Blackmagic Forum

Hello everyone,

does anybody know why my h265 export is choppy and with high frame dropping?
If I export the same footage in h264 they have a big banding effect.

I'm running DaVinci Resolve on a Windows machine with an RX6800 GPU. I've never encountered this issue before.

govind wrote:I'm running DaVinci Resolve on a Windows machine with an RX6800 GPU. I've never encountered this issue before.

On the chance it is video card acceleration related have you tried encoding using CPU? What are your exact export settings?

Thank you. How can I encode using CPU?
I will check later what are my exact expecting settings: do you want me to check any specific thing?

govind wrote:Thank you. How can I encode using CPU?
I will check later what are my exact expecting settings: do you want me to check any specific thing?

On my system (I use Nvidia, I guess it would be same for AMD) export offers to use Auto, GPU, or Native for encoder so I would switch to Native.

If that doesn't help I think you should share screenshot of all of your export settings.

4EvrYng wrote:

govind wrote:Thank you. How can I encode using CPU?
I will check later what are my exact expecting settings: do you want me to check any specific thing?

On my system (I use Nvidia, I guess it would be same for AMD) export offers to use Auto, GPU, or Native for encoder so I would switch to Native.

If that doesn't help I think you should share screenshot of all of your export settings.

I have "Auto" and "Native". I tried both of them and the problem is always the same.

Here are my export settings. What do you suggest? Thank you in advance.

Sadly H.264/5 export out of resolve is not stable and has been problematic for a long time.

The recommended practice is to export something that is supported, Prores (mac) or DNxHR and transcode to H.265 with a working tool like Handbrake.

ZRGARDNE wrote:Sadly H.264/5 export out of resolve is not stable and has been problematic for a long time.

The recommended practice is to export something that is supported, Prores (mac) or DNxHR and transcode to H.265 with a working tool like Handbrake.

Your answer makes me sad. Is that a problem only with the free version of DaVinci?

I accept your question but I don't accept the fact that after several years, this is the first time I have encountered this problem.

I don't see that problem here, but I second HandBrake as an alternative. Its x.265 encoder is really good.

Uli Plank wrote:I don't see that problem here, but I second HandBrake as an alternative. Its x.265 encoder is really good.

Ok. Now I'm trying it out. It seems the export time is double of the time. That's a problem
And another problem is that I will have to use handbrake... time time and time.

If I export gameplay this is enough:
QuickTime
Dnxhr
Dnxhr HQ

or Dnxhr 10 bit? or others?

I'd suggest DNxHR HQX 10 bit or Cineform YUV 10 bit. Those are the counterparts to ProRes 422 HQ, which we always use.
And, yes, x.265 is slow, since it's running on the CPU.

I you upload a short test sample to a cloud service, I can do a MacOS encoding out of DR for you and you can compare. If you do that, please send a screenshot of your settings for video in the deliver page too.

Uli Plank wrote:I'd suggest DNxHR HQX 10 bit or Cineform YUV 10 bit. Those are the counterparts to ProRes 422 HQ, which we always use.

Thank you. I exported in Dnxhr HQ and the issue was solved but the file was 63 GB big... the video is only 24 minutes long. I usually export 2 hours long gameplay ahahah Now I am re-encoding in h265 with handbrake, lets see how big it will be and how good.. The re-econding process with handbrake is also very slow.

I will try also DNxHR HQX 10 bit. I believe the file will be even bigger.

In HandBrake you have full control over size vs. quality, it's the RF value in the video tab.
16 is visually lossless and huge, while 22 or 23 is still quite good and much smaller.

Uli Plank wrote:I'd suggest DNxHR HQX 10 bit or Cineform YUV 10 bit. Those are the counterparts to ProRes 422 HQ, which we always use.
And, yes, x.265 is slow, since it's running on the CPU.

I you upload a short test sample to a cloud service, I can do a MacOS encoding out of DR for you and you can compare. If you do that, please send a screenshot of your settings for video in the deliver page too.

So:
either DNxHR HQX 10 bit nor Cineform YUV 10 bit is fine. Both are choppy and not usable...

The only good export was for me Dnxhr HQ. That's also strange. Why the exports of DNxHR HQX 10 bit and Cineform YUV 10 bit don't work?

Do you mean playback of those files or the result encoded to H.265?
If playback of those intermediate clips, which kind of storage are you playing from?

BTW, encoding to H.265 on my humble laptop takes about half of the running time, while also decoding and scaling from BRAW. There is no choppiness.

Uli Plank wrote:Do you mean playback of those files or the result encoded to H.265?

I mean the export of davinci in DNxHR HQX 10 bit and Cineform YUV 10 bit:)

what do you mean with "which kind of storage"? The storage is my PC storage..

Then your storage is too slow or something is massively wrong with your setup of DR.

govind wrote:Here are my export settings. What do you suggest?

For start I would make sure to not use one of presets, I would use 'custom export' and switch to QuickTime H.265 with network optimization enabled.

govind wrote:The only good export was for me Dnxhr HQ. That's also strange. Why the exports of DNxHR HQX 10 bit and Cineform YUV 10 bit don't work?

DNxHR HQ is 8-bit. If you are not having problem playing that but are having problem playing 10-bit it could be that your export doesn't get GPU accelerated when playing back. Install MediaInfo, use it to inspect your MOV export with it and tell us which bit depth and chroma subsampling it has. Also, which tool you are using to play it back when playback is choppy and what Task Manager says are CPU, GPU and disk utilization during playback.

4EvrYng wrote:

govind wrote:Here are my export settings. What do you suggest?

For start I would make sure to not use one of presets, I would use 'custom export' and switch to QuickTime H.265 with network optimization enabled.

govind wrote:The only good export was for me Dnxhr HQ. That's also strange. Why the exports of DNxHR HQX 10 bit and Cineform YUV 10 bit don't work?

DNxHR HQ is 8-bit. If you are not having problem playing that but are having problem playing 10-bit it could be that your export doesn't get GPU accelerated when playing back. Install MediaInfo, use it to inspect your MOV export with it and tell us which bit depth and chroma subsampling it has. Also, which tool you are using to play it back when playback is choppy and what Task Manager says are CPU, GPU and disk utilization during playback.

thank you. I checked the QuickTime h265 export and here are the requested measures:
bit depth: 8 bits
chroma subsampling: 4:2:0

I use VLC and task manager says:
CPU: 2-4%
GPU: 6%
Disk utilization: 6,2 gb

Please tell me if I answered your questions.

govind wrote:I checked the QuickTime h265 export and here are the requested measures:
bit depth: 8 bits
chroma subsampling: 4:2:0

I use VLC and task manager says:
CPU: 2-4%
GPU: 6%
Disk utilization: 6,2 gb

By disk utilization I meant percent of active time, average response time, and read speed.

8-bit 4:2:0 playback should be GPU accelerated and 6% indicates it likely is, you can know for sure by going into details on GPU tab of Task Manager. Are you still getting it choppy? If yes then something is off like Uli said so which software you are using to play it back and can you share exported clip so we can try it on different machines?

4EvrYng wrote:

govind wrote:I checked the QuickTime h265 export and here are the requested measures:
bit depth: 8 bits
chroma subsampling: 4:2:0

I use VLC and task manager says:
CPU: 2-4%
GPU: 6%
Disk utilization: 6,2 gb

By disk utilization I meant percent of active time, average response time, and read speed.

8-bit 4:2:0 playback should be GPU accelerated and 6% indicates it likely is, you can know for sure by going into details on GPU tab of Task Manager. Are you still getting it choppy? If yes then something is off like Uli said so which software you are using to play it back and can you share exported clip so we can try it on different machines?

Active time: 0%
average response time: 0-0,4 ms
read speed: 4 kbs - 200kbs

yes, it is always choppy. The numbers change following the choppiness..

I use VLC to play it back.
It is very complicated to send you the footage.
From all these numbers, what do you see? A problem or it seems everything all right?

govind wrote:

4EvrYng wrote:

govind wrote:I checked the QuickTime h265 export and here are the requested measures:
bit depth: 8 bits
chroma subsampling: 4:2:0

I use VLC and task manager says:
CPU: 2-4%
GPU: 6%
Disk utilization: 6,2 gb

By disk utilization I meant percent of active time, average response time, and read speed.

8-bit 4:2:0 playback should be GPU accelerated and 6% indicates it likely is, you can know for sure by going into details on GPU tab of Task Manager. Are you still getting it choppy? If yes then something is off like Uli said so which software you are using to play it back and can you share exported clip so we can try it on different machines?

Active time: 0%
average response time: 0-0,4 ms
read speed: 4 kbs - 200kbs

yes, it is always choppy. The numbers change following the choppiness..

I use VLC to play it back.
It is very complicated to send you the footage.
From all these numbers, what do you see? A problem or it seems everything all right?

From what you shared I don't see why you should be having choppy playback on this footage. We need to eliminate VLC out of the equation. Import your exported footage into new Resolve project and let us know is Resolve playing it back choppy too.

P.S. What are you using for your anti-virus software?

4EvrYng wrote:

4EvrYng wrote:

govind wrote:I checked the QuickTime h265 export and here are the requested measures:
bit depth: 8 bits
chroma subsampling: 4:2:0

I use VLC and task manager says:
CPU: 2-4%
GPU: 6%
Disk utilization: 6,2 gb

By disk utilization I meant percent of active time, average response time, and read speed.

8-bit 4:2:0 playback should be GPU accelerated and 6% indicates it likely is, you can know for sure by going into details on GPU tab of Task Manager. Are you still getting it choppy? If yes then something is off like Uli said so which software you are using to play it back and can you share exported clip so we can try it on different machines?

Active time: 0%
average response time: 0-0,4 ms
read speed: 4 kbs - 200kbs

yes, it is always choppy. The numbers change following the choppiness..

I use VLC to play it back.
It is very complicated to send you the footage.
From all these numbers, what do you see? A problem or it seems everything all right?

From what you shared I don't see why you should be having choppy playback on this footage. We need to eliminate VLC out of the equation. Import your exported footage into new Resolve project and let us know is Resolve playing it back choppy too.

P.S. What are you using for your anti-virus software?[/quote]

Also inside Davinci that video is choppy.
The funny thing is that I recorded my footage with the same camera and this video is made of 2 clips made with the camera: the first one works fine; the second one is fine in the section when I made it small on the left corner (you know, this gameplay style) and choppy in the section it is in normal size.

I use avast.

govind wrote:Also inside Davinci that video is choppy.

Then we will need an exported file you are having problem playing back in order to determine is it about your file or something about your system.

4EvrYng wrote:

govind wrote:Also inside Davinci that video is choppy.

Then we will need an exported file you are having problem playing back in order to determine is it about your file or something about your system.

ok, thank you. If I send you the video I will have to upload it directly in the chat?

govind wrote:

4EvrYng wrote:

govind wrote:Also inside Davinci that video is choppy.

Then we will need an exported file you are having problem playing back in order to determine is it about your file or something about your system.

ok, thank you. If I send you the video I will have to upload it directly in the chat?

Put it on something like Dropbox and share the link in this thread.

4EvrYng wrote:

4EvrYng wrote:

govind wrote:Also inside Davinci that video is choppy.

Then we will need an exported file you are having problem playing back in order to determine is it about your file or something about your system.

ok, thank you. If I send you the video I will have to upload it directly in the chat?

Put it on something like Dropbox and share the link in this thread.[/quote]

thank you. In the end, I decided not to send you any videos. I exported the video in Dnxhr HQ and I converted it with handbrake. The final result was not bad: thanks to Dnxhr HQ the final results converted with handbrake in h.265 had better resolution and smaller size than a normal h.265 created within DaVinci.

The problem is random. I will continue exporting in Dnxhr HQ and converting with handbrake if I reencounter the problem. Maybe I will use this method always because the h.265 file size in Davinci is very big.

govind wrote:What do you suggest?

The best RTX card from nVidia you can afford, with at least 12 GB of VRAM and the following Render Settings (adjusting only Resolution, Frame rate and Key Frames to suit your timeline).

Jim Simon wrote:

govind wrote:What do you suggest?

The best RTX card from nVidia you can afford, with at least 12 GB of VRAM and the following Render Settings (adjusting only Resolution, Frame rate and Key Frames to suit your timeline).

SDR Deliver.png

no way. I just spent 400 euros for the mid-high range rx6800 with 16gb. No one told me not to buy AMD. And for no one I mean Davinci and Blackmagic. Fortunately for you, I have the free version of DaVinci, if I had bought the studio version and then you all have told me to buy an Nvidia card, I would have my money for the studio version back. Nowhere is written that you need Nvidia to use properly davinci.
I'm tired of all these problems, I think I will go to Adobe. I prefer to spend a little bit more with stability.

govind wrote:Nowhere is written that you need Nvidia to use properly davinci.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that.

It's just that all I've ever used with Resolve is nVidia. I use the above Render Settings all the time, and the result is excellent!

I have read that AMD users can't always duplicate my settings.

So...I suggested nVidia as an option that I know works well.

Someone else might have done all the testing and come up with settings for AMD that work equally well. I don't know.

Jim Simon wrote:

govind wrote:What do you suggest?

The best RTX card from nVidia you can afford, with at least 12 GB of VRAM and the following Render Settings (adjusting only Resolution, Frame rate and Key Frames to suit your timeline).

SDR Deliver.png

12 frames GOP kills efficiency.
Make it at least 2 seconds, so 50 for 25fps. Then lookahead should also be at least 50.

Andrew Kolakowski wrote:12 frames GOP kills efficiency.

It's needed for quality.

Key Frames should always be half your FPS.

For quality ?
Long GOP is for quality, not short (specially for low bitrates). With short GOP like 12 frames you are going back to mpeg2 times.

And remember - there is no such a thing like "always".
Always is as relative as everything else
Only thing which short GOP helps is seeking, but today seeking is not a problem even with 250 frames GOPs.
You could also use it for very high bitrate (intermediate codecs level of bitrate), but then you may use I frames only as well.

govind wrote:In the end, I decided not to send you any videos. I exported the video in Dnxhr HQ and I converted it with handbrake. ... The problem is random. I will continue exporting in Dnxhr HQ and converting with handbrake if I reencounter the problem.

Then culprit of your problem will have to remain a mystery. At least you found a workaround.

govind wrote:

Jim Simon wrote:

govind wrote:What do you suggest?

The best RTX card from nVidia you can afford, with at least 12 GB of VRAM and the following Render Settings (adjusting only Resolution, Frame rate and Key Frames to suit your timeline).

SDR Deliver.png

no way. I just spent 400 euros for the mid-high range rx6800 with 16gb. ... Nowhere is written that you need Nvidia to use properly davinci. I'm tired of all these problems, I think I will go to Adobe. I prefer to spend a little bit more with stability.

To be honest, I don't have personal hands on experience with AMD and Adobe Premiere nor scientific data to say who is right but when I hear people complaining about being tired of instability and wanting to switch I have impression it is always AMD and Adobe users, not Nvidia and Resolve.

4EvrYng wrote:To be honest, I don't have personal hands on experience with AMD and Adobe Premiere nor scientific data to say who is right but when I hear people complaining about being tired of instability and wanting to switch I have impression it is always AMD and Adobe users, not Nvidia and Resolve.

Then why do you keep propagating this stuff? Its amazing how these things always get passed around from people with absolutely zero hands on experience with any of these products...Such a shame.

VMFXBV wrote:

4EvrYng wrote:To be honest, I don't have personal hands on experience with AMD and Adobe Premiere nor scientific data to say who is right but when I hear people complaining about being tired of instability and wanting to switch I have impression it is always AMD and Adobe users, not Nvidia and Resolve.

Then why do you keep propagating this stuff? Its amazing how these things always get passed around from people with absolutely zero hands on experience with any of these products...Such a shame.

Propagating _WHICH_ stuff? Me saying what is my perception of experiences others said they had?

No need to act so hurt and defensive like a teen fanboi would when someone says his impression brand X might not be the best just because that is the gear you own? Do you have anything to contribute to actual topic of this thread, which is why op has choppy export playback, instead of calling people trolls just because they expressed their opinion about AMD?

No? Figures cause I didn't see you jumping into this thread trying to help op, you jumped in only once comment about AMD was made.

4EvrYng wrote:

VMFXBV wrote:

4EvrYng wrote:To be honest, I don't have personal hands on experience with AMD and Adobe Premiere nor scientific data to say who is right but when I hear people complaining about being tired of instability and wanting to switch I have impression it is always AMD and Adobe users, not Nvidia and Resolve.

Then why do you keep propagating this stuff? Its amazing how these things always get passed around from people with absolutely zero hands on experience with any of these products...Such a shame.

Propagating _WHICH_ stuff? Me saying what is my perception of experiences others said they had?

No need to act so hurt and defensive like a teen fanboi would when someone says his impression brand X might not be the best just because that is the gear you own? Do you have anything to contribute to actual topic of this thread, which is why op has choppy export playback, instead of calling people trolls just because they expressed their opinion about AMD?

You keep repeating the same stuff. Let me quote you from another topic "Why do you even bother with AMD and the headaches?".

You come up with this like they're facts. You admitted you have no experience with any AMD GPUs but yet you keep giving advice to people they should switch or that AMD drivers are the problem and etc.

And this is the first time you said "I hear people". Maybe drop the hearsay and stuff on a forum thats meant to actually help people?

Also , teen fanboi, really? What are we here in a schoolyard? Maybe keep that tone to yourself.

VMFXBV wrote:You come up with this like they're facts. You admitted you have no experience with any AMD GPUs but yet you keep giving advice to people they should switch or that AMD drivers are the problem and etc.

And this is the first time you said "I hear people". Maybe drop the hearsay and stuff on a forum thats meant to actually help people?

Observing perceived number of threads by AMD owners where recommended action by BMD support was "there is a known issue with so-and-so version of AMD driver, roll back to ..." after which problem went away vs. same for Nvidia does not qualify as a "hearsay" no matter what you say.

VMFXBV wrote:Also , teen fanboi, really? What are we here in a schoolyard? Maybe keep that tone to yourself.

Yes, really, because you didn't pop your head into this thread with intent of helping op, you popped it only after I expressed non-flattering opinion of AMD. Also, it was YOU that called ME a troll in different thread after single negative opinion I expressed about AMD. And in that thread too you didn't pop your head and "contribute" to it until I expressed that opinion. So it seems it is you that needs to practice what you preach and keep such tone to yourself.

P.S. So are you going to contribute anything to actual topic of this thread?

4EvrYng wrote:
Observing perceived number of threads by AMD owners where recommended action by BMD support was "there is a known issue with so-and-so version of AMD driver, roll back to ..." after which problem went away vs. same for Nvidia does not qualify as a "hearsay" no matter what you say.

The very definition of hearsay. How many threads are AMD related and how many are Nvidia related on this forum? Care to guess which one has more driver issues? You'll find its not who you think it is.

And until you can come up with some proof that AMD is headache and Nvidia is full of flowers and honey from real reputable sources other than "I feel I saw it in a a few threads" you need to stop stating this as facts. That's all there is.

4EvrYng wrote:Yes, really, because you didn't pop your head into this thread with intent of helping op, you popped it only after I expressed non-flattering opinion of AMD. Also, it was YOU that called ME a troll in different thread after single negative opinion I expressed about AMD. And in that thread too you didn't pop your head and "contribute" to it until I expressed that opinion. So it seems it is you that needs to practice what you preach and keep such tone to yourself.

P.S. So are you going to contribute anything to actual topic of this thread?

I will pop my head everywhere where misleading statements are made. I am truly sick and tired of misleading statements stated as facts. It contributes nothing and stalls advancements and support for software.

And I didn't call you anything in any thread mate. Get your head and especially FACTS straight.

As for the current topic its clearly it has nothing to do with AMD since he doesn't even have the option to export with hardware accelerated AMD H265.

Also all that other junk I'm reporting to the mods as instructed.

VMFXBV wrote:And I didn't call you anything in any thread mate. Get your head and especially FACTS straight.

You didn't? What is this then?

VMFXBV wrote:Also all that other junk I'm reporting to the mods as instructed.

Like I said, you obviously seem overly sensitive getting hurt just because someone disagreed with you.

4EvrYng wrote:You didn't? What is this then?

Capture.PNG

Yeah its a statement to ignore the trolls among other sensible advice. Where did I call YOU a troll? Maybe learn how to read.

4EvrYng wrote:Like I said, you obviously seem overly sensitive getting hurt just because someone disagreed with you.

Neah I'm being sensitive to people using ad hominems. Also I really don't wanna get into arguments with random persons on the internet. I just report and move on.

VMFXBV wrote:

4EvrYng wrote:
Observing perceived number of threads by AMD owners where recommended action by BMD support was "there is a known issue with so-and-so version of AMD driver, roll back to ..." after which problem went away vs. same for Nvidia does not qualify as a "hearsay" no matter what you say.

The very definition of hearsay. How many threads are AMD related and how many are Nvidia related on this forum? Care to guess which one has more driver issues? You'll find its not who you think it is.

And until you can come up with some proof that AMD is headache and Nvidia is full of flowers and honey from real reputable sources other than "I feel I saw it in a a few threads" you need to stop stating this as facts. That's all there is.

4EvrYng wrote:Yes, really, because you didn't pop your head into this thread with intent of helping op, you popped it only after I expressed non-flattering opinion of AMD. Also, it was YOU that called ME a troll in different thread after single negative opinion I expressed about AMD. And in that thread too you didn't pop your head and "contribute" to it until I expressed that opinion. So it seems it is you that needs to practice what you preach and keep such tone to yourself.

P.S. So are you going to contribute anything to actual topic of this thread?

I will pop my head everywhere where misleading statements are made. I am truly sick and tired of misleading statements stated as facts. It contributes nothing and stalls advancements and support for software.

And I didn't call you anything in any thread mate. Get your head and especially FACTS straight.

As for the current topic its clearly it has nothing to do with AMD since he doesn't even have the option to export with hardware accelerated AMD H265.

Also all that other junk I'm reporting to the mods as instructed.

Besides your fight (I think you both have the right to fight, you both make a point, but I cannot choose a side). You are the first one who use AMD. What is exactly this option hardware accelerated h265 and why I don't have it even though I have a rx6800?

VMFXBV wrote:Yeah its a statement to ignore the trolls among other sensible advice. Where did I call YOU a troll? Maybe learn how to read.

You reply to Ellory Yu's reply to me by telling him to "ignore the trolls" and then claim you didn't call me a troll? Nice try of evading taking account for your words.

VMFXBV wrote:Also I really don't wanna get into arguments with random persons on the internet. I just report and move on.

In other words: _You_ start an argument with random person on the Internet but can't handle being called up on it, instead you try to hide behind "I don't want to get into arguments with random persons on the Internet, I just run straight to Mommy to complain"? Yeah, that's pretty much obvious. Others would call it "extremely oversensitive, can't handle taste of his own medicine".

govind wrote:

Besides your fight (I think you both have the right to fight, you both make a point, but I cannot choose a side). You are the first one who use AMD. What is exactly this option hardware accelerated h265 and why I don't have it even though I have a rx6800?

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

4EvrYng wrote:

VMFXBV wrote:Yeah its a statement to ignore the trolls among other sensible advice. Where did I call YOU a troll? Maybe learn how to read.

You reply to Ellory Yu's reply to me by telling him to "ignore the trolls" and then claim you didn't call me a troll? Nice try of evading taking account for your words.

VMFXBV wrote:Also I really don't wanna get into arguments with random persons on the internet. I just report and move on.

In other words: _You_ start an argument with random person on the Internet but can't handle being called up on it, instead you try to hide behind "I don't want to get into arguments with random persons on the Internet, I just run straight to Mommy to complain"? Yeah, that's pretty much obvious. Others would call it "extremely oversensitive, can't handle taste of his own medicine".

This whole thing is you projecting. And I'm done replying to you. I have reported this and the other posts of yours. This behavior cannot be tolerated. Hope its not. "I just run straight to Mommy to complain"? How old are you?

VMFXBV wrote:As for the current topic its clearly it has nothing to do with AMD since he doesn't even have the option to export with hardware accelerated AMD H265.

He has RX6800. According to the AMD's specs RX 6800 has hardware accelerated encoding:

https://www.amd.com/en/products/graphic ... on-rx-6800

Are AMD's specs incorrect? Am I interpreting them incorrectly?

VMFXBV wrote:

govind wrote:

Besides your fight (I think you both have the right to fight, you both make a point, but I cannot choose a side). You are the first one who use AMD. What is exactly this option hardware accelerated h265 and why I don't have it even though I have a rx6800?

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.

govind wrote:

VMFXBV wrote:

govind wrote:

Besides your fight (I think you both have the right to fight, you both make a point, but I cannot choose a side). You are the first one who use AMD. What is exactly this option hardware accelerated h265 and why I don't have it even though I have a rx6800?

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.

Studio version has other good stuff in it besides hardware accelerated H265. I would buy it just because of that.

govind wrote:

VMFXBV wrote:

govind wrote:

Besides your fight (I think you both have the right to fight, you both make a point, but I cannot choose a side). You are the first one who use AMD. What is exactly this option hardware accelerated h265 and why I don't have it even though I have a rx6800?

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.

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

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