![]() ![]() Quick Sync is Intel’s hardware implementation of H.264 and is available on most Intel® Core™ processors starting from second generation Sandy Bridge processors. In the event of an undesired performance hit when streaming using x264, hardware encoders are available at the expense of some image quality (and larger filesizes). For streaming however, it is recommended to use x264 as this will generally provide much better quality for the same bit rate versus hardware encoders. All hardware encoders are available for use with a free XSplit license.Īs a side note, hardware encoders enable users to record high quality videos with virtually no performance hit. As of now XSplit has support for all publicly and commonly available HW encoders counting Nvidia NVENC, Intel Quick Sync, AMD VCE and of course AVerMedia’s Liver Gamer HD (C985) and Game Broadcaster (C127). The following guide will give details on each hardware encoder and how they each interacts with XSplit products. However, if it provides at least the "slow" quality of Handbrake with fast speed then it would be quite an improvement over 8 hours of encoding time for one DVD.With a variety of hardware encoders now available, it can be a bit confusing to know if you have the appropriate components to use these encoders, and how they are used with XSplit products. If it's just fast, but has mediocre quality and/or file size then I'll be disappointed. The question I have is: Are there any reviews that show, clearly, the quality of Skylake's H.265 encoding versus something like Handbrake on "very slow"? Why bother encoding at all if the file size is going to be so bloated? Maybe more recent Nvidia cards have improved quality but I am really not interested in H.264 at all because it's so much less effective than H.265 in terms of preserving quality at low file sizes. This suggests, again, the point that heavy parallelization means low quality. ![]() ![]() I also found that Nvidia's GPU encoding of H.264 was terrible although the encoding was fast. It's still annoying (the noise) but it's better to leave it in than it is to overly blur people's faces. With H.265 I was surprised to see a lot of temporal noise (in some scenes of the Babylon 5 stuff) having minimal effect on file size. However, I tried various algorithms for that and quality was always noticeably lost. This makes it necessary to use noise filtering to keep the file size down. This appears to be seen in the way H.265, as I recall, does load the processor heavily with a fast low-quality setting like "medium."Īnother interesting thing I found is that H.264, at least with Handbrake, is heavily sensitive to temporal noise, in terms of bloating the file size. The more quality you want the more serial the process is. I assume this is because I have read that parallelization of video encoding and quality are opposing. However, with the FX I would stick with the "slow" setting because it takes like 8 hours. Days to encode a single DVD is unfortunate but the quality boost over "slow" is noticeable as is the size difference. The chip is not fully-loaded at all, unlike with H.264. The problem is that very slow is extremely slow and takes over two days with the FX chip to encode a single DVD. The final setting I was pleased with (Handbrake) was 17 quality and "very slow" setting. What I found is H.265 dramatically outperforming H.264 in terms of quality for MB. I used Babylon 5 film DVDs for the testing. I have tested CPU encoding with an AMD FX 8 core and an Nvidia GTX 460. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |