Ferdi Scholten <fe...@sttc-nlp.nl> writes: > On 15-12-2021 18:18, Cecil Westerhof via ffmpeg-user wrote: >> When looking at: >> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/H.265 >> >> with h.265 the value 28 should correspond with the value 23 with >> h.264. >> Is there a (rough) table for the other values? >> > Well, no not really > > Those figures are generic. In reality there are many things that can > affect both quality and size. > The kind of video used as a source, the amount of visual detail, the > preset used or other settings all have a big impact either on size or > quality of the encode. > > So what is your goal, would you want high quality, small file sizes or > fast encoding speed? All these things you need to trade off to get to > your optimum encoding settings. Do some trial runs with small samples to > find out what suits your needs.
In a way all three. ;-) But my first impression it is not worth it. (After a very short test.) It seems that h.265 generates a marginal smaller file, with a marginal better quality, but takes two times as much computer power. Thus it seems that for most things I could best stick to h.264. Does YouTube has a preference for one, or the other? -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-user mailing list ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-user-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
