Timeline for Is 10 frames a second the lowest h.265 can go?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2022 at 12:24 | comment | added | user3643 | @Connor H265 will compress better everytime, but there's still some instances where it's less reliable for end users. If your ultimate distribution channel is YouTube, I'd favor the fastest workflow without sacrificing quality. In terms of render time, both h264 and h265 will take a while (with h264 typically being faster), but the smaller file reduces upload time. Other codecs will render fast, but have low compression (big files), so you lose on the upload time. If you're doing this task frequently, play around with your workflow and available codecs. It'll benefit you later. | |
| Sep 11, 2022 at 9:05 | comment | added | Connor | Okay thank you! In fairness, h.265 did seem to produce a very small file size compared to h.264. About 4 times smaller. | |
| Sep 10, 2022 at 23:33 | comment | added | user3643 | @Connor Yes, see here. ffmpeg is a command line video encoding tool. It's very robust, but has a steep learning curve. I was recommending to still use primere, but with a variable bitrate. | |
| Sep 10, 2022 at 22:21 | comment | added | Connor | Can ffmpeg go onto youtube etc.? | |
| Sep 10, 2022 at 22:21 | vote | accept | Connor | ||
| Sep 9, 2022 at 19:32 | history | edited | user3643 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 9, 2022 at 19:26 | history | edited | user3643 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 101 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2022 at 19:19 | history | answered | user3643 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |