Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder
I just ran a longer encode to measure, and the difference is quite high. 4.95 fps for the normal encode and 5.22 fps for the one with optimization enabled. The normal encode is about 8% bigger.
|
An 8% file size reduction for a 5.5% speed increase would be an incredible optimization. An optimization can that give 1% reduction for a 5% speed increase is a big deal.
Quote:
|
I also checked how the optimization works in normal playback, and my eyes didn't like the result. The flat areas suffered a bit too much, there was a short scene with a nice, slightly noisy but flat coloured background which was lit by some flickering candlelight. The normal encode was slightly better looking there, there was not as much swimming blocks effect as there was with the optimized version.
|
...but only if that 8% reduction doesn't impact quality, alas.
It would be interesting to see what the difference was in a stream analyzer. Or just looking at the log-level 2 csv files.