While developed as a replacement for H. Despite these downfalls, HEVC does compress much better in higher crf lower bitrate and has been a really good codec to use since Most modern devices support hardware decoding iOS, Android, laptops, Macs, etc. HEVC does have a slight advantage in terms of parallel encoding efficiency, though they are both just as slow when encoding compared to x Unfortunately the reference encoder libaom is in a very early stage and takes forever to encode.
It performs not as well as libaombut quality is still better than x SSIMand encode times are way more reasonable. For now, they look promising, and I am excited to see results in a few years.
HEVC took years before it was more widely accepted by Anime encoders, and took 5 years until before I began experimenting with it. AV1 began major development in mid so by that logic we got more years to go. Handbrake is a great tool for beginners. It allows reading Blu-ray disks unencryptedand has a pretty UI to deal with. Hopefully bit pipeline will be supported once HDR becomes common.
Guides on how to do this are easily found. To keep things short and not get into technical details: use the bit encoder Main 10 profile. Why not just use bit then you say? It is much less supported, and from my tests back in the bit encoder is actually worse than the bit encoder at high crf due to less resources put into developing it. First, one must understand x is fundamentally different than x In x, the slower the preset, the bigger the file size is at the same crf.
While counter intuitive at first, this is due to the more complex algorithms used to more precisely estimate motion and preserve details.
The move from fast to medium to slow each reduces bad noise and artifacts, though I do have to admit going any slower I could not observe any significant improvements x 3. Now to answer the questions which preset to use.
In my mind, there are only 3 presets worth using: fastslowand veryslow. It is barely any slower than the others while offering slightly better quality. It does, however, have its place, especially with the recent changes in v3. The only downside to veryslow is its encoding speed which is a gazillion times slower than slow and requires a supercomputer.Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. User Name Remember Me? Hey folks, I've been searching these forums and the web and have come to the conclusion that there isn't really a good collection of baseline encoding settings or proposed tunes for x that cover various types of media.Youtube Quality Comparison (CRF 16, Deblock 9)
Given x doesn't really provide much in the way of content specific tunes aside from grainthis seems like something that would be useful to the enthusiast community, and would give people a good starting point for their own content-specific tweaks. So I am proposing establishing a sticky thread or using this one as a place where people can share their settings and discuss what works or doesn't work and why. Assuming others are interested, of course.
As a starting point, I found the following as the most recent proposed tunes for animation and film in the HEVC discussion forum crf 18 p. However, they were posted more than a year ago, and may no longer be relevant based on the changes that have been made to x in that time Last edited by Merlin93; 28th September at Essentially, especially since x 2.
In my opinion, --no-sao is all the deviation from x 2. If I encounter sources with extreme grain, I either use x or don't bother at all and just remux. Works wonders in handbrake. Originally Posted by Wolfberry. And there does not exist universal setting parameters for every content, you can even tweak your parameters by episode if you want.
No parameters are perfect, but I think that it still has its reference value. Originally Posted by Merlin Got it. So when I say baseline, I mean the starting point before making any tweaks.
Subscribe to RSS
It only takes a minute to sign up. I have a raw footage and the quality of details of h with same CRF setting looks better than h Maybe my setup isn't the best: I'm using ffmpeg for transcoding and vlc for review the videos, then i copy the screen content and compare the screens on a program like photoshop.
Could the loss of quality be caused by VLC and its experimental support in deconding h? Maybe something more visible at lower bitrates? The CRF scales for x and x do not correspond. But x is not yet as mature in its development as x, so take that CRF equivalence with a pinch of salt. That said, you can try to establish your own calibration between the current versions of the encoding libraries in your ffmpeg by running the following command, which executes two popular video quality metrics:.
So, run the command once with the x output and once with x and compare with different x outputs, till you get similar measures. Of course, these metrics aren't perfect but you can use them as a rough guide to establish equivalence. Sign up to join this community.
X265 Crf 16
The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. What CRF or settings I should choose for h in order to achieve a similiar quality of h?
Ask Question. Asked 4 years, 11 months ago. Active 4 years, 11 months ago. Viewed 21k times. I'm doing some experiments with HEVC x Shouldn't be the opposite?
FFmpeg commands I using are the following: ffmpeg -i input. Active Oldest Votes. That said, you can try to establish your own calibration between the current versions of the encoding libraries in your ffmpeg by running the following command, which executes two popular video quality metrics: ffmpeg -i encoded-video.
Gyan Gyan Hmm interesting, may i ask why this scales doesn't correspond? Is a wanted design with a bigger amount of CRF values or could be considered this way because libx is still not mature enough in ffmpeg? An addition to the previous comment. In ffmpeg documentation that you linked is said that x crf 28 is roughly equivalent to x crf So, if generally the CRF of h are "better" qualitatively speaking than the x ones how is possible that the encode results of x is worst than x with same CRF?
The short answer to the deviation from expected performance is that x is still under "heavy development". Nothing to do specifically with libx included with ffmpeg See forum.
I see, so because of this heavy development status even if I decide to move from ffmpeg and libx to another encoder the results will not change so much right? There aren't some commercial products based on x nowadays? Should have been already almost completed in all its parts! If you look at the PDF I linked in the last comment, there are many encoders out there - most proprietary.
My observation is confined to standalone x or its deployment, whether in ffmpeg or anything else.VideoHelp Forum. Remember Me? Download free trial! Forum Video Video Conversion X vs x at sane values. Results 1 to 13 of X vs x at sane values. OK, forgive some obvious n00b questions, but I'm only starting to dip my toe into H.
I see a lot of comparisons between x and x for instance where they use extreme values for the encoding of either. Comparisons exist where they use the exact same bit rate where x will be better of course or use the same CRF, which is not fair since the default for x is 23 and x is What I want to know is I assume the happy medium will be, in order to make HEVC worth it, some level of bitrate reduction and some increase in quality. I'm pretty happy with x quality, so if an encode was a little better AND saved me some space, I'm all for that.
What I see now, in most comparisons, is not quite realistic. I know this is a completely subjective question, but lets say a 2 hour movie encoded with slow settings on x, CRF 21 comes out to 4.
What kind of space savings could I expect with similar settings on x, and how much better will the video be to boot? Sure, I could try it myself, but I don't know what those "sane" settings are for x yet! Originally Posted by Valnar. I don't know what those "sane" settings are for x yet!
Comparisons exist where they use the exact same bit rate where x will be better of course. Thanks sneaker. The point of my post is Lets assume the same bitrate makes x look better since its more efficient. Lets assume that to get the same video quality as x, one can use less bits instead. Somewhere in the middle is where we will end up. I'd assume yes If we aren't there yet, I understand. Maybe this question is best asked a year from now. And by then, us mere mortals won't need to really know.
Those decisions, arrived subjectively through a lot of testing by the programmers, will be incorporated into the next Handbrake or similar kind of app. I was just hoping to get an idea of what to expect! Purpose of h. There is no sense to do comparison with same bitrate. Originally Posted by jagabo. It's all about reducing the bitrate. Tons of comparisons already done, do a search As of right now x beats x in everything except very low bitrates based on all my testing.
My testing is the only ones I trust. You should do the same.This helps preserve fine details. Drugs such as vincristine, vinblastine, and cisplatin often cause CRF. After we also encoded one SD standard definition video with FFmpeg using two different codecs.
The CRF scales for x and x do not correspond. Cancer treatments commonly associated with CRF are: Chemotherapy. High crf will result in blocking due to lack of smoothing on 32x32 blocks. New features Edge-aware quadtree partitioning to terminate CU depth recursion based on edge information. Keeping in mind that the encoding was performed on an Intel Core ik, the encode rates for x and x both varied as a function of CRF with higher CRFs lower quality encoding faster than lower CRFs.
I am trying to find out how and if the CRF numbers are correlated between the two codecs, x and x, respectively. At CRF8, this fell to 2. Title : Raat Jashan Di.
To obtain the same quality with VP9, one should look at the intersection of CRF 20 and "libvpx crf according to psnr-hvs-m", which gives an equivent CRF of Recently added features lookahead-slices, limit-modes, limit-refs have been enabled by default for applicable presets. CRF I can see a slight degree of over sharpening on the x file when zooming into freezed frames, I can probably tweak a few settings to remove.
In the case of x, the so-called constant rate factor CRF can also be used to tune the quality of the encoded video.
Anime Encoding Guide for x265 (HEVC) & AAC/OPUS (and Why to Never Use FLAC)
All episodes encoded at CRF Type: HF receiver: Frequency range: 0. Transcoding the modified source with ADM x The default is 23, so you can use this as a starting point. Punjabi Video Song. I did a test on a 8 bit TV-episode encoded with x 10 bit Preset Medium CRF 19 and compared it to a 8 bit encoding same preset and crf and I couldnt see any difference, but the file size came out mb bigger for the 10 bit encode.
It's why their file sizes seem large to some. Please check our Used List. I also tried adding -qmin 16, but it simply ignored me. I tried compressing some video with -crf 16, and it totally spat out video at something like 80kbps. And three encoded with x and CRF 22,23, and I have tried emptying trash ad cleaning bundles and re copying them to no avail.
See full list on slhck. The compiler now warns about targeting Windows XP being deprecated. Usually use crf 16 and I watch my stuff on a 5k monitor hp 5k z27q from which my eyes are roughly a meter away.
The CRF videos were done via Handbrake using x bit, whereas everything else was done via ffmpeg using x or x 8-bit. Encoding rate for x reached a peak of 7. As a result, we stopped at these settings: x core : Type: 10 bit Encoding settings: --crf Your x settings are on the extreme side.
Anime - Dub For Visual Studioonly one new toolset v will be added. Looks like square pixels. Yes, one may argue SSIM isn't the best representation as a quality metric, but the matter of fact is that it's an objective measurement readily available.Today we did some manual testing. We encoded a raw video file directly from the source.
At the end we got 6 videos. We streamed the videos on an impaired network fedora computer and applied packet loss on the streams. The packet loss values were 0. The files were saved using VLC dump raw input. See the table and graph below. With x we get a little bit more relevant results. After we expand the testing to multiple videos with higher resolutions we hope to achieve better results.
The research is focused on the correlation between the x and x I am trying to find out how and if the CRF numbers are correlated between the two codecs, x and x, respectively. CRF is a way of compressing video dynamically, adapting the compression ratio to the motion characteristics of the video. More about it here. We use it to asses the quality of video in an objective manner. We use the original video as a reference. It is very simple to implement. However it does not completely correlate to the way humans perceive video quality loss.
I encoded the video sequences using this syntax. I was just changing the crf parameter and the codec. All the rest was the constant. Am I doing something wrong here or is just the libx not developed yet? Is my video sequence database representative?With x and x, you can set the values between 0 and 51, where lower values would result in better quality, at the expense of higher file sizes. Higher values mean more compression, but at some point you will notice the quality degradation.
For x, sane values are between 18 and The default is 23, so you can use this as a starting point. For libvpx, there is no default, and CRF can range between 0 and Is the quality good enough? Then set a lower CRF.
Is the file size too high? Choose a higher CRF. You should use CRF encoding primarly for offline file storage, in order to achieve the most optimal encodes.
For other applications, other rate control modes are recommended. For other CRFs and resolutions, the rates vary accordingly. You can clearly see the logarithmic relationship between CRF and bitrate. 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. This will essentially change the bitrate allocation over time. For example, here is a figure from another post of mine that shows how the bitrate changes for two video clips encoded at different levels 17, 23 of constant QP or CRF:. The line for CRF is always lower than the line for CQP; it means that the encoder can save bits, while retaining perceptual quality, whereas with CQP, you waste a little bit of space.
This effect is quite pronounced in the first video clip, for example.