why i can't render in h265

[dhardjono]

As far as H.256 goes on my system I've seen much better results on the encodes with Handbrake using Intel than when using my Nvidia to render the same file. I've only got the Nvidia1060 so that may be it Intel's chip beats my Nvidia hands down which really surprised me in my render tests. And, depending on where you set the speed slider the quality of the encode using Handbrake creates a very good looking encode creating a file about 1/3 the size of the equivalent quality mp4.

i tried hand brake that free is that correct . let me try

[trillium]

As far as H.256 goes on my system I've seen much better results on the encodes with Handbrake using Intel than when using my Nvidia to render the same file. I've only got the Nvidia1060 so that may be it Intel's chip beats my Nvidia hands down which really surprised me in my render tests. And, depending on where you set the speed slider the quality of the encode using Handbrake creates a very good looking encode creating a file about 1/3 the size of the equivalent quality mp4.

[dhardjono]

thanks for all responses i will look in it.

[Ron Evans]

I too hope that EDIUS 10 will use AMD and NVIDIA GPU for decode and encode as they are a lot more powerful than QS from Intel. EDIUS too will be coming late to using these compared to TMPGenc, Resolve, Vegas and Premiere. I love EDIUS it is my favorite editor and used to be the fastest by far. Unfortunately that is not the case anymore with Resolve using a lot less resource to get better performance especially with 4K files for the paid Studio version of course but that is only $299 and has the ability to use multiple GPU's. Blackmagic is hoping people will buy their cameras and other hardware to offset the low cost of software and it seems to be working. Canopus used to be in this position too, I owned a few Canopus cards, but now there is no offset other than broadcast equipment focus for GV. So I can fully understand the broadcast focus for EDIUS.

For information, Resolve only uses the NVIDIA GPU for h265 if there is one installed, no choice for software encode. Vegas 16 gives a choice of QS, NVIDIA or Mainconcept software. Don't have Premiere to give the options there. TMPGenc gives all the options hardware and software( x264/x265 ) For an encode speed difference, same 60Mbps rate a UHD 60P file of 17 mins would take 24mins to encode with NVENC and 5 hours and 35 mins with 2 pass x265 in TMPGenc 6 !! h265 software encode is really not a sensible choice for anything longer than a minute or two and for the very short test I did I could not see a difference.

[Liverpool TV]

That's not the issue. The issue is that - usually - any NLE that supports a CODEC would also have a Software Encoder for it. The software encoders are slower, but they typically produce smaller, higher quality files... so for final deliverables you will bias to the CPU encoder, anyways. You deal with the slower speed by simply getting a higher end CPU with higher clock speeds and/or more CPU cores, to do the work faster.

VEGAS Pro, Resolve, Premiere Pro (which only support Intel QSV for Encode Acceleration, BTW), etc. all have software encoders so that people aren't limited in platform choice for this CODEC support. So, even if you choose an AMD CPU over Intel, you don't completely lose the ability to render H.265 video.

If you have any Intel GPU without an iGPU (HEDT, Ryzen Desktop CPUs, etc.), then H.265 literally cannot be rendered at all, and this is problematic. I watched videos where GV employees recommend Dual Xeon or i9 (some of which don't have QSV) systems for high end 4K work in EP9. How is anyone supposed to do this, if they need to deliver H.265 and the Xeon systems do not ship with an iGPU or QSV?

H.265 has way smaller files for practically identical quality as H.264, and is far more spece/time efficient when you have to transfer deliverables over the internet.

This software costs way too much to be lacking a software encoder for such a common CODEC, in this day and age...

Actually, yes you are correct. I was thinking of the Mercury Engine which although it does use Cuda and OpenCL, that's for rendering and not necessarily for encoding with certain output/encode codecs. Although Adobe do mention encoding in some of their literature, this may just be a generic term.

The problem with H.265 especially, it really does need hardware assistance for the encoding and even decoding. Software only encoding, despite its slight advantages at low bit rate outputs with certain encoders, takes an absolute age. One of the systems I use is a multi-core/thread dual Xeon and it takes forever to encode in software compared to even QSV on a less powerful system.

Unless there's a specific reason for ultra quality H.264/H.265 using X264/X265 at very low bit rates. Then hardware encoding will be equally as good visually at the higher bit rates that would usually be used.

I can't comment on the video you are talking about where GV employees are recommending none QSV CPUs. The recommendation may have been for specific workflows and Pro codecs.

While I'd agree that it's slightly disappointing that Edius doesn't offer a H.265 software encoder yet. I'd also suggest that it would be very difficult to use such an option anyway if it did exist due to encode time. Given the high probability that modern high resolution/frame rate codecs would also be using H.265, there'd be even more impact on the software exporting of H.265 given the extra processing that's also required to decode/render it as well within the source media.

In practical scenarios, I'd imagine that most people would simply avoid software H.265 encoding due to time constraints, I know I do. But yes, the option within Edius would be good as a choice for those who'd want it.

I would imagine that GV have been seriously thinking about GPU assistance for some time now and I wouldn't be surprised if we see some massive changes when Edius 10 is released. Given that a huge part of GV's professional user base are TV based and the move to H.265 for acquisition, GPU assistance is the only real practical option.

As for your opinion on the price of Edius. I doubt very much that anyone on this forum would argue against that point. Given the competition, I'd again suggest, or hope, that this will be a major concern for Edius 10, even if its just to keep Edius as a viable option for professional workflows.

For now though and unfortunately, without QSV for H.265 within E9, the only practical option is to send a high quality intermediate to one of the many encoders that will do it. But even in this instance, GPU assistance is also very likely and not CPU.

I'm a huge fan of X264/X265 but have to be honest. In recent times. I can't say when the last time I used them was. Outside of low bit rate encoding, the GPU options are simply way more practical.

On a plus point. E9 with QSV is a very good option if you have it and really does make a massive difference, not just for encoding but also for decoding/rendering certain media assets.

I really do believe that GV will remedy most of these concerns with E10.

[BernH]

I'd also throw XMedia Recode out as potential option.

It has a lot more options than Handbrake, and all three of them are using ffmpeg under the hood.

If I recall correctly though, Hybryd will let you use the latest ffmpeg download, while the others have a version hard coded into them, so they may not always be the latest.

[ulyssesvideo]

If you need h.265, send an intermediary to Handbrake or Hybrid and encode your file to h.265.

which is better in your view Jerry? Handbrake or Hybrid?

[Jerry]

If you need h.265, send an intermediary to Handbrake or Hybrid and encode your file to h.265.

[LBYT]

Adobe are probably compliant with AMC as they are with NVENC as well. Edius is not compliant with these accelerators.

That's not the issue. The issue is that - usually - any NLE that supports a CODEC would also have a Software Encoder for it. The software encoders are slower, but they typically produce smaller, higher quality files... so for final deliverables you will bias to the CPU encoder, anyways. You deal with the slower speed by simply getting a higher end CPU with higher clock speeds and/or more CPU cores, to do the work faster.

VEGAS Pro, Resolve, Premiere Pro (which only support Intel QSV for Encode Acceleration, BTW), etc. all have software encoders so that people aren't limited in platform choice for this CODEC support. So, even if you choose an AMD CPU over Intel, you don't completely lose the ability to render H.265 video.

If you have any Intel GPU without an iGPU (HEDT, Ryzen Desktop CPUs, etc.), then H.265 literally cannot be rendered at all, and this is problematic. I watched videos where GV employees recommend Dual Xeon or i9 (some of which don't have QSV) systems for high end 4K work in EP9. How is anyone supposed to do this, if they need to deliver H.265 and the Xeon systems do not ship with an iGPU or QSV?

H.265 has way smaller files for practically identical quality as H.264, and is far more spece/time efficient when you have to transfer deliverables over the internet.

This software costs way too much to be lacking a software encoder for such a common CODEC, in this day and age...

[Liverpool TV]

thks response but why adobe able to render in my amd chip set same pc

Adobe are probably compliant with AMC as they are with NVENC as well. Edius is not compliant with these accelerators.

[GrassValley_SL]

This is correct at this time we only do an Intel hardware assisted file creation for h265

[BernH]

thks response but why adobe able to render in my amd chip set same pc

Adobe is probably doing a software based render and not requiring quicksync. Edius has restricted itself to quicksync for H265.

[dhardjono]

Yes. Rendering to h.265 requires and Intel CPU graphics processor and quicksync which is not part of the AMD chip.

thks response but why adobe able to render in my amd chip set same pc

[LewS]

Yes. Rendering to h.265 requires and Intel CPU graphics processor and quicksync which is not part of the AMD chip.

[dhardjono]

so i move to amd cpu and i tried h265 and said need hardware missing, is that because it's amd. i tried rendering on adobe and it's fine.