Someone wants to try h265 encoding on nMP?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by chfilm, Jan 6, 2014.

  1. chfilm macrumors 65816

    chfilm

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Location:
    Germany
    #1
    Hi,
    I'm curious how the nMP performs on encoding hevc or h265 video!
    This tool for bootcamp windows http://www.cinemartin.com/cinec/h265-hevc/ can encode h265 already.

    Would someone mind making a quick benchmark, comparing the encoding speeds to h264?

    This new codec is gonna blow us away, the results just seem to be absolutely stunning! But since non of the current chips is optimized for it, I was just curious.
     
  2. Caesar_091 macrumors regular

    Caesar_091

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Italy
    #2
    ...woo 1 yo post just resurrected :)

    Now there are several tools to do that on mac. Any try?
    You can try:
    - ffmpeg (CLI)
    - iFFmpeg (shareware with nice GUI)
    - nightly build of Handbrake (don't u know it? leave this thread :p)
     
  3. Denis Ahrens, Nov 15, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2014

    Denis Ahrens macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    #3
    Hi

    I tried the latest Handbrake with x265 to encode a movie 93min long.

    all standard settings, native resolution unchanged 1920x1040 with 24fps.
    machine is a cMP with one W3680 (6x 3.33GHz).

    encoded to 400kbits per sesond

    x264: 34min to 389MB (65 fps)
    x265 (1.3) : 3h12min to 386MB (11.6 fps)
    x265 (1.4) : 3h24min to 394MB (10.9 fps)

    at this low bitrate the x265 encodes look way better than the x264 encodes.

    the x265 1.4 encode is a little bigger in size but also looks better at some times.

    Denis

    PS: if you are encoding a movie for mass release on PB then please use x265! you encode once, but it is viewed often! ;)
     
  4. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #4
    Would you mind posting a screenshot of each, or even better, a 30s preview of both? :)
     
  5. Denis Ahrens macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    #5
    Here are two screenshots:

    x264 sample
    x265 (1.4) sample

    Nobody would want to look at such quality, but it demonstrates how good x265 handles this complicated scene (water and sand, fine pattern on the towel) at this bitrate.

    Denis
     

    Attached Files:

  6. NOTNlCE macrumors 6502a

    NOTNlCE

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Location:
    DMV Area
    #6
    That's incredibly noticeable. How much larger is the file size between the two?
     
  7. Gav Mack macrumors 68020

    Gav Mack

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Sagittarius A*
    #7
    It's still a cpu driven one - doesn't say which parts of the cpu benefit either like AVX/2.

    What would be really interesting is a cuda/opencl accelerated one. Currently for h264 conversions away from premiere FCPX I use xmedia recode in windows (only, sadly) which uses all the different Intel instructions but open cl too. Handbrake means a parking brake here in the UK and it certainly gets left for dust by this little nifty app.
     
  8. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
  9. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #9
    Typo? That's about 10x greater bandwidth than a Blu-Ray!

    93 minutes at 400 Mb/s should be about 279 GB for the final, right?
     
  10. h9826790 macrumors 604

    h9826790

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #10
    I think so, the small "m" means "milli", should be the big "M" to express "Mega" ;)
     
  11. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #11
    Here's my dual hex converting a 28GB mkv bluray rip. I'll see what it looks like after it's done. It's not maxing the system out like handbrake does that's for sure.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. Denis Ahrens macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    #12
    You're right and I fixed it.

    Denis
     
  13. AidenShaw macrumors P6

    AidenShaw

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Location:
    The Peninsula
    #13
    LOL I don't think that a thousandth of a bit is expressible, let alone common. ;)

    ... and 400 thousandths of a bit is still less than a bit. :eek:
     

Share This Page