Any further comment on the source/target YouTube re-encoding query would be appreciated though. I guess I will just have to experiment with it a bit more. H.265 does seem to be the upcoming standard and I would also like to future-proof my recordings as well as get the best quality out of them. This is not a huge consideration though as I normally just end up watching them over YouTube anyway. I’ve previously had problems playing videos on my 4K TV when directly connecting a USB drive and settled on libx264 with specific bitrates for best results so compatability of viewing the file is also a concern. On the other hand, libpx_vp9 does not play in the native windows player at all but does work well in VLC player. libx265 just about plays in fullscreen but is very jumpy in windows player and loses a lot of information when trying VLC player. Exporting my videos in libpx_vp9 gives a file about 45% smaller than h264_qsv! (Although, libx265 only gives about 20% smaller.) However, it does take about twice as long to export.Īs I said though, I have some playback issues on my PC with more compressed codecs - probably because it has to do more work. So that would sway me in that direction, especially as it gives smaller file sizes. I think that there is meant to be an improvement in the video quality in the way the DJI employs H.265 over H.264. Quality is the same as libx265 with the caveat of a 30% bigger file size which doesn’t bother me, and is a worthwhile trade-off for the encoding speed. Personally, I still encode my final output in libx264 simply because it’s faster. Choose a codec based on your personal disk space and quality preferences. So the codec chosen in Shotcut has zero impact on the viewer’s browser experience because the viewer never sees your original uploaded file. YouTube will always re-encode the file anyway according to their internal standard. But if disk space is not an issue and your computer can edit H.264 directly, then sticking with H.264 may be of benefit for workflow efficiency (no proxies over H.265 needed before editing can begin).Īs for YouTube, it makes no difference which file format is uploaded to it. “Stay at the same quality as H.264 but use half the bitrate” - This would save disk space at the expense of being slower to edit and process. “Use the same bitrate at H.264 to capture twice the quality” - This would obviously improve video quality and probably be the best choice for this reason alone. The optimal recording format for the drone depends on how H.265 is being used: It would be nice to know as this is a decision I need to make before recording and not in post-production as there doesn’t seem to be much advantage in recording in H.264 and then trying to encode in libx265 or whatever. However, theoretically, would I get better quality from YouTube with the latter approach? How does the codec affect the viewer’s experience - does the browser cope with these codecs easily enough or might it be more difficult for some people to view? YouTube appears to also support VP9 natively so encoding H.265 footage using the libvpx_vp9 codec is an option and does produce smaller files sizes, although it seems more challenging for my laptop to actually play! It seems it can take longer to render but you also end up with smaller file sizes. As I understand it this can preserve more information in a smaller bandwidth. I normally use H.264 for my 4K drone footage and then encode using libx264 (or h264_qsv) but my drone also gives me the option of recording in H.265 as an alternative.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |