Discussing streaming means talking about how content is delivered over the internet for on-demand viewing.
Discussing streaming means talking about how content is delivered over the internet for on-demand viewing.
This remark highlights your lack of awareness regarding the topic. It would be useful if you ceased sharing content that misleads or confuses others. Perhaps you're not grasping the reasoning behind my approach, but I assure you the test is sound and provides a fair comparison. It brings to mind situations where a handful of unfounded forum comments with no supporting evidence can be just as misleading. Did you overlook my explanation or deliberately disregard it? Your confusion about using PNG screenshots versus JPEG, or uploading files to Dropbox instead of YouTube, suggests deeper misunderstanding. If you truly don’t grasp the basics, discussing this further would be challenging. I’ve noticed you haven’t engaged with my previous post about QuickSync’s improvements in a more detailed format.
Using a capture card that includes its own hardware encoder would result in significantly lower quality. Many of these encoders rely on H.264 as their main codec. At reduced bitrates, x264 becomes the only viable option. Therefore, you'd likely need another PC connected via the capture card.
Here are some more credible sources discussing the topic. "You can shift the encoding burden to hardware encoders, which may result in a slight quality drop at the same bit rate." The official OBS documentation supports this view. Their statement: "some noticeable quality loss" aligns with your perspective. Regarding QuickSync, it's often compared to x264—some users claim it can match or exceed it in quality. However, results depend heavily on the software versions and testing conditions. Many older discussions focus on early implementations, so consider what was tested back then versus current setups. It's important to evaluate performance using up-to-date tools rather than relying solely on past opinions.