AV1

H.265

Once the patents expire it will be good enough forever. All the good content from the past is standard definition.

>>105570138
>>105570163
none can replace h264 for transcoding.
these codecs are good for archiving stuff, but due to their complexity they're almost impossible to transcode

>>105570163
>Multiple vulnerabilities were discovered in the H.265 plugin for the
GStreamer media framework, which may result in denial of service or
potentially the execution of arbitrary code if a malformed media file
is opened.

Wouldn't use it.

>>105570163
>Multiple vulnerabilities were discovered in the H.265 plugin for the GStreamer media framework, which may result in denial of service or potentially the execution of arbitrary code if a malformed media file is opened.

Wouldn't use it now.

>>105570234
>transcode
is that a word for someone who troons?

>>105570163
https://hdbits.org/forums/viewtopic?topicid=76436
>x265/HEVC still sucks booty with reds ...
>... you can see the chroma bleed in Jamie Lee's lips in shot 11, and her cheek makeup

>Yeah, it seems that x265 handles chroma pretty poorly when it comes to live action stuff (or perhaps more accurately, grainy stuff). I've always found this behavior a bit odd since at least on paper x265 should be much better with chroma than x264 ever was, not only do you get psychovisuals on chroma (and I'm sure plenty of other optimizations I'm not aware of) but it also exposes full Y/Cb/Cr offsets where with x264 you only get Y/CbCr. Cho should know all about this given that Akira scene...

>x265 is in a bit of a strange place as it is quickly becoming more and more irrelevant, being squished between x264s continued excellence and the rapid progression of AV1 encoders.

There's a reason the top private trackers ban 1080p SDR HEVC content. HEVC is only useful for HDR content or 4k content as H264 does not officially support either.

>>105570502
>confusing H.265 and x265
Retarded. Opinions disregarded.

>>105570605
I know that HEVC is a codec and x265 is an encoder. If you are able to demonstrate that another HEVC encoder is able to produce encodes without these kinds of issues you are welcome to provide evidence. Until then I suggest you stop posting as being an obnoxious pedant adds nothing to the conversation.

>>105570502
>please login to my forum
no, I won't.
and these comments are completely meaningless without knowing all endocing parameters. x265 works a little different.
one 0.1 fart in the wrong quantimization direction and it can look worse or better than x264

>>105570691
That site is invite only. I don't actually expect anybody to log in unless they already have an account and getting in is no easy feat. There are others here who have accounts like I do though and the link is there in case they want to check out the screenshots for themselves.

>I decided to do a very unscientific test since I haven't bothered encoding anything grainy that wasn't HDR with x265 since for so long the codec didn't handle noise/grain very well in comparison to x264. Time for a revisit! Below is the new Trading Places remastered Blu-ray scaled to 720p and encoded with x264 and x265 at 8000 kbps 2-pass. Yes, the bitrate is high, but my tests for the 720p encode with x264 were in the 11-12 Mbps range anyway as this is a very grainy release, so locking the bitrate that low still makes for (in my opinion) a reasonable comparison without getting into the lol territory of something like 3-4 Mbps. I wanted to see how both codecs would do at the "optimal" settings I've made for each codec at a slightly bitstarved rate.

It serves as a good example of why nobody who actually knows what they are doing (except anime encoders) uses x265 for these purposes. Discussions about this have acknowledged that it is possible for a skilled encoder who really knows their way around x265 switches to make a more efficient encode with it than x264. But it's heavily implied that this results in diminishing returns and that in reality most of the time it requires basically the same bitrate to get the same quality as x264.

>>105570752
nobody uses x265 because the documentation is complete ass.
you have 500 different parameters and no one really knows, and I mean fundamentally understands, what each parameter really does.
Its all trial and error and hearsay and stories (I know a guy that uses psy-rdoq 3.4 for dark movies, totally works bro)

>>105570138
/thread

>>105570306
That means he bought an android shitbox for his TV that can only decode the H.264 codec. He's probably a zoomer, brown or both.

>>105570623
>>105570752
>malding this hard
kek. Everyone else has figured out h265 except for the x265 devs and schizo autist like you and your forum "friends".

>>105570868
There's nothing to mald about. I just don't download HEVC SDR encodes below 4k because they are pointless and usually shit.

>>105570234
my phone can play AV1 videos

>>105571048
Mine can't. The only device I own that can hardware decode AV1 is my laptop. It will be a few years before devices that can do so have reached market saturation.

>>105570124 (OP)
>>105570234
>anon has been using the same TV/Box since 2009

>>105571173
If your setup can decode 1080p h264 you really don't need much more. Unless you want to watch anime on it or some shit.

>>105570124 (OP)
> download tv shows in h265
> reencode to h264
> some how looks better

>>105570234
>these codecs are good for archiving stuff, but due to their complexity they're almost impossible to transcode
??? explain?

>>105571306
>be retarded
>get hit with placebo effect

>>105570138
Came here to say this

>>105571306
>transcoding
>ever

why doesn't apple put software av1 deconding on iphones? To not fuck with the battery? to use their own formats? to upsell pro models?
isn't dav1d used everywhere?

>>105571484
might be same reason why you can't decode VP8/9 on iOS. because they require signing a contract for commercial use even if they are "free".

>>105570289
Just don't open malformed media files?

>>105571516
>because they require signing a contract for commercial use even if they are "free".
what the fuck are you talking about

>>105571516
>you can't decode VP8/9 on iOS
?

Avif won.

>>105570234
My TV plays AV1 fine bitch.
stop using ewaste from 10 years ago

>make this thread
>get responses that blow you out of the water
>wait a few days or a few weeks
>make the thread again
>rinse and repeat ad nauseum because you're a fucking bot

>>105573025
None of the responses have really blown him out of the water though. It's always just dipshits parroting marketing claims.

>>105572888
octotrips confirm landslide victory

>>105573025
You take this place too seriously. Shit ass threads like these are just meant to be our little /b/ meetups here. You can discuss anything else you want here.

How's the weather over there where you're living at anon?

>>105573351
fucking windy all of a sudden

>>105573351
jxl looks better...

>>105573814
Did you jam carrots in your eyes? You're supposed to eat them.

>>105573954
Since the image is zoomed in 200% I zoomed out the page for this comparison.
jxl looks more detailed with less banding, avif looks flattened like the detail has been destroyed, and the circle at 0:08 doesn't look like a circle anymore
I'm also viewing this on a professional 10bit monitor so maybe the difference is not as big on a regular 8bit monitor

>>105573954
>>105574062
This is the monitor I'm using, in case you're interested.
https://iiyama.com/gb_en/products/prolite-xb3288uhsu-b5/

>>105573310
>lalala if I close my eyes and pretend there aren't objective improvements in quality and efficiency with newer codecs as has been the case since the second codec in history was made then I can keep reposting my bot thread in peace
>>105573351
>spam is good actually
No.

>>105575030
Exactly, OP isn't here to have any technical discussions about video codecs, he's just here to spam this and other similar threads over and over and over again. Therefore anyone with an above average IQ will realize it deserves no merit. In a perfect world the janny would theoretically be doing his job but we don't live in a perfect world so we just have to make the best of it.

I don't know why people even bother using HEVC or AV1 for 1080p SDR content. Surely an encoder such as x265 can't bring that much of a space saving over x264 for the encoding complexity.

>>105575514
It depends on the content. The truth is certain content like grainy films cannot be compressed that well and require bullshit high bitrates no matter the codec to properly preserve. AV1 attempts to address this with fake synthetic grain but results might not be to your liking.

When dealing with non-grainy content bitrate reductions can be quite insane as modern video codecs exploit redundancies that previous video codecs miss.

>>105575514
People used to say the same thing about realmedia, wmv, and divx back in the day. Guess how correct they were.

>>105575962
divx hit different though

>>105576311
Like a bag of rock except all the rocks were bismuth. Not the pretty mined kind of bismuth mind you but white trailer trash DIY-in-an-alluminum-pan bismuth.