoding support. So only use 8-bit if general hardware decoding compatibility is important to you.

There's some mathy gains on resolutions exactly divisible by 16 (for 16x16 blocks) in x264, not sure if applies to HVEC. Also doing a multiple pass encode can give actual gains at the cost of a fuckload more time and probably no GUI support.

x265 is still pretty terrible and you should be ashamed to recommend this garbage here

Due to how HEVC encodes it doesn't seem to make a differance if your video is divisible by 16 or 10.

CRF is still superior as you are targetting a specific quality vs specific bit-rate. That way no matter what your source type or resolution is a CRF of say 22 will look high-quality and a CRF of 34 will look low quality.

Have you even tried the latest encoder? It's at least 50% more efficient over H264.

builds.x265.eu

>Quality
CRF 16 is a bit overkill. CRF 18 already looks amazing.

>Preset
I disagree. The slow preset makes a lot of difference.

>10-bit or 8-bit encoders
This is absolutely the most important part. 8bit HEVC looks awful with color banding everywhere. 10bit looks glorious.

>[05-17-2017]
You should use ISO date, as in 2017-05-17.

Please post the script. I share your resentment towards huge file sizes on porn too.

hevc is good if you're making low-bitrate, high-resolution (>1080p) encodes, but it's not worth the time for high quality encodes, you save very little and spend much more time
using hevc for everything is like using he-aac for everything

I chose 16 because it's about 2X as visually improved compared to 22. You can use 18 if you want I guess, it's still high quality-ish.

The slow preset only improves encoding efficiency by like 5%. Go ahead and encode a movie with the slow and faster preset, you'll shave off like 40MB for a 720p one.

ye

k

Just use staxrip and my recommended parameters. Staxrip can automagically do entire directories or even folders with subfolders inside.

Wrong. Just use the faster preset, the slow one won't double the encoder efficiency.

>Just use the faster preset
then you throw away any benefit you had over a slower x264 preset at higher quality

No. You. Don't.

I've been encoding for a while now and I can guarantee you that going from the faster to slow preset gives you a tiny file size decrease for movies and tv episodes.

HEVC faster preset is still like ~45% more efficient than H264 slower preset.

I don't have any. I only know that its dead.

Shame about the licensing requirement. Regardless it's more efficient than VP9.

how slow is it still?

Most rips are coming out in 8-bit HEVC.

For lower resolution source files, it's worth it. I always get 10-bit when available but even 8-bit-FRC-to-10-bit monitors aren't very common yet and there's always dithering.

It's worth it for any kind of quality. Hell even lossless 4:4:4 HEVC encoding is significantly smaller than 4:4:4 H264 encoding. IMHO, I would only ever use 22, 16, and 0 CRF.

To clarify I meant CRF 16 is worth it for lower resolution, but for 1080p CRF 22 is acceptable for TV & streaming sources which are bitcrunched already. You're absolutely right the benefits of HEVC show with higher resolutions.

Also you don't need a 10-bit monitor to reap the benefits of 10-bit video. See pic in

Depends in the screen size and whether upscaling was used. 22 CRF 1080p HEVC video would look worse than 16 CRF 1080p HEVC video on a 80+" 4K HDTV.

But most people probably don't have that.

>ctrl+f daiz summoning
>0 results
WTF is wrong with you, someone start it up

What are you doing trying to watch on your phone if it doesn't have a compatible hardware decoder?

Vomit was Sup Forums's daiz but nobody has seen her for a while.

4archive.org/board/g/thread/54761943

the only way that would be acceptable is if you prefer a smoother image over a more detailed image
i find hevc better avoids "traditional" artifacts like ringing and blocking better, but at the cost of blurring out a lot of detail
also, that graph doesn't tell you much, the source clip is very complex, there's little room to use the tricks available in the higher presets, and more importantly... it's an x264 test, not an x265 test.

He was a retard.

A better question who isn't using x265. My entire collection has been going forward for quite some time.

Still have TB's of x264, and probably even some avi's if I look hard enough but files like this wont be replaced until I watch them again.

Point is there's little benefit when going from the faster to the slow preset because when I encoded videos at different presets the slow preset only saved me ~5% in file size in CRF encoding mode. Both videos looked visually the same.

Are you now accusing CRF of being unreliable?

My only excuse is that I do screen capture for bug reports, and my small budget has not afforded me a new GPU. For now, good enough will have to do. CPU capture is certainly an option in some cases however.

oh, and don't take PSNR values too seriously, they're not terribly representitive of perceived quality
like with that test you posted a picture from (videoquality.pl/preset-settings-x264-quality-compression-speed-test/)
they show part of faster and slower (pic), notice how blurry the faster one is

keep in mind CRF doesn't mean "quality level", this is a common mistake

she*, look at the archive

I never said she was a good daiz but she was the least shittiest and did actual encoding tests.

How a female ends up in Sup Forums and stays here that long is beyond me.

Encode 2 videos with a CRF of 16 but one with the faster preset and one with the slow preset. Then play both videos at 1.0x speed and 100% zoom and tell me if you notice a difference.

>"CRF is a “constant quality” encoding mode, as opposed to constant bitrate (CBR). Typically you would achieve constant quality by compressing every frame of the same type the same amount, that is, throwing away the same (relative) amount of information. In tech terminology, you maintain a constant QP (quantization parameter). The quantization parameter defines how much information to discard from a given block of pixels (a Macroblock). This typically leads to a hugely varying bitrate over the entire sequence."

>"Constant Rate Factor is a little more sophisticated than that. It will compress different frames by different amounts, thus varying the QP as necessary to maintain a certain level of perceived quality. It does this by taking motion into account. A constant QP encode at QP=18 will stay at QP=18 regardless of the frame (there is some small offset for different frame types, but it is negligible here). Constant Rate Factor at CRF=18 will increase the QP to, say, 20, for high motion frames (compressing them more) and lower it down to 16 for low motion parts of the sequence. This will essentially change the bitrate allocation over time."

slhck.info/video/2017/02/24/crf-guide.html

who's daiz?

He might as well be hitler.

how do you get that, would be useful?

>A better question who isn't using x265.
Nearly all scene and P2P encoding groups. HEVC has a fuckton of problems from licensing to poor hardware support until recently to rather questionable quality on some specific settings. There's also little reason to bother with it when a AV1 is coming on New Years.

did a quick test myself, too
x264 slower vs. x265 faster
the bitrate and encode speed are similar

...

Similar but the x264 slow is clearly better. Can get even better with multiple passes. H265 will really shine when you're bit constrained or maybe in realtime but why would you ever go anything less than slower/multipass if you have the option?

Is HEVC that bad?

No, it's just not great. If MPEGLA and Technicolor weren't such turbojews it would be much more widely adopted by now. On the other hand we wouldn't get such unprecedented cooperation from everyone on a new codec like with AV1, so go figure.

x265 is great for very low bitrate scenarios, or otherwise when detail isn't to be expected (or wanted?)
it can go lower than x264 before introducing noticable artifacts such as blocking and ringing, but will blur details out more

i personally prefer to get as much detail as i can, even if it means minor blocking/ringing

That's not how you compare video encodes or even do them.

see Compare this: 22 CRF HEVC faster preset vs 16 CRF H264 slower preset at 1.0x speed and 100% zoom.

You'll notice the HEVC file has half the file size but visually the same quality.

Remember how long it took them to ditch xvid? Also h265 is not only much slower than h264, but also you can't be sure it will produce a better result.

What's the appeal of HEVC?

Higher quality at lower bitrates, obviously. Though if you read the thread you're posting in you can see it comes with different quality tradeoffs.

source: my ass

Don't listen to these retards. HEVC provides 50% better compression efficiency over H264.

Don't take my word for it, dowbload staxrip, the latest x265 encoder, and see for yourself.

>1.0x speed
funny you mention that
the x264 motion is uglier than x265's, thanks to x265's blurring. however, it doesn't matter much when playing back normally, as it's hard to discern detail on moving objects anyway
what i care about is detail on no/slow movement parts, which x264 just does better

No it doesn't you moron. If what you said was true then HEVC based image codecs would have never been made.

Also stop comparing video as if it were a series of photos. Nobody watches video at 1 frame per second at 800% zoom.

Dude you already posted that shit multiple times and every single time someone disproves your claims with a screenshot comparison showing that x265 is vastly inferior to x264 in terms of quality. x265 is only acceptable to use when your resolution is >1080p or you're encoding at very low bitrates.

Oh look it's that retard that compares video as if it were still pictures.

>stop comparing video as if it were a series of photos
Video is a series of frames, you absolute retard.

Well most people are using scene encodes as their source instead of remux/TS so I mostly avoid it

How the fuck is screenshot comparisons any objective way to compare VIDEO?

Please jump in front of a moving train.

You're utterly retarded

I think the only real reason to use HEVC is when you handle material over 1080p. AVC was never designed to work with huge resolutions and it shows.
Other than that it can be useful if you want to jew on bandwidth and serve bitstarved garbage that looks a little better using a never codec. Google is trying to do that on YouTube with VP9, it doesn't work too well.

50% is bullshit and you know it. I much prefer to stick to well tried x264 than fiddle with a shitshow that is HEVC.

So in your opinion a paused frame looking like shit is excusable?

Seriously never reply to me again you fucking imbecile

I think opus maybe gave them unrealistic expectations. VP9 hasn't gone too well generally.

HEVC at 27 kbit/s:

my.mixtape.moe/vraqvb.mp4

How can AV1 compete?

Looks like the screenshotfags are back to ruining video encoding threads. I'm outta here, peace out guys.

Stay edumacated.

says the guy who's posted no video clips, and tried to sell hevc 'faster' with a psnr graph of an x264 clip

How about you stop being a useless faggot and make a thread doing just that? God, you sound just like my stupid sister. At least he posted an informative link on why people should use CRF. So many fucking retards here unironically recommending 3-pass encodes.

> banding on the left background gradient

I miss vomit.

>how the fuck is comparison of frames in series of frames an objective way of comparing
Are you seriously that dumb or just pretending for (you)'s?

...

Turns your CPU into a space heater.

Good riddance.

The only question I have is why would you download porn

It's already dipping below 20C here in jew york. Time to start encoding on my FX-8350 OC'd to 4.6 GHz again.

The poor children

I meant playback, but I can't even imagine the nightmare that encoding would be.

you're only really missing out on motion artifacts, which are only really a problem for really starved video
if we were comparing super low quality teleconferencing video or something, then sure, but i don't think that's what people here are concerned about

like this is riddled with motion artifacts (no motion where there should be small motion, rough motion where there is motion left)

I just download mini x264 movies from good encoders who actually know what they're doing. The screenshot from pic related is from a 2GB 720p x264 encode that even manages to keep the film grain entact.

Not even a encode double it's size from the typical shitty x265 encoder looks this good.

Bet you $100 he just passed the video through a synth denoise filter on megui.

Encoding isn't actually that hard, just pass the video through filters if necessary and encode that shit with a CRF of 16 or 22 depending on how big you want the video.

explain

He's either a dumbass, phoneposter with a $20 wallmart phone, or an poor oldfag with a P4. Disregard him in all cases.

How will Apple's use of HEVC affect things?

0 because they're slowly becoming irrelevant.

In the same way their use of AAC, ALAC, AIFF, and HLS has affected things - none whatsoever outside their ecosystem.

> $100 he just passed the video through a synth denoise filter on megui.

Nope. The best Scene encoders actually go through movies frame by frame and use different settings and filters for multiple parts of the movie. That's why they don't release movies as soon as it's leaked.

The majority of encodes from grainy movies around this filesize looks blurry and pixelated from the shitty methods they use to compress the grain.

>The best Scene encoders actually go through movies frame by frame and use different settings and filters for multiple parts of the movie
sure thing mane

lmao no, nobody is doing all that shit for free. You get a single denoise filter pass for grainy movies and a CRF encoding.

You could actually cram down the file size more if you spent a week trying different filters and fine tuning the encoding parameters.