I'd trust AC3 if you want high quality lossy audio and compatibility. It's the codec used for iTunes HD digital movies and Core tracks on Blu-rays. If you have a 5.1 setup you may want to use AC3, as it's the industry standard for lossy audio. Quality-wise, would AC3 5.1 640k and AAC / 5.1 Channels / 320 sound equivalent to my ears if I have a 5.1 setup? H.264 as codec is also matured and a scene standard. The encoding time is the same when using H.265 Medium so I rather choose a higher quality H.264 Very Slow encode. I still prefer using Super HQ 1080p30 Surround though, because of the compatibility and on some titles H.265 messes up the grain. The final encoded result looked really good, especially with how H.265 handled those scenes. The shots have lots of grain and are very dark. I encoded a Hindi film Ittefaq with Slow and a custom command line, it took a long time. I encoded The Secret Life of Walter Mitty with Medium and was very surprised with the retained detail. On my i7 8th Gen it takes 6-8 hours on Medium to encode a 1080p REMUX to H.265 with those settings. Some say there is no difference in picture quality when using Medium or Slow in H.265. It saves up more space than AC3 and HEVC encoding groups use it too. If you have compatible equipment to play AAC 5.1 you may want to encode the lossless track to AAC / 5.1 Channels / 320. I don't think you can hear the difference if you don't own high-end audio equipment and AC3 5.1 is the standard Core codec for Dolby's lossless TrueHD track. DTS and AAC can't, and it saves space too. 10-bit is also widely used, it prevents banding and I read that it compresses better.ĪC3 5.1 640k because it's compatible with most modern devices and can Direct Play in PleX. In the end, it's your choice which one is better for you and which one you prefer.Open Handbrake > H.265 10-bit / RF 18 / Medium or Slow and encode the lossless DTS-HD / TrueHD / PCM track to AC3 / 5.1 Channels / 640.įor most popular encoding groups these basic settings are the standard. On the contary, do keep in mind that H.265 is still a less common codec than H.264 in the industry. If you want to have the best quality videos in the smallest possible format, then you should go for H.265. Both of them have different ways of processing information. H.265 and H.264 are both standards for video compression used in recording and distributing digital video. I encode this video file with Handbrake H.265 encoder. World of Warcraft: Legion alpha | 30fps, 1920x1200 resolution, 33 second video. A Quick x264 vs x265 Comparison When Encoding the Same Video File That is to say, we usually lumped together H.264 vs H.265 and x264 vs x265 comparison. However, in daily life, it's not that exact for x264 vs x265 and H.264 and H.265. Similarly, there are also confusion with x265 and H.265, which goes the same with x264 vs H.264. From the definition, we got to know x265 is a successor to x264. What's x265(H.265/HEVC)?Īnd x265 is a free software library and application for encoding video streams into the H.265/MPEG-H HEVC compression format, and is released under the terms of the GNU GPL. In short, H264 is a format, and X264 is a software library to create H264 files. It is almost exclusively used by all the open source video platforms like ffmpeg, gstreamer, handbrake etc. Actually, H.264 is a specification for compressing video, aka MPEG-4 part 10 or AVC while x264 is a very high quality encoder that produces remarkable quality H.264 compatible video-stream. Usually we confused x264 with H.264, which is not wrong, but not accurate as well. X264 is a free software library developed by VideoLAN for encoding video streams into the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC format.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |