B0NE       Posted at 2024-03-17 06:52:31(33Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Whats everyones thoughts on AV1 codec ? ive recently had a couple of AV1 Source files and handbrake wouldn't recognise them the runtime was zero had to run them through Avidemux but recently is a option to encode it i get handful of complaints for using HEVC because of they have not got codecs in players trying to use so i would imagine AV1 would be worse considering its new google says its better than HEVC with small sizes ive not tried it myself sticking with AVC or HEVC for now.. | |
Like 13 | ||
Post liked by - Rosy2955, eyez , FlyinLion , Ange1  , saakshipandit2, zuluDROOG, Dronska, realityshow, ROBBREDD, B4ND1T69, MadWatchdog, sherb, hayzee56 | ||
| Saturn5Posted at 2024-03-18 01:47:55(33Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| It may or may not be better, but no one really cares. The "standard" people use is HEVC (normally x265), so I'll be sticking with that. Its a bit like Betamax v VHS - BM was considered better, but everyone used VHS as the "standard", so it didnt matter. | |
Like 8 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, FlyinLion, Rosy2955, saakshipandit2, zuluDROOG, B4ND1T69, realityshow, B0NE | ||
| B0NEPosted at 2024-03-18 02:24:15(33Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| ive not really looked into it ye im sticking with HEVC i still sometimes use AVC it depends how it looks when i do sample testing only seen Zero0 and couple other using it | |
Like 7 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, saakshipandit2, zuluDROOG, ROBBREDD, B4ND1T69, realityshow, EVILTEEN777 | ||
| realityshowPosted at 2024-03-23 12:14:46(32Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| I tried AV1 using the NVIDIA encoder using the same low bitrate as an NVENC H265 clip and the AV1 clip turned out really blocky, As i`m on PC i dont have an issue playing files and prefer any thing that will save me hard drive space ( even tho i have plenty of terrabytes). I dont think Handbrake or NVIDA is quite there yet in terms of ultra low bitrates, tho over time will improve. Those with technical knowledge and are able to navigate the complicated UI of Staxrip may have better results. Ive seen a few AV1 1gigabyte size in 1080p 1hr30 movies on this site, they arent exactly super high quality but still... making alot of progress, so will be curious to look out for future releases. Last edited by realityshow on 2024-03-26 09:49:09 | |
Like 5 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, FlyinLion, zuluDROOG, saakshipandit2, B4ND1T69 | ||
| B4ND1T69Posted at 2024-03-23 13:37:18(32Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Can't stand HEVC x265 with it's grainy as fooook look (mascarading as definition   )...slow ass re-encoding when using HEVC files also...i can only imagine the outcome when using AV1 to ultra compress a fileI teach my encoder to use what it needs to give me beautification, regardless of size/bitrate/compression   It's a bit like LazerDisc v Betamax/VHS....Betamax sucked a plum big time, VHS got worse the more you played it...but at least ya movie looked magic with LazerDisc  | |
Like 8 | ||
Post liked by - eyez, zuluDROOG, saakshipandit2, RedBaron58 , realityshow, LiberalLesbo, Dronska, ROBBREDD | ||
| zuluDROOGPosted at 2024-04-11 14:17:33(30Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| I like the AV1 codec because it out-paces HEVC at higher resolutions and the quality:compression is amazing. But I've held back because my Intel NUC is getting long in the tooth just won't put out on 4K files. The Kodi I'm running doesn't support it either (Kodi DOES support AV1 since v20). But no point updating libreelec when I know the i5 processor in the NUC won't handle the big jobs. When I get around to getting my next media unit (Pi5--much cheaper and so punchy now) I'll definitely be getting into AV1. I've just been too lazy to pull the trigger. Edit: I know I'm not an uploader, just a lowly user. But I do encode from source material when I can find it. Just thought I could contribute--hope that's OK. Last edited by zuluDROOG on 2024-04-11 14:23:28 | |
Like 9 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, FlyinLion, Rosy2955, Pete6617, saakshipandit2, realityshow, imonline, B4ND1T69, Barharmar | ||
| saakshipandit2Posted at 2024-05-07 19:33:49(26Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| I really like av1  For resolutions 720p/1080p it's nice, for 4k is awesome  pretty good savings on space.The big problem is the stress on CPU's both to encode as decode. Right now when I'm on handbrake I always use "fast decode" to help CPU decoding in old smartphones/notebooks/TV's, I usually lost 1-2 vmaf but I think it's worth. I believe that it's better than h265 at the same bitrate, better psnr, ssim and vmaf. Last edited by saakshipandit2 on 2024-05-07 20:04:53 | |
Like 3 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, Rosy2955, zuluDROOG | ||
| Rosy2955Posted at 2024-07-12 10:48:06(17Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| ### Saving Space with Video Encoding: A Simple Comparison I recently re-encoded a large movie file "Kung.Fu.Panda.4.2024.UHD.BluRay.2160p.TrueHD.Atmos.7.1.DV.HEVC.REMUX-FraMeSToR"(with ab-av1) to see how much space I could save while keeping the video quality almost the same. Here's what I found: Original File - Size: 43GB Re-encoding Results 4K (2160p) Resolution: - Size: 5.09GB (12% of original) - Time: 3 hours - Quality: VMAF 98.11 crf 20 preset slow - Size: 2.55GB (6% of original) - Time: 7 hours - Quality: VMAF 98.22 crf 21 preset slow - Size: 1.62GB (4% of original) - Time: 9 hours - Quality: VMAF 98.45 crf 25 preset 4 Full HD (1080p) Resolution: - Size: 1.90GB (4% of original) - Time: 49 minutes - Quality: VMAF 96.11 crf 19 preset slow - Size: 1.20GB (3% of original) - Time: 2 hours - Quality: VMAF 96.19 crf 20 preset slow - Size: 812.90MB (2% of original) - Time: 4 hours - Quality: VMAF 96.26 crf 25 preset 4 Key Takeaways By using AV1, I achieved the smallest file sizes while maintaining high video quality, though it took the most time to encode. This comparison helps in choosing the right codec depending on your priority: speed, quality, or space-saving. Last edited by Rosy2955 on 2024-07-12 12:14:29 | |
Like 4 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, FlyinLion, Dronska, Pete6617 | ||
| Pete6617Posted at 2024-07-12 11:09:11(17Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| I have quite a few different downloads of the movie 'No Country For Old Men' in storage, i have just downloaded an AV1 version to try out and that will be my first look at an AV1 properly, at a quick glance it looks good . I have no interest in encoding and uploading as i know that's out of my league tbh, which is why i have a lot of time for the uploaders who do what they do for us. No Country For Old Men is only available in 1080p and 720p as far as i know, i have 2 AI Upscaled to 2160p copies (one is a higher frame rate), a 1080p remux, hybrid open matte 1080p (full screen) version, so a few to compare with the AV1 and i will have a look at the weekend Cheers Pete | |
Like 4 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, FlyinLion, Dronska, Rosy2955 | ||
| Rosy2955Posted at 2024-07-12 12:09:29(16Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| awesome movie, waiting for your opinion on the av1 file  I don't know if these upscale versions are worth it, maybe I also give it a try. | |
Like 4 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, FlyinLion, Dronska, Pete6617 | ||
| Pete6617Posted at 2024-07-12 12:58:40(16Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| The one i have that is 60 fps and upscaled looks incredible to be honest, i think whoever tries the AI route needs the patient of a Saint to get the settings correct, it is in my user picks if you want to have a look for yourself Rosy. I think if there is fast action in the video they use a slightly different method to get it right, i have a Saving Private Ryan that was from a 2160p remux source and that has been enhanced and the frame rate quickened, it looks incredible as well | |
Like 4 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, Ange1, Rosy2955, Dronska | ||
| Rosy2955Posted at 2024-07-18 13:19:09(16Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Hello everyone, I'd love to gather your feedback on this comparative table. It showcases various encoding profiles for 2160p resolution videos, including both x265 and AV1 codecs, with details on Constant Rate Factor (CRF), Video Multimethod Assessment Fusion (VMAF) scores for quality prediction, predicted file sizes, and bitrates.  I'm particularly interested in your insights on: -Which encoding profiles stand out to you in terms of quality and efficiency? -Any experiences with these codecs and settings? -Suggestions for improving encoding quality or reducing file sizes? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and learning from your experiences! Your feedback will be greatly appreciated. Last edited by Rosy2955 on 2024-07-18 13:51:21 | |
Like 3 | ||
Post liked by - eyez, Ange1, miok | ||
| Rosy2955Posted at 2024-08-28 14:32:10(10Wks ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Guess who's back, back again? Rosy's back, tell a friend... ___________________________________________________________________ source file: John.Wick.Chapter.4.2023.2160p.UHD.Bluray.REMUX.DV.HDR10.HEVC.TrueHD.Atmos.7.1-GHD → 74.19gb ___________________________________________________________________ Ab-av1 av01 Sample-encode --pix-format yuv420p10le --svt fast-decode=1 --preset 7 --min-samples 20 av01 crf 32 VMAF 96.31 predicted video stream size 2.02 GiB (3%) taking 5 hours av01 crf 21 VMAF 98.02 predicted video stream size 4.07 GiB (6%) taking 5 hours av01 crf 20 VMAF 98.11 predicted video stream size 4.32 GiB (6%) taking 5 hours av01 crf 15 VMAF 98.65 predicted video stream size 6.62 GiB (10%) taking 5 hours* av01 crf 10 VMAF 99.27 predicted video stream size 14.37 GiB (21%) taking 5 hours Ab-av1 x265 Sample-encode --encoder libx265 --pix-format yuv420p10le --preset medium --min-samples 20 --enc x265-params=fastdecode=1 x265 crf 18 VMAF 98.64 predicted video stream size 9.27 GiB (13%) taking 10 hours* ___________________________________________________________________ Conclusion I've realized that with the right settings, I'm achieving the same quality in half the encoding time, ~28% size saving using CRF 15 in AV1 compared to CRF 18 in x265. av01 crf 15 VMAF 98.65 predicted video stream size 6.62 GiB (10%) taking 5 hours* x265 crf 18 VMAF 98.64 predicted video stream size 9.27 GiB (13%) taking 10 hours* Last edited by Rosy2955 on 2024-10-28 01:54:46 | |
Like 4 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, Soup, Ange1, miok | ||
| Rosy2955Posted at 2024-10-28 01:49:06(1Wk ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Hey everyone, I recently compared four video files and wanted to share my insights. Below, you’ll find the details for each file, including my encoding settings. I choose to compare av1 and x265 between an 1080p source and 3 releases, source from NBQ, av1-xleech, av1-Rosy, x265-PRT. I know there's a 2160p source, but i choose to go with the 1080p so I would spend less time running the tests. To start, here’s an image slider that lets you compare the four options.  https://imgsli.com/MzEzMDgz https://imgsli.com/MzEzMDg0/0/2 https://imgsli.com/MzEzMDg3 Secondly, here comes a table and graphs from FFmetrics.     __________________________________________________________ Key Insights Last edited by Rosy2955 on 2024-10-28 02:32:31 | |
Like 5 | ||
| Post liked by - eyez, imonline, ROBBREDD, Ange1, Dronska | ||
| Rosy2955Posted at 2024-10-29 22:13:04(1Wk ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comparative Analysis of 5 Video Releases: x264, x265, and AV1 Hey everyone! I'm excited to share my analysis of five different releases of the same file encoded in x264, x265, and AV1. I focused on the first 10 minutes of the video, which includes 14,400 frames. My goal was to create a release around 1900 MB, making it easy to share on platforms like Telegram and WhatsApp while achieving the best possible quality. I want to make it clear that this post is not meant to criticize anyone's work; I've had my share of subpar releases as well. This project represents a significant amount of research and learning I've undertaken over the past few months.     Based on my analysis using ffmetrics, the only release that significantly differed in VMAF was the x264 version. The other four releases were perceptually similar, as their metrics were almost identical. Research indicates that we generally can't perceive differences in video quality when there's less than a 2 VMAF point difference. Research also suggests that most people cannot perceive differences in between the source and the encoded quality when the VMAF score is above 95. So, how did I achieve these metrics within a 1900 MB file size? My recipe includes: HandBrake, with the following settings: "Tune None" (the default is Visual Quality), "Fast Decode," SVT-AV1 10-bit, and Preset 5. Preview of 1900mb release     I look forward to hearing your thoughts and any insights you might have! Last edited by Rosy2955 on 2024-10-29 23:10:16 | |
Like 1 | ||
| Post liked by - Ange1 | ||
| SoupPosted at 2024-10-29 23:02:24(1Wk ago) Report Permalink URL | ||
|---|---|---|
| Interesting indeed. whilst i like the x264 format and find x265 to be painfully slow (computer dependant) the future is really HEVC or AV1 and that will be the norm soon enough. Keep posting these topics they are most informative | |
Like 2 | ||
| Post liked by - Ange1, Rosy2955 | ||