[FFmpeg-user] libx265 a lot slower

Reindl Harald h.reindl at thelounge.net
Mon Aug 17 00:30:46 EEST 2020

Am 16.08.20 um 19:14 schrieb Carl Zwanzig:
> Reindl is known for acerbic and unhelpful answers, AFAICT most readers
> ignore them.

there is nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that a new
codec with better quality or smaller files (and if both is ecpected)
comes with a logical cost

there is also nothing acerbic or unhelpful point to common sense that
every "look here how good xyz is" is based on best-case and never
reflects the reality

> On 8/16/2020 10:02 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> 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
>> something.
> Probably not; for a one-use file, I'd take whichever one is easier to
> deal with (which might mean quickest to encode). And depending on the
> source material, and well, everything in the chain, you might use
> another codec anyway, there's nothing mystical/magical about x264 (and a
> few decidedly unfriendly things- ref "moov atom location").
>> 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?
> "Never generalize."
> I'd take any size estimate as a guess since your content and encoding
> parameters are probably different. If my own tests of x265 showed 30%
> smaller but 2x the encode time, I wouldn't bother.

More information about the ffmpeg-user mailing list