So it (the choice of codec) is also a contributing factor."Īnd I get it. I assume your point is "while both reduced the size (from an unchanging desktop, which is easily compressible), H.265 reduces the size even further. > was to show that the gains the original post made wasn't solely due to the video being an unchanging desktop I just assumed the reader would be able to make the mental leap I easily could have changed the values to lower the bitrate to get from 50% to 94%. I picked 2 based on the vendor's claim the 2 settings should look the same at half the bit rate. They just lose points for not showing their work (not that they did it, but you know).Įdit 2: I have no idea what the author of the post used for encode settings. So, I don't think the author's post is bogus. ~13%įfmpeg -i input.mov -c:v libx265 -crf 28 x265.mp4ĬRF values were taken from which states x265 crf28 should produce same visual quality of x264 crf23, but at half the size. Next, I used the same 7.5MB source to transcode with x265 crf 28. I then used that as a source to transcode with x264 crf 23. There was no audio in the original recoding. For science, I just took a 10 second screen recording of my Mac with nothing but my tiny mouse cursor moving around for a few seconds which means a very static shot.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |