A quick video transcoding test. Let me know which you can/can’t see and which looks better. 🐶🐾🫡 (for geeks, it’s h264, h265, av1 in order)

https://v.nostr.build/OqDG.mp4

https://v.nostr.build/eWBm.mp4

https://v.nostr.build/ajPr.mp4

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

1 & 2 work, 3 not (apple/damus)

Same as Ralf

Thank you! 🐶🐾🫂💜

can’t see av1 on Damus

the rest look great, 2nd one better

Same. h265 almost always looks better imo.

Thank you! 🐶🐾🫂

1 and 3 work, 2 dose not. I'm using Linux / Firefox

Firefox winning again.

It’s likely the profile and bit depth I am using. I need to tune it down a bit 🐶🐾🫂

av1, cannot see h265 on Firefox, h264

Linux? I guess you’ll need to install non-free codecs and 1 should actually work, but I may need to reduce the base profile to allow wider support 🐶🐾🫂

Firefox on Windows but I guess doesn't support that v: only Edge/Chrome type browsers.

Ah, got it. Firefox and h265 don’t like each other 🐶🐾😭

All work on amethyst, #2 best

H265 FTW for you! 🐶🐾🫂🤣💜

Can only see #1

iOS damus

Two will load on Damus if you go between the videos, 3 will not work 🐶🐾🫂💜

On amethyst 1 best then 2 , 3 janky .

Thanks! 🐶🐾🫂💜

1 & 2 work, 3 doesn’t (Damus). I can’t really see much difference in quality on my phone screen.

Thanks! It’s hard to spot on a small phone screen but 2 generally has a higher bitrate at a smaller size 🐶🐾🫂

Looks like h265 is the killer one

It has more data and should look more clinical, but more people would sway toward h264 for its filmic look. But I know exactly what you mean! 🐶🐾🫂💜

Yeap, I image exactly this, it's heavier isn't it?

H265 is heavier on encoding and decoding side, but smaller file. H264 is the other way around. 🐶🐾🫡

I had a computer graphics company 10 y ago. I used a lot h264 to approve animations...

All three auto play for me on Amethyst. 1 doesn't play smoothly. 2 and 3 are beautiful.

1 and 2 play. 3 doesn’t. Damus on iOS. Something about #1 looks better but I can’t quite figure out why.

I know exactly what you mean! H264 (first video) seems to be more filmic (intentional) and second one (H265) is more clinical. There are ways to make h265 look more filmic but probably not worth the trouble 🐶🐾🫂💜

Damus 1 & 2 play, both look amazing, can’t tell a difference

3 doesn’t play at all

Excellent! Thanks! 🐶🐾🫂

On amythyst, 3 doesn't load. 1 and 2 load but I had a tiny amount of tearing on 1. 2 looks slightly slightly better but if you told they were the same I wouldn't call you a liar.

Correction... 3 loads now after I commented. 3 is crisper looking than 1 or 2

What if I give it as a single link, I wonder 🐶🐾🤔

https://v.nostr.build/ajPr.mp4

1 and 2 about the same. (Great).

3 nothing.

(Damus/iOS)

On Firefox Mobile I see only h264. In Amethyst I see all 3, but av1 does not work well on my smartphone.

Thanks, that’s expected for AV1. Thanks for the reply 🐶🐾🫂💜

H265 for the way it smooths its blocks and banding (esp the clocktower shot w/the moon moving behind it). Fast areas of the waterfall shots also highlight H264's sharper blockiness making for an uglier presentation whereas H265's smoothening calls less attention to itself in high motion, hard to encode areas.

But all three have some really bad judder(?), esp the very last clip. Watching the water is painful. 25fps mismatch w/source to blame? Are all the sources 24fps? Mix of 24 and 29.97fps?

My M1 Pro should be able to do smooth decoding, though the browser embed might mess with that.

Spot on about the frame rate, it was a collection of random clips from Pixabay and I didn’t spend time to add motion blur where I should have 🐶🐾🫡

Can see all 3, 1&2 look good but 3 is very choppy