AV1 Codec Testing - Revision history

Beard: /* Conclusion */

2020-03-13T15:56:09Z

‎Conclusion

2020-03-13T15:50:46Z

2020-03-12T15:44:13Z

‎Conclusion

2020-03-12T15:42:19Z

‎Video Quality Comparison

2020-03-12T14:55:30Z

‎Image Comparison

2020-03-12T14:54:10Z

‎Video Quality Comparison

2020-03-12T14:51:51Z

‎Conclusion

2020-03-12T14:49:04Z

‎Conclusion

2020-03-12T14:48:46Z

‎Conclusion

2020-03-12T04:37:36Z

‎Conclusion

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 ==== Conclusion ====
-The times are not significantly different from my first test that included interlacing, but interestingly choosing to de-interlace marginally reduced the runtime in every test.
+The times are not significantly different from my first test that included interlacing, but interestingly choosing to de-interlace notably reduced the runtime for AV1.
 * x264 = 29 seconds
 * x265 = 42 seconds

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 https://gist.github.com/sparrc/026ed9958502072dda749ba4e5879ee3
-At the time of this writing, the latest snapshot of libaom-av1 was:<br/>
+At the time of this writing, the latest snapshot of libaom-av1 is:<br/>
 <code>1.0.0-errata1-avif-390-gc43904e50</code>

@@ Line 221: / Line 221: @@
 ==== Conclusion ====
-Obviously, interlaced video looks worse than de-interlaced across the board. Comparing de-interlaced x265 to AV1, I can't tell the difference. Comparing de-interlaced x264 to x265, I'd say x264 looks a little sharper but the compression artifacts are a little more prominent. Overall I might prefer x264 for image quality, but x265 offers way better compression. AV1 seems to be worse for all my use cases so far, but it is still under development and maybe it will improve.
+Obviously, interlaced video looks worse than de-interlaced across the board. Comparing de-interlaced x265 to AV1, I cannot tell the difference. Comparing de-interlaced x264 to x265, I'd say x264 looks a little sharper but the compression artifacts are a little more prominent. Overall I might prefer x264 for image quality, but x265 offers way better compression. AV1 seems to be worse for all my use cases so far, but it is still under development and maybe it will improve.
-Update: I also tried different containers besides mp4, such as mkv, but I got identical results in all measurements, except that mkv gave a slightly smaller file size for AV1.
+Update: I also tried different containers besides mp4, such as mkv, but I got identical results in all measurements, except that mkv gave slightly smaller file sizes for AV1.
 === Hardware Info ===

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
 </pre>
-I then cropped a portion of each image starting at pixels x=0,y=250 with a size of 500x300. To do this automatically, it used the Imagemagick <code>convert</code> command:
+I then cropped a portion of each image starting at pixels x=0,y=250 with a size of 500x300. To do this automatically, I used the Imagemagick <code>convert</code> command:
 <source lang="sh">
 for x in *.png;do convert $x -crop 500x300+0+250 ${x/\.png/_crop\.png};done

@@ Line 175: / Line 175: @@
 ==== Image Comparison ====
-Here I compare samples of video encoded using each codec. In case you're wondering, this is a video of me melting bismuth on the stove.
+Here I compare the frame sample for each codec. In case you're wondering, this is a video of me melting bismuth on the stove.
 <table class="nice">

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:51, 12 March 2020
Line 222:		Line 222:

	Obviously, interlaced video looks worse than de-interlaced across the board. Comparing de-interlaced x265 to AV1, I can't tell the difference. Comparing de-interlaced x264 to x265, I'd say x264 looks a little sharper but the compression artifacts are a little more prominent. Overall I might prefer x264 for image quality, but x265 offers way better compression. AV1 seems to be worse for all my use cases so far, but it is still under development and maybe it will improve.		Obviously, interlaced video looks worse than de-interlaced across the board. Comparing de-interlaced x265 to AV1, I can't tell the difference. Comparing de-interlaced x264 to x265, I'd say x264 looks a little sharper but the compression artifacts are a little more prominent. Overall I might prefer x264 for image quality, but x265 offers way better compression. AV1 seems to be worse for all my use cases so far, but it is still under development and maybe it will improve.
		+
		+	Update: I also tried different containers besides mp4, such as mkv, but I got identical results in all measurements, except that mkv gave a slightly smaller file size for AV1.

	=== Hardware Info ===		=== Hardware Info ===

@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 * x265 = 43 seconds
 * AV1 = 2 hours, 57 minutes, 27 seconds
 === Runtime Benchmarks (De-Interlacing) ===

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:48, 12 March 2020
Line 83:		Line 83:
	* AV1 = 2 hours, 57 minutes, 27 seconds		* AV1 = 2 hours, 57 minutes, 27 seconds

		+	I also tried different containers besides mp4, such as mkv, but I got identical results.

	=== Runtime Benchmarks (De-Interlacing) ===		=== Runtime Benchmarks (De-Interlacing) ===