Grass Valley Forums

Grass Valley Forums (http://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/index.php)
-   EDIUS: Compatible Third Party Products (http://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Handbrake settings/h.265 compatibility (http://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43334)

trillium 05-10-2019 07:51 PM

Handbrake settings/h.265 compatibility
 
Just started using handbrake with upgrade to Edius 9 (9.40) now.

Ran a few tests converting Edius HQ HD 1080 60P to h.264 and h.265. H.265 definitely looks better to me but the file is about 3.5 times larger than the "base" h.264. The QSV h.264 looks pretty good and is about twice the size of the plain jane h.264 not using any encoder hardware. Using Nvidia encode on a Quadro P1000 (I know that's a cheap card!) the encode is twice as fast but quality suffers a little especially with motion with file size increase of 150%.

For some reason I thought the h.265 encode would produce a smaller file size. Still a novice at Handbrake settings. Any tips or suggestions would be appreciated especially in the video setting tab. Also, I have "optimize for web" in the default setting- which is probably what I need 90% of time but wondering how much difference that makes in quality. Will try some additional tests.

When I tried a 2-pass encode my system acted like it was going to have a stroke so I backed off of that. May have used an incorrect number for the data rate. Wish data rates had a preset.

Oh, just "trolling" for a little Handbrake feedback I guess. Will look at some YouTubes on it.

BernH 05-11-2019 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trillium (Post 320381)
Just started using handbrake with upgrade to Edius 9 (9.40) now.

Ran a few tests converting Edius HQ HD 1080 60P to h.264 and h.265. H.265 definitely looks better to me but the file is about 3.5 times larger than the "base" h.264. The QSV h.264 looks pretty good and is about twice the size of the plain jane h.264 not using any encoder hardware. Using Nvidia encode on a Quadro P1000 (I know that's a cheap card!) the encode is twice as fast but quality suffers a little especially with motion with file size increase of 150%.

For some reason I thought the h.265 encode would produce a smaller file size. Still a novice at Handbrake settings. Any tips or suggestions would be appreciated especially in the video setting tab. Also, I have "optimize for web" in the default setting- which is probably what I need 90% of time but wondering how much difference that makes in quality. Will try some additional tests.

When I tried a 2-pass encode my system acted like it was going to have a stroke so I backed off of that. May have used an incorrect number for the data rate. Wish data rates had a preset.

Oh, just "trolling" for a little Handbrake feedback I guess. Will look at some YouTubes on it.

I haven't done any 265 encodes yet, so I can't comment on the handbrake 265 settings too much, aside from the basics of file size is dictated by duration x bitrate. The same bitrate in 264 and 265 should give the same file size but the 265 will most likely look better. A lower bitrate in 265 will result in a smaller file and potentially the same quality as 264.

I will, however, chime in on 2 points.

The Optimize for web setting puts the index at the head of the file instead of the tail. It should not have any effect on the quality, but allows a file to stream from the web instead of having to download the whole file before the player can read the index.

2 pass encode will improve the quality by optimizing the compression based on content and cut points. Essentially it's an analyze pass before actually apply the compression. It should not cause your system "have a stroke" but it will take a lot longer than a 1 pass encode.

Hobbes 05-11-2019 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trillium (Post 320381)
Just started using handbrake with upgrade to Edius 9 (9.40) now.

Ran a few tests converting Edius HQ HD 1080 60P to h.264 and h.265. H.265 definitely looks better to me but the file is about 3.5 times larger than the "base" h.264. The QSV h.264 looks pretty good and is about twice the size of the plain jane h.264 not using any encoder hardware. Using Nvidia encode on a Quadro P1000 (I know that's a cheap card!) the encode is twice as fast but quality suffers a little especially with motion with file size increase of 150%.

For some reason I thought the h.265 encode would produce a smaller file size. Still a novice at Handbrake settings. Any tips or suggestions would be appreciated especially in the video setting tab. Also, I have "optimize for web" in the default setting- which is probably what I need 90% of time but wondering how much difference that makes in quality. Will try some additional tests.

When I tried a 2-pass encode my system acted like it was going to have a stroke so I backed off of that. May have used an incorrect number for the data rate. Wish data rates had a preset.

Oh, just "trolling" for a little Handbrake feedback I guess. Will look at some YouTubes on it.

To get very good quality export your flim to QT ProRes 422HQ in Edius 9.40.
I use Handbrake h265 software encoder for UHD HDR encoding to get a mp4 that is compatible to a 4K HDR TV. Depending on your CPU and lenght of your film the encoding takes a very long time, so would suggest to try medium 2 pass.

Encoding with Nvidia h265 results in a poor quality.

But for 1080 60P I recommend h264 2pass encoding that is faster.

trillium 06-28-2019 05:54 PM

Thanks, for the info, slow getting back on this but have been putting out tech fires in other areas.

Wondering though, how many browsers support h.265 native playback. Vimeo supports it but not sure if that's just for download.

I did upgrade my video card to an Nvidia1060, but I agree the Nvidia encodes suffers greatly compared to QSV.

Liverpool TV 07-03-2019 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trillium (Post 320381)
Just started using handbrake with upgrade to Edius 9 (9.40) now.

Ran a few tests converting Edius HQ HD 1080 60P to h.264 and h.265. H.265 definitely looks better to me but the file is about 3.5 times larger than the "base" h.264. The QSV h.264 looks pretty good and is about twice the size of the plain jane h.264 not using any encoder hardware. Using Nvidia encode on a Quadro P1000 (I know that's a cheap card!) the encode is twice as fast but quality suffers a little especially with motion with file size increase of 150%.

For some reason I thought the h.265 encode would produce a smaller file size. Still a novice at Handbrake settings. Any tips or suggestions would be appreciated especially in the video setting tab. Also, I have "optimize for web" in the default setting- which is probably what I need 90% of time but wondering how much difference that makes in quality. Will try some additional tests.

When I tried a 2-pass encode my system acted like it was going to have a stroke so I backed off of that. May have used an incorrect number for the data rate. Wish data rates had a preset.

Oh, just "trolling" for a little Handbrake feedback I guess. Will look at some YouTubes on it.

For any given resolution and using the correct profile settings etc. There will be no difference between how H.264 and H.265 look. They will both look identical when used within their recommended configurations and picture scenarios.

However. H.265 is more efficient and will use less bandwidth compared to H.264, again given the correct setups and picture scenarios. The main use for H.265 over H.264, again given the appropriate scenarios and setups, is to reduce bandwidth and to maintain the same picture quality.

Also, for low bandwidth encoding and at any resolution and picture scenarios, H.265 has the advantage. Again, not due to it being a better picture but due to its encoding efficiency and the convenience of a smaller file.

There are also certain instances were H.265 has certain technical advantages over H.264, basically the way that it deals with motion estimation and chopping up the picture into little pieces etc. But this is all negated when using H.264 at high bandwidths.

Basically, if you throw enough bandwidth at H.264 and use certain picture parameters and use it within the picture scenarios that it is designed for, you will not see any visual difference with the H.264 encode compared to the source. This is why you can't better it as far as picture quality is concerned with regard H.265 or any other codec.

Your observations of H.265 looking better than H.264 is because you've not used the correct settings for H.264. That can be deduced by the fact that you've got a H.265 file that's 3.5 times the size of your H.264 version.

I hope this info helps.

Cheers,
Dave.

ulyssesvideo 07-03-2019 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trillium (Post 320381)
Just started using handbrake with upgrade to Edius 9 (9.40) now.

Ran a few tests converting Edius HQ HD 1080 60P to h.264 and h.265. H.265 definitely looks better to me but the file is about 3.5 times larger than the "base" h.264. The QSV h.264 looks pretty good and is about twice the size of the plain jane h.264 not using any encoder hardware. Using Nvidia encode on a Quadro P1000 (I know that's a cheap card!) the encode is twice as fast but quality suffers a little especially with motion with file size increase of 150%.

For some reason I thought the h.265 encode would produce a smaller file size. Still a novice at Handbrake settings. Any tips or suggestions would be appreciated especially in the video setting tab. Also, I have "optimize for web" in the default setting- which is probably what I need 90% of time but wondering how much difference that makes in quality. Will try some additional tests.

When I tried a 2-pass encode my system acted like it was going to have a stroke so I backed off of that. May have used an incorrect number for the data rate. Wish data rates had a preset.

Oh, just "trolling" for a little Handbrake feedback I guess. Will look at some YouTubes on it.

hi trillium.
what is the final export to h.265 intended for? ie.. personal or to give to a client etc?

BernH 07-03-2019 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liverpool TV (Post 322225)
For any given resolution and using the correct profile settings etc. There will be no difference between how H.264 and H.265 look. They will both look identical when used within their recommended configurations and picture scenarios.

Correct Dave. I should have qualified my earlier statement about H265 looking better, by stating that it is likely to occur at lower bitrates due to the efficiency of H265 compared to H264.

I hang my head in shame. ;)

Liverpool TV 07-03-2019 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BernH (Post 322235)
Correct Dave. I should have qualified my earlier statement about H265 looking better, by stating that it is likely to occur at lower bitrates due to the efficiency of H265 compared to H264.

I hang my head in shame. ;)

Hi Bern.

I do it all the time. You wouldn't believe how many times I've stopped an export because I've forgotten and bypassed the wrong or right codec. Especially where file size isn't an issue.

Funny enough, there are instances where H.264, depending on the encoder, will produce a better final delivery or intermediate due to a particular encoder's inability to encode 10 Bit and 4:2:2 with H.265 but not with H.264. Edius and QS is actually a good example of this.

The limited ceiling for both chroma and bit rate with E9/QS for H.265 will mean that H.264, even QS in Edius, will yield a better results in certain scenarios. More so for UHD/60 from a 10 Bit 4:2:2 master/timeline, where the upper limits of E9/QS's bit rate and chroma are simlply not enough but H.264 is.

At the moment I'm doing a large number of tests to see about maximising YouTube encodes. One of the tests is to see where the trigger is for VP9 encoding and the other is try and work out if YT uses any dithering when doing down/cross conversions and if so, where does that occur.

This all means doing many intermediates that have true and false bit depths and chroma sub sampling. Basically expanding/padding 8 Bit 4:2:0 into 10 Bit 4:2:2 and also using true 10 Bit 4:2:2 and see if any of this fools YT to use dithering for its 8 Bit 4:2:0 H.264 and VP9 outputs, if it does.

Here's a video that I've just uploaded. Although this is a proper product test video, I've done certain things with this to test to guague for certain results. This is all padded for bit depth and chroma and uploaded as H.264 10 Bit 4:2:2 at 200Mb/s.

Cheers,
Dave.

https://youtu.be/igPIy5IQDV8


trillium 07-11-2019 08:59 PM

I guess the biggest issue about H.265 is finding browsers that can play it without having to jump through hoops. So far I've only been able to get Windows Internet Explorer to play the file with video. Test on one system and Microsoft wanted 99-cents to download the codec- why in the heck this isn't just in a Windows update is beyond me. I created a nice looking 90-second video clip with h.265 1280x720 30 p and it was only 23.5 mb and looked and sounded fine. That's less than one NEF still photo on my Nikon.

Why isn't h.265 "the standard" now. I guess cell phone carriers want everyone to use up more bandwidth downloading video to make more money.

Liverpool TV 07-11-2019 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trillium (Post 322501)
I guess the biggest issue about H.265 is finding browsers that can play it without having to jump through hoops. So far I've only been able to get Windows Internet Explorer to play the file with video. Test on one system and Microsoft wanted 99-cents to download the codec- why in the heck this isn't just in a Windows update is beyond me. I created a nice looking 90-second video clip with h.265 1280x720 30 p and it was only 23.5 mb and looked and sounded fine. That's less than one NEF still photo on my Nikon.

Why isn't h.265 "the standard" now. I guess cell phone carriers want everyone to use up more bandwidth downloading video to make more money.

Why is it that you want to play it in a browser?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:28 PM.


Copyright 2014 Belden Inc. All rights reserved.