View Single Post
Old 09-06-2019, 09:54 PM   #5
Liverpool TV
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Liverpool, England.
Posts: 2,898

Originally Posted by Jerry View Post

Thanks for the comparisons.

The one thing to mention is that NVENC is a perfect option for users with older machines that either do not have QS at all or users with just H.264 QS output.

I don't have native QS H.265 capabilities. However, I do have a 1080ti. With this card, I have very good NVENC H.265/H.264 export speeds.

HEVC encoding has been around for quite a while. So, a lot of older cards can encode H.265 with a capable NVENC program.

If a user has a fairly recent graphics card, they can do hardware H.265 and H.264 supported exports. This can keep an older machine running just a bit longer.

I tested from a 27 second Prores master that was 3840x2160 50p HLG HDR 10bit 422

I used 2 encoding programs. Handbrake and TMPGE MW7.

Encoding time using a 1080ti with Handbrake was 33 seconds.
Encoding time using a 980ti on a 980 system with Handbrake was 46 seconds.
Encoding time using a 1080ti with MW7 was 37 seconds
I don't have MW7 on the older machine, but you get the idea.
Remember, the original was 27 seconds.

When looking at the MediaInfo screen shots of the Handbrake and MW7 exports, you will see one difference, Handbrake produced an 8bit file with 4:2:0 chroma and HDR, MW7 produced a 10bit file with 4:2:0 chroma also with HDR. I did see this on the Handbrake forum: the internal work path is only 8-bit, even on the nightly builds with 10- and 12-bit output support. It looks as if this also applies to NVENC encodes from Handbrake.
Attachment 20689

The big plus here is Handbrake is free. If you already have the GPU, getting Handbrake will give you hardware supported H.265 capabilities for free.

MW7 is a paid program.The price varies depending on whether or not you have the previous software or any of their software.

Where Handbrake is just an encoder, MW7 can actually create the file if need be. Plus, the encoder section has a multitude of settings, including settings for an HDR workflow.
I tend to lean towards a program with a complete package of settings when creating masters.

If you have native H.265 capabilities, this will be the fastest overall output.
Especially, since you don't have to create an intermediary.
This is followed by Handbrake and then MW7.

If H.265 is becoming part of your export requirements or for just TV playback of UHD or UHD HDR video and you have a 900 series Nvidia card or above,
try Handbrake NVENC export as an experiment.

In essence, machines that do not have Quicksync capabilities will benefit in exporting H.264 and H.265 using 900 series and above NVENC GPU's.
Hi Jerry.

I totally agree with what you've said about using an older machine.

My NFR has run out for Edius 9 and I've become very used to the 60FPS workflow with E9 that allows me to export H.264 and H.265 direct from the timeline. It's a real time saver.

As I can't afford to buy it at the moment I'm in the process of putting together a separate H.265/H.264 encoding PC. This will all be done with old and cheap second hand parts. The most costly item will be tracking down the most appropriate Nvida GPU. I'd recently sold a number of things to put toward my main system up date and got shut of my GTX 1060 as it was being replaced with a newer card, I wish I'd have sold something else now and not that.

The idea is to export HQX from my main machine running E8, as I can export 60FPS from E8 with HQX but not H.264 and it doesn't do H.265 anyway. I'll then access the HQX file across my network with the cheap encoder machine and do the encode that way. Basically what I've done in this video but across the network.

Although the E9 H.265 workflow is super convenient, it's actually quicker to encode to HQX and then have NVENC encode that to H.265, or H.264.

So yes, your advice for a cheap NVENC card is great.

There are other issues with differences between the H.264 encodes between QSV and NVENC that I couldn't go into with that video. These issues didn't favour QSV.

Thanks for those statistics, they are very interesting and also support your advice for an NVENC encoder. I'll shop about and see about a second hand 980. Based on your encodes, the difference between the 980 and 1080 are absolutely liveable with and the 980 will be way cheaper and still a lot faster than QSV.

The only advantage with modern Nvidia cards and Turing, is the newer encoder. Although so far I've only come across OBS that states NVENC 2 as an option. Even then, I doubt you'd see any difference in PQ between Pascal, Turing, Maxwell etc. at the high bitrates and encode speeds will be super fast anyway regardless of the core tec.

I'll cut it short there and resist the temptation to address the issue of that huge Elephant jumping up and down in the middle of the room waving its arms :)

"There's only one thing more powerful than knowledge. The free sharing of it"

If you don't know the difference between Azimuth and Asimov, then either your tapes sound bad and your Robot is very dangerous. Kill all humans...... Or your tape deck won't harm a human, and your Robot's tracking and stereo imagining is spot on.

Is your Robot three laws safe?
Liverpool TV is offline   Reply With Quote