That said, many other video editors make very good use of GPU hardware to dramatically increase their performance.$ ffmpeg -decoders -hide_banner | grep qsv But using it on a powerful i5 or i7 perhaps makes much less sense? If QSV lets you watch a 1080 video on your fanless netbook that’s great. My suspicion is QSV was an Intel feature designed to help their really low power processors such as you might find in a netbook, NAS, etc, deal with media encoding/decoding/transcoding as the CPU would otherwise fall on its face and fail. Is that a fair assessment? Does this also happen with nVidia hardware acceleration (h264_nvenc)? Is this because Quick Sync Video is producing a significantly higher quality result? Or is QSV just vastly inferior at encoding? Or are radically different settings needed for h264_qsv to get a similar file size to libx264? Or is this some software issue in the FFMpeg library or Shotcut? To my eyes with a few tests the QSV quality is similar to the CPU encoded file which is three times smaller.Īs it stands now this seems to make QSV support relatively useless in Shotcut as few want files three times bigger than they need to be for only a small improvement in performance. This is using the identical default settings for both (quality = 59%) with the latest version of Shotcut on Windows. But I do have a significant question.Īs others have reported in various threads my testing shows enabling QSV hardware encoding (h264_qsv) results in only about a 30% faster encode but the resulting file is typically at least three times bigger than using CPU encoding with libx264. I’ve tried most of the popular open source and free closed source (aka bait ware) video editors and Shotcut is my favorite so far. First off, I want to give massive kudos to everyone who made Shotcut what it is.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |