H.265 choppy export

Most likely because its a Studio feature? I had it when I was using a 6800XT. It came up as AMD in the settings.

after the terror against AMD, and I am an AMD owner, I am scared to buy the studio version.

Your options are:

1. Find version of AMD drivers recommended by BMD as stable that is working for you. After that spend much less on Resolve Studio than Adobe ($300 for PERMANENT license vs. how much per year)

2. Research what kind of experience Adobe AMD users have, then get few months eval of Adobe and see what you really think, and after that make decision, but be ready it will be much more expensive.

Thank you. Amd users are very hard to find. But yes, your options are right.

The re-econding process with handbrake is also very slow.

Have you tried Shutter Encoder? I think it has support for GPU accelerated encoding.

I never heard about it. I am checking now and the website sees more professional than Handbrake. I will try it out for sure.

The re-econding process with handbrake is also very slow.

Have you tried Shutter Encoder? I think it has support for GPU accelerated encoding.

I never heard about it. I am checking now and the website sees more professional than Handbrake. I will try it out for sure.

I'm not qualified to speak on encoders but it is my understanding that while Handbrake is very powerful Shutter Encoder is very good too and nothing to sneeze at. It will be interesting to hear what you experienced.

Thank you. Amd users are very hard to find. But yes, your options are right.

Here's how it looks with Studio.

The re-econding process with
Have you tried Shutter Encoder? I think it has support for GPU accelerated encoding.

I never heard about it. I am checking now and the website sees more professional than Handbrake. I will try it out for sure.

I'm not qualified to speak on encoders but it is my understanding that while Handbrake is very powerful Shutter Encoder is very good too and nothing to sneeze at. It will be interesting to hear what you experienced.

I just tried. It was faster but the final quality with the same bitrates is lower in my opinion than handbrake. I will try better in the next days.

Thank you. Amd users are very hard to find. But yes, your options are right.

Here's how it looks with Studio.

Thank you

I just tried. It was faster but the final quality with the same bitrates is lower in my opinion than handbrake. I will try better in the next days.

It is my understanding that at identical bit rates CPU based encoders will almost always have better looking results than GPU based ones which is why those looking for highest quality go through Handbrake / ffmpeg. It makes sense that is the price you pay for speed part of which might be recovered by raising bit rate.

I just tried. It was faster but the final quality with the same bitrates is lower in my opinion than handbrake. I will try better in the next days.

It is my understanding that at identical bit rates CPU based encoders will almost always have better looking results than GPU based ones which is why those looking for highest quality go through Handbrake / ffmpeg. It makes sense that is the price you pay for speed part of which might be recovered by raising bit rate.

oh yes, Copilot just explained to me that the GPU encoding has generally less quality.. so lol what's the point in that ahah And it also said to me that also handbrake has the GPU encoding for intel or amd and was activated when I used it the other day. And still, the quality is better on handbrake than shutter encoder.

I just tried. It was faster but the final quality with the same bitrates is lower in my opinion than handbrake. I will try better in the next days.

It is my understanding that at identical bit rates CPU based encoders will almost always have better looking results than GPU based ones which is why those looking for highest quality go through Handbrake / ffmpeg. It makes sense that is the price you pay for speed part of which might be recovered by raising bit rate.

oh yes, Copilot just explained to me that the GPU encoding has generally less quality.. so lol what's the point in that ahah And it also said to me that also handbrake has the GPU encoding for intel or amd and was activated when I used it the other day. And still, the quality is better on handbrake than shutter encoder.

I didn't know Handbrake can do GPU accelerated encoding (as mentioned, I can't speak with authority about them as I don't use these tools, my exports are done with Nvidia GPU acceleration straight from Resolve and for what I do they are more than good enough). What's the point of using one vs. the other, CPU vs. GPU, Handbrake vs. something else? Point is in having options/flexibility. Every individual's needs are different, one finds out which one of options available works best for what they need, which also might change.

FYI: Both HandBrake and Shutter Encoder are just GUIs for ffmpeg. In HandBrake you can decide to use x.265 in software or hardware encoding as offered by the OS.

FYI: Both HandBrake and Shutter Encoder are just GUIs for ffmpeg. In HandBrake you can decide to use x.265 in software or hardware encoding as offered by the OS.

In that case is there any reason why op could feel file encoded by Handbrake looks better than one by Shutter Encoder if he used identical settings like he claims he did?

I would not be so sure he did, I didn't look over his shoulder

Shutter Encoder can be set to soft- or hardware encoding and can also use 2-pass with x.265. It will be documented in full detail in MediaInfo under Encoding settings. I get excellent quality if set to 2-pass and Max. Quality with hardware acceleration 'none' (it'll use.265). You also have full control over bitrates.

I would not be so sure he did, I didn't look over his shoulder

Makes sense, thank you

FYI: Both HandBrake and Shutter Encoder are just GUIs for ffmpeg. In HandBrake you can decide to use x.265 in software or hardware encoding as offered by the OS.

In that case is there any reason why op could feel file encoded by Handbrake looks better than one by Shutter Encoder if he used identical settings like he claims he did?

Our eyes and monitors can play tricks on us so there are various tools to objectively assess generation loss and other types of image quality loss vs the original "reference" file.

On MacOS, Apple provides a free command-line tool called AVQT. It is designed to measure perceptual quality loss, not just a technical parameter. It can be downloaded from the Apple Developer site but that requires you create a free developer account (click "Account" at top-right corner of this page: https://developer.apple.com/.)
WWDC21 talk on AVQT: https://developer.apple.com/wwdc21/10145
Youtube tutorial on AVQT:

You can also measure visual generation loss using a tool developed by NetFlix called VMAF (Video Multi-Method Assessment Fusion). Unlike AVQT, it is available on both Mac and Windows. VMAF is built into certain versions of ffmpeg. On Mac, ffmpeg-VMAF is available through the Homebrew package manager: https://brew.sh

On Windows, pre-built ffmpeg-VMAF binaries are available here: https://www.gyan.dev/ffmpeg/builds/

Our eyes and monitors can play tricks on us ...

Oh, I know ... and the minds too

... so there are various tools to objectively assess generation loss and other types of image quality loss vs the original "reference" file.

Thank you for sharing this, it is very valuable info