Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) 1080p 5.1 7 Minutes 30 Seconds AVC vs HEVC Sample - Judasseeders: 4
leechers: 1
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) 1080p 5.1 7 Minutes 30 Seconds AVC vs HEVC Sample - Judas (Size: 1.14 GB)
Description
Harry Potter 7 Part 2 Deathly Hallows 7 Minute 30 Second x264 & x265 Test Sample x264 [FORMAT]:........[ MP4 x264 VBR 12,881 kb/s (High@L4.0) {CRF 17.5 Placebo} [SETTINGS]:......[ SUBME=11 (Full RD) / ME=TESA {SATD Exhaustive} [BITS/(PIXEL*F)]:[ 0.350 [FILE SIZE]:.....[ 768MB (693MB Video) [RESOLUTION]:....[ 1920x800 [FRAME RATE]:....[ 23.976 fps [AUDIO STREAM 1]:[ AC-3 5.1 Surround 384 kb/s 48khz {Dolby Digital 5.1} [AUDIO STREAM 2]:[ AAC 5.1 Surround 1,280 kb/s 48khz (AAC/LC) {2-Pass} [LANGUAGE]:......[ English [SOURCE].........[ 1080p Physical Retail Blu-ray Region 1|A [ENCODE TIME]....[ 00Hr 32Min 18Sec (32 Minutes) x265 [FORMAT]:........[ MP4 x265 VBR 5,035 kb/s (High@L4.0) {CRF 17.5 Placebo} [SETTINGS]:......[ SUBME=7 (Full RD) / ME=4 {SATD Exhaustive} [BITS/(PIXEL*F)]:[ 0.137 [FILE SIZE]:.....[ 346MB (271MB Video) [RESOLUTION]:....[ 1920x800 [FRAME RATE]:....[ 23.976 fps [AUDIO STREAM 1]:[ AC-3 5.1 Surround 384 kb/s 48khz {Dolby Digital 5.1} [AUDIO STREAM 2]:[ AAC 5.1 Surround 1,280 kb/s 48khz (AAC/LC) {2-Pass} [LANGUAGE]:......[ English [SOURCE].........[ 1080p Physical Retail Blu-ray Region 1|A [ENCODE TIME]....[ 77Hr 48Min 50Sec (4669 Minutes) Computing [CPU]:...........[ Intel Core i7 3930k 3.2GHZ @ 4.3GHZ (6 Cores 12 Threads) [MOTHERBOARD]:...[ Asus P9X79 PRO Socket 2011 Bios v4801 [RAM]:...........[ 32GB Patriot Black Mamba Viper 3 PC-17000 2133mhz 4x8GB DDR3 Quad Channel [GRAPHICS]:......[ AMD R9 285 2GB [SSD]:...........[ Samsung 850 Pro 250GB + Additionals [PSU]:...........[ Corsair HX1000 1000watt [CASE]:..........[ Silverstone Raven 02 [DISPLAY]:.......[ Samsung U28D590D 28" 4k 3840x2160 [AUDIO]:.........[ Yamaha RX-V777 7.2 via HDMI [UPS]............[ APC Back-ups Pro 1500va) THIS IS NOT THE FULL MOVIE, this is simply a requested and demanded test encode of x265 for those that wanted to see what it could muster. You need a pc and media player as well as fast enough pc to be able to decode this properly.... Even with a highend computer decoding can be completely unpredictable. Stuttering/garbled/distorted and unclean image is likely due to having insufficient specs or hardware to handle it. Screenshots Comparison. 1=Bluray physical source 2=x264 Encoded 3=x265 Encoded http://i.imgur.com/f9pZ2wh.png http://i.imgur.com/Jhh0yZb.png http://i.imgur.com/9bf1GOh.png http://i.imgur.com/rd88v0p.png http://i.imgur.com/wy0Zf4w.png http://i.imgur.com/Vv2KgVT.png http://i.imgur.com/BQ1IK5y.png http://i.imgur.com/yb8OmAk.png http://i.imgur.com/VlZjpHk.png http://i.imgur.com/Puo5XGI.png http://i.imgur.com/DlLjcIS.png http://i.imgur.com/4rOF9or.png http://i.imgur.com/yFld1hD.png http://i.imgur.com/w544nho.png http://i.imgur.com/trjt3nX.png Related Torrents
Sharing WidgetTrailerScreenshots All Comments |
I think x265 is better than x264 and the source !(x264 and the source is bit noisy)
Regarding size :
Absolutely x265 is better than x264
Regarding other things :
If a 7 mins video is encoded with x265 in 3 days and more with such specs, what will happen when we want to encode a 3 hours movie ?
i think we will pass it to our grandsons to upload it !
+
x265 playing issues
maybe we should wait and keep encoding with the old x264 until x265 is better
you may contact the developers and give them some advices
And finally ....
Thanks for your effort bud
you're always creative
keep going
But it's interesting to see that it's coming along nicely!
Might not be too much longer,x265 will be useable by a fairly decent percentage of people!
Thanks for uploading this!!
x264 is almost identical to original.
x265 has less grain.
Thanks
The x265 file will play pretty much ok (a few very minor visual glitches notwithstanding), but it eats up twice the amount of my CPU that the x264 file does. I tried it with both VLC and MPC-HC (K-Lite) and both offered practically identical playback
Average CPU usage during x265 playback was 60% going as high as 90+% at times, whereas average CPU usage watching the x264 file was 30%.
Scanning forwards and backwards (x265) caused CPU spikes that sometimes made VLC freeze, although I did not encounter that problem with MPC-HC.
I feel that with a few tweaks to MPC-HC, I could get rid of the visual glitches but ultimately my computer just isn't fast enough to justify watching the x265 encodes at the current time.
Comparing the screenshots carefully (and having watched both videos), it's seems obvious to me that the x264 codec is at this time the superior one in almost every respect except size. I'm really excited for the future of x265, I almost can't believe what great quality you can get for the size, but at the moment it seems like much more trouble than it's probably worth.
I hope this information is in some way useful, I really appreciate the tremendous thought and effort that goes into these encodes.