Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel's Open-Source H.265/HEVC Encoder Sees First Release Of 2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Intel's Open-Source H.265/HEVC Encoder Sees First Release Of 2020

    Phoronix: Intel's Open-Source H.265/HEVC Encoder Sees First Release Of 2020

    Intel's Scalable Video Technology team is known for their open-source video encoder work particularly on AV1 and VP9 formats, but they also continue to maintain a high performance H.265/HEVC encoder as well. Intel SVT-HEVC 1.5 was released on Monday as their first major update of the year...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...1.5.0-Released

  • #2
    Out of curiosity, I checked MSU's HEVC/AV1 Video Codecs Comparison 2019, and found SVT-HEVC is commonly just on par with x264, which makes it not very attractive to me...

    Comment


    • #3
      Who asked for this?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post
        Out of curiosity, I checked MSU's HEVC/AV1 Video Codecs Comparison 2019, and found SVT-HEVC is commonly just on par with x264, which makes it not very attractive to me...
        Care to expand on that? Having a quick glance over the charts, why would you prefer x264 over SVT-HEVC? Even if they're fairly on par in those results (SVT-HEVC still seemed to be slightly better in most cases, and this additional update release should only further that), that article was only touching on bitrate, encode time and SSIM quality? While less important, the file size of HEVC should be less than AVC(h.264) no? The new support for FFMPEG parallel encoding instances might also be an advantage?(depending on what your needs are)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by polarathene View Post

          Care to expand on that? Having a quick glance over the charts, why would you prefer x264 over SVT-HEVC? Even if they're fairly on par in those results (SVT-HEVC still seemed to be slightly better in most cases, and this additional update release should only further that), that article was only touching on bitrate, encode time and SSIM quality? While less important, the file size of HEVC should be less than AVC(h.264) no? The new support for FFMPEG parallel encoding instances might also be an advantage?(depending on what your needs are)
          More specifically I was reading this figure.

          Consider the encoding cost, SVT-HEVC is really not a good choice to encode videos into HEVC. I would use x265 instead.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by polarathene View Post

            Care to expand on that? Having a quick glance over the charts, why would you prefer x264 over SVT-HEVC? Even if they're fairly on par in those results (SVT-HEVC still seemed to be slightly better in most cases, and this additional update release should only further that), that article was only touching on bitrate, encode time and SSIM quality? While less important, the file size of HEVC should be less than AVC(h.264) no? The new support for FFMPEG parallel encoding instances might also be an advantage?(depending on what your needs are)
            Why would the files be smaller if the bitrate is the same?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
              Who asked for this?
              Video streaming services perhaps?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by LinAGKar View Post

                Why would the files be smaller if the bitrate is the same?
                In the article being discussed quality is constant, bitrate is variable. Why would you say biterate is the same, am I missing something?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post
                  More specifically I was reading this figure.

                  Consider the encoding cost, SVT-HEVC is really not a good choice to encode videos into HEVC. I would use x265 instead.
                  I have tested all the SVT encoders extensively, AV1/HEVC/VP9, and while I would tend to agree that x265 is better than SVT-HEVC if you go preset for preset, for instance if you choose the fastest preset for each or the slowest preset for each, SVT-HEVC is way faster than x265, so what you can do is use a much slower / higher quality preset with SVT-HEVC and get a better quality encode in less time than x265.

                  SVT-AV1 is in a class of it's own, it blows away x264 and x265 easily, it's just way too slow for any practical use.

                  The biggest problem with the SVT encoders for me is that they are such a pain in the ass to get to work with ffmpeg, even if I follow the directions to build the encoder, patch ffmpeg and build ffmpeg with SVT support, half the time it fails to build or load the SVT encoders and other times it will build and work fine for a while before suddenly losing the ability to load the external libraries and work.

                  Doesn't really matter, I'm just waiting to buy a cheap Ice Lake based laptop and start using that excellent HEVC hardware encoder IL has.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jabberwocky View Post

                    In the article being discussed quality is constant, bitrate is variable. Why would you say biterate is the same, am I missing something?
                    I think I just misunderstood polarathene's comment, since it looked like he said the article accounted for bitrate, but not file size.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X