Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Sep 2010 23:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 443622
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-07-16
Ok, here we go:
libvpx
Pass 1/2 frame 7623/7624 975872B 1024b/f 25603b/s 90886 ms (83.87 fps)
real 1m55.022s
Pass 2/2 frame 7623/8137 40024996B 42004b/f 1050111b/s 1920373 ms (3.97 fps)
real 32m46.961s
x264
encoded 7623 frames, 44.03 fps, 1031.17 kb/s
real 2m56.913s
encoded 7623 frames, 7.37 fps, 1050.69 kb/s
real 17m14.997s
Well interesting, x264 at veryslow was faster than libvpx at --good.
And now the screenshots, only two this time, but they should be enough to validate my claim:
x264_2_veryslow: http://www.imagebam.com/image/e3ab5d100545286
libvpx2_best: http://www.imagebam.com/image/64a4fb100545289
x264_3_veryslow: http://www.imagebam.com/image/963456100545290
libvpx3_best: http://www.imagebam.com/image/61d057100545293
As you can see if you compare to the previous encodes, not much has changed except it took longer to encode. The huge difference between x264 and libvpx remains. *Exactly* as I said.