[FFmpeg-user] libx265 a lot slower
mkrjf0 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 17 14:00:32 EEST 2020
H.265 produces larger savings for larger resolutions than h274 )4k and higher).
H265 requires much higher computation levels and works best when mapped to GPU.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 17, 2020, at 12:02 AM, Cecil Westerhof <Cecil at decebal.nl> wrote:
> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> writes:
>>> Am 16.08.20 um 16:48 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
>>> I heard a lot that you should libx265 instead of libx264. I did not,
>>> because at some places that went wrong. (I think uploading. But it is
>>> several years ago, so I am not sure.)
>>> I am again playing with ffmpeg and creating new scripts.
>>> When using libx265 the file size is about a third smaller, but it
>>> takes about 2.5 to 3 times longer to generate the file. Is this
>>> normal, or a quirk at my side?
>>> For the moment I stay with libx264
>> what do you expect?
> I did not expect anything, just noticed something.
>> H264 is also a lot slower and more expensive comapred ot codes from the
>> 1990s and you can't expect better quality and smaller files falling free
>> from heaven
> For the moment I will keep with 264. Especially because these files
> are only played once. Just wanted to make sure I was not overlooking
> By the way: when searching on the internet, I saw often said that 265
> would be half as big as 264, but I see 'only' a third less space
> taken. Are the people saying 50% overly optimistic, or do I just have
> 'strange' videos?
> Cecil Westerhof
> Senior Software Engineer
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> ffmpeg-user at ffmpeg.org
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-user-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
More information about the ffmpeg-user