New answers tagged


In my experience, the slow-er presets make a difference when you have moving objects on the scene. AFAIK, the one of the main improvements area in x265 is the "prediction" and reuse of info about objects moving in the scene. The more computing power the encoder spends on finding these moving objects and the way to encode them, the better quality (or smaller ...


I avoid AME and use x264 via ffmpeg for H.264 encoding. From Premiere I prefer to output a temporary lossless compressed format as the intermediate, such as the free and open-source Ut video, instead of DNxHD/DNxHR/ProRes. This avoids any generation loss (minor as it may be with ProRes/DNxHD, but still technically present as they are not lossless). Also, I'm ...


Adobe licenses its H.264 encoder from Mainconcept, which doesn't do that well at low bitrates. x264 is pretty much the frontier when it comes at low size output for a given quality target, or quality for a given bitrate target. x264 is what's used by platforms like Youtube / Vimeo ..etc to encode user videos. One thing you could try is to increase the ...


Not really no. Newer Turing based nvidia cards will produce better quality than previous generations. But since nvenc is fixed function, and not software running on the GPU it’s not upgradable, or modifiable except for a few options like presets.

Top 50 recent answers are included