The h264_omx video quality results were significantly better than using with single pass h264_omx encoding.įfmpeg -i inputfile -c:v h264_omx -b:v 3000k -pass 1 -an -y -f mp4 /dev/null & ffmpeg -i inputfile -movflags +faststart -c:v h264_omx -b:v 3000k -pass 2 -c:a aac -b:a 256k -ac 2 -ar 48000 -y outputfilename.mp4 The best combination of encoding speed and video quality was obtained by using h264_omx with 2 pass encoding. Using 2 pass encoding with -b:v 16000k and h264_omx produced very watchable high quality video quality. This is too long to be useful and was aborted well before completion. In another test that had a very high quality h.264 encoded input file (1920x1080) with an original bit rate around 16 MB the libx264 encoder was encoding at around 7% of original speed with -crf 20 meaning that a 1 hour encode would take 14+ hours ! The libx264 encoding time was however more than double that of h264_omx The libx264 encoder produced better video quality than h264_omx even though the output file sizes were similar. If you require the absolutely highest possible video encoding quality in a reasonable time frame, then it is recommended to use Handbrake or ffmpeg running on Linux with an recent i7 processor.įor most user cases though, 2 pass encoding with h264_omx will produce good quality video as long as you don't need to resize the video.
The h264_omx video quality results were significantly better than using with single pass h264_omx encoding.įfmpeg -i inputfile -c:v h264_omx -b:v 3000k -pass 1 -an -y -f mp4 /dev/null & ffmpeg -i inputfile -movflags +faststart -c:v h264_omx -b:v 3000k -pass 2 -c:a aac -b:a 256k -ac 2 -ar 48000 -y outputfilename.mp4Īdjust the video bit rate -b:v 3000k and audio bit rate -b:a 256k to taste.Ģ pass encoding with h264_omx was found to be significantly faster than 1 pass encoding with libx264Īs long as you have the time and patience, and your CPU doesn't overheat, then libx264 does produce superior results to h264_omx
0 kommentar(er)
