At some point, x264 should have much more visible PQ loss then x265. Take your x264 bitrate, and reduce it by say, 30%, and encode with x265 at the same rate and see what what it looks like then. So the way that you actually test this is in fact the flip of what you were doing. If you have the same source, and sufficient bitrate for different compression types, the older one will probably look better, because it's not discarding as much. Justice League vs the Fatal Five 2019 2160p BluRay REMUX HEVC DTS-HD MA 5.
Remux vs hvec 10bit 720p#
But of course we don't do that because lossless would be gigantic. General : Godzilla vs Kong (2021) 720p 10bit BluRay x265 HEVC Hindi DD 5. The easy way to remember this for me: what is the absolute best picture quality you will get? The logical end point of the example is: lossless. Wonders Of The Arctic 2014 HDR UHD BluRay 2160p TrueHD Atmos 7 1 HEVC REMUX-FraMeSToR 96 Crazy. The monitor I am using is not HDR so I don't expect 10 bit colours but I would expect it to downscale. In fact, if you are after better picture quality, mpeg-2 would be better looking then h.264, but the catch is only _if you have sufficient bitrate_. At this point I have about 40 movies that are x265 encoding, mkv container, 10-bit, 4k and they all look washed out / under saturated. But at the end of the day, you are still discarding information. Newer compressions (h.265 vs h.264) have more tricks to mask the this loss. Consider that modern compressions of this sort are lossy schemes, that is, they work by discarding more and more of the image with the goal that you won't be able to notice. In fact, and this is somewhat non-intuitive at first, if you have sufficient bitrate, generally older should be better as far as picture quality is concerned. Newer is generally better at not showing picture quality degradation as you constrain the bitrate, i.e force smaller files. The way higher and higher compression works is more nuanced then "newer is better". Second, your understanding is based in an incorrect and incomplete understanding of the compression.
Do you have a 10-bit capable display? Because if you don't, 10-bit potentially will look worse. You also have a lot of factors when you start talking 8-bit vs 10-bit. Can anyone comment on which one has the best quality (Resolution, sound, and etc.First up, for your encodes, did you have 10-bit sources? If you didn't have 10bit sources, there's no point doing a 10bit encode, you'd have 2 extra bits allocated for precision you don't have.
Remux vs hvec 10bit tv#
I have 4K UHD TV and FHD computer to watch the movie. My instant response is that the file with the largest size should have the best quality, but not so sure. There are differences in the size of the file. Spider-Man.No.Way.7.1.Atmos-FraMeSToR - 61.50 GB 4K Remux Only For Quality Lovers If you have Telegram, you can view and join 4K REMUX Transcode allowed except 4K content Servers in EU, CA, USA, AU 850 TB content 2000+ 4K movies (Both HDR and DV remuxes) 10.
Remux vs hvec 10bit 1080p#
Spider-Man.No.Way.-HD.MA.TrueHD.7.1.Atmos-SWTYBLZ - 26.07 GB 1080p remux vs 4k x265 1 HEVC REMUX FraMeSToR G. Spider-Man.No.Way.DTS-HD.MA.TrueHD.7.1.Atmos-SWTYBL - 21.47 GB Now the question is which one has the best picture quality since the different options vary in size quite a lot. I have been trying to find an answer for this question but I was not able to get a definitive answer with clarity.Īs you can probably guess from the title, I came upon multiple different versions of a video file, usually there are at least 10 bitHDR and 10bit SDR options. I'm new to this subreddit so please bear with me.
0 kommentar(er)
