mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > jasong

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2015-08-14, 05:21   #1
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

1101101100012 Posts
Default x.265 half the size, double the computation; so if you double again? 1/4th?

In case my title wasn't clear, I'm wondering about the connection between doubling the computation time for x.265 and the reduction of the size of the video.

Basically, the wiki says that if you give twice the computation time you would give to an x.264 video to an x.265 video, the result will be about half the size of the resulting x.264 video. So, then, my question is...

What happens if you keep doubling the processing time for the x.265 video? Obviously, there are diminishing returns, but does it continue to be about half the size for every doubling of processing time? Are the numbers given simply a coincidence? (the coincidence being half the time is 1/2, double the processing time is 2, and they're reciprocals)
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-14, 06:38   #2
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

448910 Posts
Default

If the answer to your question were yes, what would happen if you gave it enormous processing time? A 1-byte video?

It's nice that trying twice as hard results in half the file size, but that specific ratio is coincidence.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-14, 07:01   #3
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

DB116 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
If the answer to your question were yes, what would happen if you gave it enormous processing time? A 1-byte video?

It's nice that trying twice as hard results in half the file size, but that specific ratio is coincidence.
I know taking it to the extreme creates irrational conclusions, but I'm wondering if it's approximately true in the short term.
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-14, 07:15   #4
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

10110111101112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
I know taking it to the extreme creates irrational conclusions, but I'm wondering if it's approximately true in the short term.
Perhaps you could so some empirical tests and plot the results on a graph. If you are not confident in analysing the results then post the graph here if you like and see how others would analyse the curve.
retina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-14, 14:17   #5
Mark Rose
 
Mark Rose's Avatar
 
"/X\(β€˜-β€˜)/X\"
Jan 2013

2×31×47 Posts
Default

Personally I'm more excited about the Daala codec.

https://xiph.org/daala/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmho4gcRvQ4
Mark Rose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-15, 11:23   #6
VictordeHolland
 
VictordeHolland's Avatar
 
"Victor de Hollander"
Aug 2011
the Netherlands

22268 Posts
Default

The same 1080p film encoded with x264 and x265 (half the size) I find the x264 has more visual sharpnes/details. With the same bitrate, x265 looks better (obviously). So I would say its closer to 0.7-0.8 the size of x264 for the same visual sharpness on 1080p content. With 4k, UHD, 2160p (or however you want to call) it might be closer to 0.5 as there are more pixels to encode and the algorithms of x265 work more efficient.

I still mainly use x264, because my smartphone/TV/tablet have hardware accelleration for it and storage is very cheap.
VictordeHolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-17, 08:58   #7
jasong
 
jasong's Avatar
 
"Jason Goatcher"
Mar 2005

5·701 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VictordeHolland View Post
The same 1080p film encoded with x264 and x265 (half the size) I find the x264 has more visual sharpnes/details. With the same bitrate, x265 looks better (obviously). So I would say its closer to 0.7-0.8 the size of x264 for the same visual sharpness on 1080p content. With 4k, UHD, 2160p (or however you want to call) it might be closer to 0.5 as there are more pixels to encode and the algorithms of x265 work more efficient.

I still mainly use x264, because my smartphone/TV/tablet have hardware accelleration for it and storage is very cheap.
I read that x.265 was created mainly because of concerns about mobile bandwidth in the near future.

Personally, I'd love to see Wifi routers installed at the top of light poles and along highways, with maybe some insurance offered by the Federal Government so investment losses aren't huge. Although that type of thing might already exist, I'm no expert on investment losses as they relate to American taxation.

I know a big problem with my idea is crime, so I'm thinking cheap cameras on or near the poles would be a good idea as well. Any motion not on the road itself would trigger taking a picture and then sending it back to the main server, and there'd be no requirement to view any pictures unless there was peculiar internet behavior at that point.
jasong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2015-08-17, 10:56   #8
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"π’‰Ίπ’ŒŒπ’‡·π’†·π’€­"
May 2003
Down not across

32×11×103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasong View Post
I read that x.265 was created mainly because of concerns about mobile bandwidth in the near future.

Personally, I'd love to see Wifi routers installed at the top of light poles and along highways, with maybe some insurance offered by the Federal Government so investment losses aren't huge. Although that type of thing might already exist, I'm no expert on investment losses as they relate to American taxation.

I know a big problem with my idea is crime, so I'm thinking cheap cameras on or near the poles would be a good idea as well. Any motion not on the road itself would trigger taking a picture and then sending it back to the main server, and there'd be no requirement to view any pictures unless there was peculiar internet behavior at that point.
That approach might work better in a society where people aren't likely to take potshots at street fittings.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Double checking gd_barnes Riesel Prime Search 63 2020-11-23 00:55
Double-Double Arithmetic Mysticial Software 50 2017-10-30 19:16
Double Check Unregistered Information & Answers 3 2011-10-01 04:38
Double the area, Double the volume. Uncwilly Puzzles 8 2006-07-03 16:02
Double checks Rastus Data 1 2003-12-19 18:20

All times are UTC. The time now is 23:49.

Sun Nov 29 23:49:51 UTC 2020 up 80 days, 21 hrs, 3 users, load averages: 0.99, 1.27, 1.34

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.