skoal said:
Feallan said:
skoal said:
Feallan said:
x265 is nowhere near finished, it outputs worse picture quality than x264 at the same bitrate.
I think HEVC is pretty good and while what you're saying may be correct or true to you or possibly even absolutely true in a general or specific technical sense, until I see you have good reason to say what you're saying, I say it's subjective and I disagree.
Original frame from Blu ray: http://abload.de/img/761_original_rcued.png
x264 5000 kbps encode: http://abload.de/img/761_05000_x264p2o6x.png
x265 5000 kbps encode: http://abload.de/img/761_05000_ybrad.png
Look at the table. All the grain is gone completely.
Note that I didn't make these images, found it on google. Some settings may have been set incorrectly, but there's a reason x265 encodes are very rarely showing up on torrents.
When I basically said, it's all subjective unless you have something to back-it up, I didn't mean grabbing random images encoded with who knows which settings and which encoder (version). Give me a break. Seriously?
Also, while many on here and else where disagree, showing 2 frames and pointing out grain doesn't mean much. Yes, grain can be good, artificial grain put back in after denoising takes it out can be good, but with video compression it's about perceptual quality and we're not looking at individual frames (in exactly the same way) when we're watching the actual moving picture.
I don't like your tone. Yes, I am serious. The sample shots are from April 2015, writing library x265 1.5+452-45bac4cace5e:[Windows], 2 pass encoding, other settings here:
wpp / ctu=64 / min-cu-size=8 / max-tu-size=32 / tu-intra-depth=2 / tu-inter-depth=2 / me=3 / subme=3 / merange=57 / rect / amp / max-merge=3 / temporal-mvp / no-early-skip / rdpenalty=0 / no-tskip / no-tskip-fast / strong-intra-smoothing / no-lossless / no-cu-lossless / no-constrained-intra / no-fast-intra / open-gop / no-temporal-layers / interlace=0 / keyint=250 / min-keyint=23 / scenecut=40 / rc-lookahead=30 / lookahead-slices=0 / bframes=8 / bframe-bias=0 / b-adapt=2 / ref=3 / weightp / weightb / aq-mode=1 / aq-strength=0.30 / cbqpoffs=0 / crqpoffs=0 / rd=6 / psy-rd=0.50 / rdoq-level=1 / psy-rdoq=30.00 / signhide / deblock=-2:-2 / sao / no-sao-non-deblock / b-pyramid / cutree / rc=2 / pass / bitrate=5000 / qcomp=0.80 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / ipratio=1.10 / pbratio=1.10
I have actually given you something to back up my claims, while you've only been able to say that you prefer x265, and that's about it. That encoder is objectively worse at preserving original image's look. There are loads of video comparisons between x265 and x264 on the internet. If you want them, google them yourself this time.
How can you even argue with me? 5000kbps is pretty low bitrate, but you should expect your encode to at least somewhat resemble the original. x265 one looks like it's completely DVNR'd. Detail loss is the reason no good release group even considers x265 encodes.
Perceptual quality. Give me a break.
While I would use HEVC, it was only a suggestion to look into it, dunno why so many jumped down my throat, just ridiculous.
Read your posts again and you'll have an answer.
Hint: you're an asshole
