fast encoding video codec?

Question

can anybody compare popular video codecs by encoding speed? I understand that usually better compression requires more processing time, but it's also possible that some codecs still provide comparably good compression with fast encoding. any comparison links?

thanks for your help

[EDIT]: codecs can be compared by used algorithms, regardless of its particular implementation, hardware used or video source, something like big O for mathematical algorithms

Selffertilization

I would highly appreciate downvote reasoning – Selffertilization

probably down-voted because there doesn't seem to be a programming question here – Provincetown

Answer 1

When comparing VP8 and x264, VP8 also shows 5-25 times lower encoding speed with 20-30% lower quality at average. For example x264 High-Speed preset is faster and has higher quality than any of VP8 presets at average."

its tough to compare feature sets vs speed/quality.

see some quality comparison http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2012/

The following paragraph and image are from VP9 encoding/decoding performance vs. HEVC/H.264 by Ronald S. Bultje:

x264 is an incredibly well-optimized encoder, and many people still use it. It’s not that they don’t want better bitrate/quality ratios, but rather, they complain that when they try to switch, it turns out these new codecs have much slower encoders, and when you increase their speed settings (which lowers their quality), the gains go away. Let’s measure that! So, I picked a target bitrate of 4000kbps for each encoder, using otherwise the same settings as earlier, but instead of using the slow presets, I used variable-speed presets (x265/x264: –preset=placebo-ultrafast; libvpx: –cpu-used=0-7).

Smashed

While this link may answer the question, it is better to include the essential parts of the answer here and provide the link for reference. Link-only answers can become invalid if the linked page changes. - From Review – Gantz

thats why crux included in the answer part with pic. – Smashed

@RajeevTiwari You should always provide attribution to copy and pasted content and images. I edited your answer to provide a link to where you got some of it. – Acquiescence

Answer 2

This is one of those topics where Your Mileage May Vary widely. If I were in your position, I'd start off with a bit of research on Wikipedia, and then gather the tools to do some testing and benchmarking. The source video format will probably affect overall encoding speed, so you should test with video that you intend to use on the Production system.

Video encoding time can vary widely depending on the hardware used, and whether you used an accelerator card, and so on. It's difficult for us to make any hard and fast recommendations without explicit knowledge of your particular set up.

The only way to make decisions like this, is to test these things yourself. I've done the same thing when comparing Virtualisation tools. It's fun too!

Pigtail

not sure it's so fun :) actually I'm not interested in any particular hardware, codec implementation or video source. codecs can be compared by involved algorithms etc. – Selffertilization

Heh. I happen to love that kind of R&D. Perhaps I'm mad. – Responser

Answer 3

One thing is remarkable: x264 encodes way faster than x265!

I mean, double or triple as fast (compared to any x265 preset).

On small videos it won't matter too much. Transcoding/converting a 1h30 to 2h00 film though...

Things that speed up encoding, give good quality and result in a modest file size with x264, One Pass encoding:

• Preset: veryfast (seems to give best results speed-quality. Don't assume superfast or ultrafast are so much quicker - but they do result in a bigger file size).
• Tuning: film (fine grain) (possibly 'animation' for animation).
• Profile: high.
• Fast first pass (possibly, you can set it easily in e.g. avidemux)
• Encoding: crf 20 to 23 (22 being a very good in between)
• Picture size: I use 640x360 mostly. Not so much difference in quality with 1280x720, but an important difference in file size. HD 640x360 also plays very fluently on all kinds of devices and on tv. Call it a Half HD or a mini HD, whatever. Also, converting a film with that smaller resolution goes faster. You encounter all kinds of picture resolutions (where The Heck have they all come from?), but a larger or smaller standard HD seems ideal to me.
• Aspect (Display Aspect Ratio aka DAR): 16:9.
• fps: 25 (originally corresponding to European PAL. Read somewhere that it causes less of certain speed jumps within video that could influence the timings of subtitle files...).
• Motion estimation (subme): the default is 7, but setting it to 4 or 5 will speed up things and won't make much of a difference in quality.
• Keyframe interval aka gop (-g in ffmpeg): (0 or 25 to) 250 = the default, and this default really results in a much smaller video file. Counter effect is that you can't cut a video as precise on its key frames (you would need sth between gop 0 and 12 for that). Other, smaller counter effect are the bigger jumps you make with the backward and forward buttons in multimedia software, which is relative b.t.w.. 250 really is advised for the conversion of larger video files.
• Audio less important: aac, 96 to 128 kbps stereo = fine. I prefer the 44.1 khz frequency as it is 'lighter' than 48 khz, with as good as no quality difference.

On most of the computers I use, the mentioned settings result in a transcode speed, video+audio, of 25 minutes to 35 minutes for a 1h30 film. Between 30 and 40 for a 2h00 film (faster with a smaller resolution of the original).
File size 1h30 film: mostly between 250 and 450 Mb.
File size 2h00 film: mostly between 450 and 550 Mb.

Oops, this has become longer, again, than expected.
Wouldn't want to 'convert' my blabla ;-P

Still, maybe it inspires some.

Coper