[FFmpeg-user] libx265 a lot slower
h.reindl at thelounge.net
Sun Aug 16 20:18:31 EEST 2020
Am 16.08.20 um 19:02 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
> Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> writes:
>> Am 16.08.20 um 16:48 schrieb Cecil Westerhof:
>>> I heard a lot that you should libx265 instead of libx264. I did not,
>>> because at some places that went wrong. (I think uploading. But it is
>>> several years ago, so I am not sure.)
>>> I am again playing with ffmpeg and creating new scripts.
>>> When using libx265 the file size is about a third smaller, but it
>>> takes about 2.5 to 3 times longer to generate the file. Is this
>>> normal, or a quirk at my side?
>>> For the moment I stay with libx264
>> what do you expect?
> I did not expect anything, just noticed something.
>> H264 is also a lot slower and more expensive comapred ot codes from the
>> 1990s and you can't expect better quality and smaller files falling free
>> from heaven
> 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
> 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?
people sell the typical much higher costs for encoding combined with
untypical best-case results - nothing new the past 20 years no matter
More information about the ffmpeg-user