Of course, as i mentioned it does take over half an hour with any of these to encode 39secs of SD content, which doesn't really bode well for mass adoption of any of these any time soon.
Now some of you may be asking why you should give a rip about vp9 and the answer is simple: because it's open source, patent and royalty free (even though the mpeg-la is trying to claim it infringes on some of its patents), google is behind it, google owns youtube and google has announced that youtube will be supporting 4k and it will be moving away from h264 (it currently uses x264) and switching to vp9 and on the highest settings it seems to be on par, speed-wise, with the 2 major hevc encoders but unlike the 2 hevc encoders that either max out or come close to maxing out my i7 3770k, vp9 barely hits 15% usage during even the highest setting encode.
in fact, if anything it tells use that more important than the quality of the encoder is the quality of the filters used and how much bit rate you throw at the encode. i have a hard time seeing any difference between any of these codecs at their highest settings and all 3 are so slow as to be unusable at these settings. So what does this test tell us? absolutely nothing. Some of you may be wondering why i used so much bit rate, it's because the source also used that much bit rate and since i double the number of frames by bobbing, it stands to reason it would need double the bit rate, but if you assume that the new codecs are twice as efficient as the mpeg-2 that was used, then it works out to a push. the source was also auto cropped to 706x480 before being resized back to 720x480. I'm uploading the original as well as the test encodes, if anyone wants to try to get better results. the lowest cpu usage during encode was vp9 easily as it's not well threaded at all yet funny enough the encode times were on par with the other 2. I also tried x264, but it just kept crashing, so i gave up.Īll encode times were absurdly slow, as an example, it took x265 more than 32 minutes to encode 39 secs worth of SD content with these settings. i used Hybrid as the gui front end.įor deinterlacing i used qtgmc, set to very slow and bob the bitrate used was 6400kb/s.įor vp9 i used 4 threads, sharpness was set to 0 which is equivalent to turning on the in-loop deblocking filter, aq was set to variance, gop was 60, vbr, profile was set to complex, speed control was set to best, tile columns/rows was set to 6/2.įor x265 used very slow preset, loop filter was set to sao lcu and non deblocked, gop was 60, aq was set to auto 1.00, wpp on, 64圆4, threads and lookahead threads were set to 4 each.ĭivX265 was set to gop 1 sec (works out to 60 frames), wpp on, aq highest quality. I did 3 whole test encodes, one with vp9, one with x265 and one with DivX265, i used 128kb aac audio for all of them, the vp9 was muxed to mkv, the other two were muxed to mp4. The source was a 39 sec 720x480i clip from an adult dvd circa mid 1990's, there's no nudity or sex, just a chick talking on the phone. Ok, folks i just did a comprehensive encoding test with the above 3 encoders that will forever settle any doubts as to which is the absolute best to use in all circumstances.