21–30 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardware encoders are fine for streaming but not archiving. A CPU encoder can produce a file that is half the size or less for the same quality.
Yes, but AV1 hardware encoding beats x264 software encoding, if thats the only other option (albeit not by much).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but AV1 hardware encoding beats x264 software encoding, if thats the only other option (albeit not by much).
Do you have a way to reproduce this?
https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/nvenc-v-qsv/
x264 used the medium 10 bit preset, which is a bit of an oddball because 10 bit AVC is "unofficial," and many hardware decoders don't support it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardware encoders are fine for streaming but not archiving. A CPU encoder can produce a file that is half the size or less for the same quality.
Yes, but AV1 hardware encoding beats x264 software encoding, if thats the only other option (albeit not by much).
Maybe this is not such a concern to audience of this article, but at least for me I'm stuck with h264 because VP9/AV1 encoding is really really slow. I'd love to use the codecs that are open and technically better, but when the video encodes at 1fps, it's too just too convenient to use the magnitudes faster h264. I'm probably not up to date with newer/hardware encoders and please let me know if my view is outdated.
AV1 hardware encode just started rolling out with the most recent GPU architectures so the majority of hardware still has to do software encoding. I'd also guess that a very large fraction of the hardware out there doesn't even have hardware decode for AV1 since it was only the last generation of GPUs that got that. AV1 is mainly solving problems for the platform owners (google/netflix/facebook etc) and h264 will pro…
Do you happen to know if that's still the case?
(I guess for use-cases such as live streaming it doesn't matter that much, but for video that ends up in some archive, it's probably less acceptable)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back when I still cared about saving disk space, I made a cluster of NVidia Jetson Nanos running in a docker swarm configuration [1] to compress my blu-ray rips, but honestly even when you have six computers working at once, H264 on a single computer is still often faster. On the Jetson Nanos I was lucky to get maybe 1fps in ffmpeg using VP9. Multiply that by six boards and that's about 6fps in total; ffmpeg running…
h.264 is from the 90s, so of course it's fast after ~30 years of use. hell, when I first got into encoding, we had dedicated expansion cards to do MPEG-1/MPEG-2 encoding because it was so difficult at the time. New codecs always take time in the beginning while the encoding software is tweaked/optimized. Eventually, it becomes part of the CPU hardware and then we all make comments like "remember when ____ was so slow…
That said, AV1 is very obviously the future, and I'm perfectly happy with it taking over the market from h264, and I think that due to the bandwidth savings it's only a matter of time before all the major video services make it the default, especially as the speed of encoders increases to a useable level, which I'm sure it will soon enough.
[1] I know the most recent Raspberry Pi doesn't have a decoder chip for h264, but I think it's fast enough to do it in software.
Maybe this is not such a concern to audience of this article, but at least for me I'm stuck with h264 because VP9/AV1 encoding is really really slow. I'd love to use the codecs that are open and technically better, but when the video encodes at 1fps, it's too just too convenient to use the magnitudes faster h264. I'm probably not up to date with newer/hardware encoders and please let me know if my view is outdated.
All the major codecs have flags for you to balance speed against quality and compression, and it's up to you to pick the right tradeoffs for your use case.
And for most purposes, you want to use software encoders because they're much more flexible in terms of flags/options than hardware encoders. (Hardware encoders are usually optimized for speed rather than quality -- they're for live capture more then for video conversion.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AV1 hardware encode just started rolling out with the most recent GPU architectures so the majority of hardware still has to do software encoding. I'd also guess that a very large fraction of the hardware out there doesn't even have hardware decode for AV1 since it was only the last generation of GPUs that got that. AV1 is mainly solving problems for the platform owners (google/netflix/facebook etc) and h264 will pro…
In the past (with h265 / h264 at least), hardware encoding always ended up with visibly worse quality (and often even bigger file sizes) compared to a software encoder like x264/x265. Do you happen to know if that's still the case? (I guess for use-cases such as live streaming it doesn't matter that much, but for video that ends up in some archive, it's probably less acceptable)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AV1 hardware encode just started rolling out with the most recent GPU architectures so the majority of hardware still has to do software encoding. I'd also guess that a very large fraction of the hardware out there doesn't even have hardware decode for AV1 since it was only the last generation of GPUs that got that. AV1 is mainly solving problems for the platform owners (google/netflix/facebook etc) and h264 will pro…
In the past (with h265 / h264 at least), hardware encoding always ended up with visibly worse quality (and often even bigger file sizes) compared to a software encoder like x264/x265. Do you happen to know if that's still the case? (I guess for use-cases such as live streaming it doesn't matter that much, but for video that ends up in some archive, it's probably less acceptable)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back when I still cared about saving disk space, I made a cluster of NVidia Jetson Nanos running in a docker swarm configuration [1] to compress my blu-ray rips, but honestly even when you have six computers working at once, H264 on a single computer is still often faster. On the Jetson Nanos I was lucky to get maybe 1fps in ffmpeg using VP9. Multiply that by six boards and that's about 6fps in total; ffmpeg running…
h.264 is from the 90s, so of course it's fast after ~30 years of use. hell, when I first got into encoding, we had dedicated expansion cards to do MPEG-1/MPEG-2 encoding because it was so difficult at the time. New codecs always take time in the beginning while the encoding software is tweaked/optimized. Eventually, it becomes part of the CPU hardware and then we all make comments like "remember when ____ was so slow…
If only! Then the patents would have expired. But H.264 is newer than MPEG-4 Part 2.
But you're right: H.264 has had the advantage of time, to gain fast hardware support.
Maybe this is not such a concern to audience of this article, but at least for me I'm stuck with h264 because VP9/AV1 encoding is really really slow. I'd love to use the codecs that are open and technically better, but when the video encodes at 1fps, it's too just too convenient to use the magnitudes faster h264. I'm probably not up to date with newer/hardware encoders and please let me know if my view is outdated.
I care mainly about archiving, so 1FPS encodes for 24fps content is within the range that I consider okay. However, I ran into issues with decoder speed too; whatever codec Kodi was using 18 months ago struggled to decode high-bitrate 1080p AV1 video last time I tried. Maybe this weekend I'll try again on the current version of Kodi.
If you're on Windows I recommend using StaxRip for encoding.