F5F Stay Refreshed Software Operating Systems Comparison of H.265 and H.264 standards

Comparison of H.265 and H.264 standards

Comparison of H.265 and H.264 standards

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3
R
Ravi
Member
65
02-20-2024, 12:15 AM
#21
I've compressed Blu-ray files by extracting them from the disk and then encoding. Results show significantly reduced sizes without noticeable loss in quality. I've also seen some videos compressed to x265, so I re-encoded them with a higher CQ rating just to ensure smaller files. The expected size was around 9GB, but I ended up with about 5GB or less. Since I use uncompressed audio, that's quite compact. Based on these tests, I prefer x265 over x264 for smaller outputs. No issues with visuals. I usually set CQ to 18, sometimes dropping to 15 for very small files. This was done using the Fast preset. I tried various speeds and didn't see a big difference, so I chose Fast for reliability.
R
Ravi
02-20-2024, 12:15 AM #21

I've compressed Blu-ray files by extracting them from the disk and then encoding. Results show significantly reduced sizes without noticeable loss in quality. I've also seen some videos compressed to x265, so I re-encoded them with a higher CQ rating just to ensure smaller files. The expected size was around 9GB, but I ended up with about 5GB or less. Since I use uncompressed audio, that's quite compact. Based on these tests, I prefer x265 over x264 for smaller outputs. No issues with visuals. I usually set CQ to 18, sometimes dropping to 15 for very small files. This was done using the Fast preset. I tried various speeds and didn't see a big difference, so I chose Fast for reliability.

S
Simon_303
Member
169
02-20-2024, 07:36 AM
#22
The second set compared showed 1920x1080p at a CQ of 30 using the medium setting for both. File sizes were 26.5MB for h264 and 24.9MB for h265. H265 offered superior image quality, though both formats lost detail and artifacts were noticeable without spotting pixels. H265 slightly outperformed, but not enough to make a switch right now—though it might improve over time. The third set was unexpected: same resolution, 1920x1080p, but a CQ of 45 and medium presets for both codecs. File sizes were 13.8MB for h264 and 10.1MB for h265. H264 performed poorly, with significant detail loss, blurriness, and strong artifacts throughout; h265 was even worse, showing major video distortion, missing details, and overall poor quality. This comparison is unrealistic—using these settings would ruin any viewing experience. I’m relieved I tested this, though I’ve noticed h265 can shrink files, but it’s not as effective as we thought. We should wait to see if h265 improves before adopting it. To be honest, you’re compressing a heavily compressed h.264 file, and as @ aerandir92 suggests, testing with an uncompressed Blu-Ray via MakeMKV would give more accurate results. The data would be more reliable, though it might still match your current approach. I’d consider upgrading my HTPC for better h.265 support someday, but right now it’s not a solid replacement.
S
Simon_303
02-20-2024, 07:36 AM #22

The second set compared showed 1920x1080p at a CQ of 30 using the medium setting for both. File sizes were 26.5MB for h264 and 24.9MB for h265. H265 offered superior image quality, though both formats lost detail and artifacts were noticeable without spotting pixels. H265 slightly outperformed, but not enough to make a switch right now—though it might improve over time. The third set was unexpected: same resolution, 1920x1080p, but a CQ of 45 and medium presets for both codecs. File sizes were 13.8MB for h264 and 10.1MB for h265. H264 performed poorly, with significant detail loss, blurriness, and strong artifacts throughout; h265 was even worse, showing major video distortion, missing details, and overall poor quality. This comparison is unrealistic—using these settings would ruin any viewing experience. I’m relieved I tested this, though I’ve noticed h265 can shrink files, but it’s not as effective as we thought. We should wait to see if h265 improves before adopting it. To be honest, you’re compressing a heavily compressed h.264 file, and as @ aerandir92 suggests, testing with an uncompressed Blu-Ray via MakeMKV would give more accurate results. The data would be more reliable, though it might still match your current approach. I’d consider upgrading my HTPC for better h.265 support someday, but right now it’s not a solid replacement.

D
DolphinTitz
Junior Member
3
02-20-2024, 10:45 AM
#23
If you faced the same issue, discarded the HTPC and used your existing gaming PC (i7 930 and 5970) as a temporary solution.
D
DolphinTitz
02-20-2024, 10:45 AM #23

If you faced the same issue, discarded the HTPC and used your existing gaming PC (i7 930 and 5970) as a temporary solution.

H
Hagnarock
Senior Member
434
02-20-2024, 11:22 PM
#24
You're diving into H.265 encoding for your Blu-Ray library. What method were you employing for the conversion?
H
Hagnarock
02-20-2024, 11:22 PM #24

You're diving into H.265 encoding for your Blu-Ray library. What method were you employing for the conversion?

I
ItsTheSoul
Senior Member
410
02-21-2024, 05:37 AM
#25
Don't forget about the delay; it's really bad, particularly when using higher bitrates.
I
ItsTheSoul
02-21-2024, 05:37 AM #25

Don't forget about the delay; it's really bad, particularly when using higher bitrates.

Pages (3): Previous 1 2 3