#REMUX VS HVEC 10BIT HOW TO#
#REMUX VS HVEC 10BIT UPDATE#
#REMUX VS HVEC 10BIT CODE#

Still looking for an solution without needing to disable thumbnails. So do I tolerate File Managers sluggish-ness with x265/hevc or 10bit/hi10p files so I can have thumbs everywhere else or do I disable thumbs for everything? I actually found it in File Explorer Options under View tab: check box next to 'Always show icons, never thumbnails'.

#REMUX VS HVEC 10BIT HOW TO#

I followed the link gave but it was not clear how to turn off the thumbnail image creation process.

#REMUX VS HVEC 10BIT UPDATE#

If this is the case, Microsoft needs to do an update on the codeīecause there are going to be a lot more x265/hevc and 10bit/hi10p now that 4k/UHD is taking off.ĭoesn't matter if I have one x265/hevc or 10bit/hi10p file in a directory or hundreds or mixed with x264, still get the issue.

#REMUX VS HVEC 10BIT CODE#

Me think that whatever code Microsoft uses to grab a snapshot/title out of the video file when you display a video directory, it doesn't know how to find it in an x265/hevc or 10bit/hi10p file. This makes some sense because if the video is not x265/hevc or 10bit/hi10p, I do get thumbnail images. Did that and it didn't make a mentioned it may be trying to create icon thumbnails (not the generic ones, like the VLC cone, but an actual picture like an album cover title). When googled for similar situation, someone said to update VLC. It's not that you won't see it at all in x265, it's that it will be much worse in x264, even unacceptably so, where x2165 might be perfectly usable at the same bitrate.Directories with HEVC/x265 or Hi10p/10bit video sluggish At some point, x264 should have much more visible PQ loss then x265. Take your x264 bitrate, and reduce it by say, 30%, and encode with x265 at the same rate and see what what it looks like then. So the way that you actually test this is in fact the flip of what you were doing. If you have the same source, and sufficient bitrate for different compression types, the older one will probably look better, because it's not discarding as much. But of course we don't do that because lossless would be gigantic. The easy way to remember this for me: what is the absolute best picture quality you will get? The logical end point of the example is: lossless. In fact, if you are after better picture quality, mpeg-2 would be better looking then h.264, but the catch is only _if you have sufficient bitrate_. But at the end of the day, you are still discarding information. Newer compressions (h.265 vs h.264) have more tricks to mask the this loss. Consider that modern compressions of this sort are lossy schemes, that is, they work by discarding more and more of the image with the goal that you won't be able to notice. In fact, and this is somewhat non-intuitive at first, if you have sufficient bitrate, generally older should be better as far as picture quality is concerned. Newer is generally better at not showing picture quality degradation as you constrain the bitrate, i.e force smaller files. The way higher and higher compression works is more nuanced then 'newer is better'. Second, your understanding is based in an incorrect and incomplete understanding of the compression. Do you have a 10-bit capable display? Because if you don't, 10-bit potentially will look worse.

You also have a lot of factors when you start talking 8-bit vs 10-bit. First up, for your encodes, did you have 10-bit sources? If you didn't have 10bit sources, there's no point doing a 10bit encode, you'd have 2 extra bits allocated for precision you don't have.

Remux vs hvec 10bit