Given the high probability that modern high resolution/frame rate codecs would also be using H.265, there'd be even more impact on the software exporting of H.265 given the extra processing that's also required to decode/render it as well within the source media. I'd also suggest that it would be very difficult to use such an option anyway if it did exist due to encode time. While I'd agree that it's slightly disappointing that Edius doesn't offer a H.265 software encoder yet. The recommendation may have been for specific workflows and Pro codecs. I can't comment on the video you are talking about where GV employees are recommending none QSV CPUs. Then hardware encoding will be equally as good visually at the higher bit rates that would usually be used. Unless there's a specific reason for ultra quality H.264/H.265 using X264/X265 at very low bit rates. One of the systems I use is a multi-core/thread dual Xeon and it takes forever to encode in software compared to even QSV on a less powerful system. Software only encoding, despite its slight advantages at low bit rate outputs with certain encoders, takes an absolute age. ![]() The problem with H.265 especially, it really does need hardware assistance for the encoding and even decoding. Although Adobe do mention encoding in some of their literature, this may just be a generic term. I was thinking of the Mercury Engine which although it does use Cuda and OpenCL, that's for rendering and not necessarily for encoding with certain output/encode codecs. This software costs way too much to be lacking a software encoder for such a common CODEC, in this day and age.Actually, yes you are correct. You deal with the slower speed by simply getting a higher end CPU with higher clock speeds and/or more CPU cores, to do the work faster. so for final deliverables you will bias to the CPU encoder, anyways. The software encoders are slower, but they typically produce smaller, higher quality files. The issue is that - usually - any NLE that supports a CODEC would also have a Software Encoder for it. This software costs way too much to be lacking a software encoder for such a common CODEC, in this day and age. H.265 has way smaller files for practically identical quality as H.264, and is far more spece/time efficient when you have to transfer deliverables over the internet. How is anyone supposed to do this, if they need to deliver H.265 and the Xeon systems do not ship with an iGPU or QSV? I watched videos where GV employees recommend Dual Xeon or i9 (some of which don't have QSV) systems for high end 4K work in EP9. If you have any Intel GPU without an iGPU (HEDT, Ryzen Desktop CPUs, etc.), then H.265 literally cannot be rendered at all, and this is problematic. So, even if you choose an AMD CPU over Intel, you don't completely lose the ability to render H.265 video. all have software encoders so that people aren't limited in platform choice for this CODEC support. ![]() VEGAS Pro, Resolve, Premiere Pro (which only support Intel QSV for Encode Acceleration, BTW), etc. ![]() Edius is not compliant with these accelerators.That's not the issue. Adobe are probably compliant with AMC as they are with NVENC as well.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |