Cecil Westerhof via ffmpeg-user <ffmpeg-user@ffmpeg.org> writes:
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.
In another case h.265 took 2/3 longer, but the size was 3/5. So that
could be interesting.
I have used H265 for a while. Generally it is quite good, but there are
cases that H264 is better. Anyway, encoding time usually is longer on
H265, By the way, found a possible answer for your original question:
https://write.corbpie.com/ffmpeg-h265-preset-crf-comparison-2020-pt1/
_______________________________________________
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".
