I have begun re encoding many of my DVDs to MPEG4 using h.265. The file sizes are between 1/3 to 1/2 smaller than h.264, but I have noticed when people are speaking in the far background their lips sometimes appear to not move. Does h.265 employ some sort of temporal compression? Why does this happen?
>temporal compression
That sounds like the dumbest possible thing for anyone that gives a shit about quality.
And your filesizes shouldn't be 1/3 to 1/2 as small. Are you sure you aren't just choking the bitrate?
>>54756600
I'm using constant quality 20 with h.265. Chinese cartoons are 1/3 h.264 size. Cartoons are smaller sized than film with h.264 so it's not much of a surprise. I assume both h.264 and h.265 have some sort of spacial compression. The source for both encodes is direct DVD rips.
>>54756558
>re encoding many of my DVDs
>DVDd
No no no, DVD is far too low quality a source even to watch nevermind to reencode from. 720x480 (or x576 for PAL), MPEG2? Ouch!
>to MPEG4 using h.265
You mean to HEVC. Targeting MPEG4 would mean you're using h264 (AVC).
Anyway to actually answer your question, yes, HEVC does cause this kind of thing. It's not temporal compression exactly (at least not any more than any codec uses)- it's simply that small/"low-detail" areas are allocated fewer bits.
I would not suggest using HEVC yet. It will be a good option in another year or two when encoders have gotten better. Until then I would stick with h.264 and just buy more/larger HDDs. Keep your source materials, of course.
>>54758880
>DVD is far too low quality a source even to watch nevermind to reencode from. 720x480 (or x576 for PAL), MPEG2? Ouch!
What if DVD is the only source?
>>54756558
>dvds
>to mpeg4
>using h.265
what?
mpeg4 is a fucking codec, and so is h265
which one did you use, dumbshit
yes it fucking compresses shit, how would it get smaller?
>>54756558
>>54759837
Good contribution
>>54758918
He's just memeing, dvd is fine. Better quality than the "hd" offered by streaming services like netflix, amazon or hulu ect.
>>54756558
>h.265
Everyone laugh at this guy, he fell for the meme.
>>54758918
That's certainly different, but I find it unlikely that you/OP has an extensive collection of media that has never been released in a higher quality format. Possible, just not likely.
