What CPU, with which version of Intel graphics? I wonder whether not all QSV AVC rendering is the same (Wikipedia). (Wild speculation: Maybe even Intel chipset driver version is involved)

@Cornico - next time use high profile.

Look at your first screen 👇 (Profile: "main" -> should be "high")

What did you decide is best for encoding?

Also what cpu do you have

thanks

"Also what cpu do you have"

Cornico is one of the courteous individuals who shows information in his profile.

Thankyou John.

Cornico, were the birates the same for the outputed files?

Not sure why your QSV file is so low quality. You may have a faulty cpu or drivers.

According to Cornico's profile he has an i7-7700 and an i7-7700HQ which are Kaby Lake and have Intel HD Graphics 630. My point was that QSV on these CPUs might be different from QSV on other Intel CPUs, so it's worth bearing this info in mind in the analysis.

@Cornico If you share a sample I can see what QSV on my old laptop (with a much lower/older CPU) does with it.

He might have a faulty cpu. Maybe overheating and throttling the performance of the CPU. I think QSV is real time transcoder, if it throttles would not slow down performance but reduce the quality. I use intel QSV for screen capturing. Normally use intel HEVC, but when I used to export to my older laptop I'd encode in Intel h.264. Quality seemed identical to what i was capturing, although i did not 'pixel peep' (as the camera guys say) I would have noticed quality as bad as cornico's defective cpu.

This is the setting in Bandicam. As said. it shows HEVC as that's what I use now, but dialog and settings are same for h.264

@Cornico do a test between your pc vs laptop . same settings(use only qsv magix 1080p).i think pc wins,but at what difference ? i wanna know.

and i have a laptop with 4710 hq ,i use qsv magix ,it renders really fast.and also looking for buying desktop with 8700k ,will post results of that also.

Interesting. still looks terrible.

Can you upload that source clip, if long use software to clip first few hundred frames. If you don't have the software to do that do a very high quality software encode.

thankyou

I confirm your findings. QSV is worse, NVENC is also pretty bad both on high quality and default, and software encode mainconcept is by far the best quality. Only the software encode gives the quality one would release if they valued their work.

NVENC if for example you need to do hours of encoding a day or need to get something up onto the internet as fast as possible. Maybe low quality NVENC is good enough for low quality youtube but it's been tradition that you throw highest quality encode possible at it especially now that YT are encoding even everything in VP9 including 360p & 480p which gives higher qualiy

It's also possible to notice the quality purely based on the VBR output of the file sizes. It equates to the amount of detail in the end result. The following is for a 2.5second encode. I only did short duration as I originally was going to upload a frame of each, but it really isnt necessary, I don't disagree with Cornico's finding.

Intel QSV:6.22MB (20.3mb/s)

NVENC 6.96MB (22.5mb/s)

MainConcept AVC (software) 10.3MB (33.3mb/s)

Just don't use hardware encoding. It's low quality. At first I thought it was about efficiency. They were not efficient but give them enough bitrate and they'll look as good as a software encode. This didn't turn out to be true. Not even at 100mbit.for 1080p50

Hardware encoding should not be used by anyone that respects what they produce. Reducing bitrate of a substandard 'codec' just produces an even poorer encode. It's not a winnable situation.

You have an I7 apparently running at 4.2ghz per core. Why not use it instead of low quality hardware encoding.

I won't standby and allow you to ruin your encodes. I can't allow it.

I have 12 combinations available here on my laptop, which has Intel HD 4400 graphics, with the same standard template: 2 decoders (compoundplug.dll or so4compoundplug.dll) x 3 GPU (Intel or AMD or none) x 2 encoders (MainConcept or QSV). Having rendered to most of them, including QSV, it seems the result of every combination is slightly different, but they're all acceptable, and none are anything like as poor as Cornico's QSV screenshot.

(Side note: Personally I will continue with the safer and higher quality route of leaving GPU acceleration of video processing set to none, and rendering externally with x264.)

I have 12 combinations available here on my laptop, which has , with the same standard template: 2 decoders (compoundplug.dll or so4compoundplug.dll) x 3 GPU (Intel or AMD or none) x 2 encoders (MainConcept or QSV). Having rendered to most of them, including QSV, it seems the result of every combination is slightly different, but they're all acceptable, and none are anything like as poor as Cornico's QSV screenshot.

(Side note: Personally I will continue with the safer and higher quality route of leaving GPU acceleration of video processing set to none, and rendering externally with x264.)

I was concentrating only on the far right bottom corner where there was that long grass moving in wind slighly and in shade/dark. with QSV it did poorly, like Cornico's except not as bad but it was the same Compression artifact. Seeming low fps? and no detail, it only slightly improved with turning quality to 7(highest quality). The problem with Nvidea hardware on default and high quality setting was with very obvious noise from frame to frame and less detail than software encode.

It is interesting. Traditionally with other software Nvidia encodes were the worse.

My poor screenshot comes from a customized template, The same settings for the NVENC gave better result. Did you also try this customized template?

Oops, I missed that in your first post, but I've done it now. Here's a zip of the QSV render with Intel HD 4400 graphics, and the MAGIX AVC MainConcept mode render for comparison: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oGjhFQCchtPXnlgMMj7ICjpIw3FedRev/view?usp=sharing

The QSV has a nasty "pulsing" thing happening and is basically unusable. Its average bitrate is low at 10.3 Mb/s, whereas the MainConcept came out at 14.4 Mb/s.

Realmedia used to do a an unusual thing whereby they would lower the fps in regions in the periphery, and I think INTEL QSV must be doing similar. Or it appears to. The grass in lower right hand corner seems to be at a lower fps as well as lack of detail. Good for compression if you don't care about the grass, but I don't think the encoder should be making that decision.

I have 12 combinations available here on my laptop, which has Intel HD 4400 graphics, with the same standard template: 2 decoders (compoundplug.dll or so4compoundplug.dll) x 3 GPU (Intel or AMD or none) x 2 encoders (MainConcept or QSV). Having rendered to most of them, including QSV, it seems the result of every combination is slightly different, but they're all acceptable, and none are anything like as poor as Cornico's QSV screenshot.

(Side note: Personally I will continue with the safer and higher quality route of leaving GPU acceleration of video processing set to none, and rendering externally with x264.)

you are awesome,please tell me with that 12 combinations (considering) which is good for me-

amd 8 core chip with Nvidia - render with nvenc (cant render with qsv )

or intel 6 core with nvidia - render with qsv/nvenc

p.s. quality doesnt matter,quantity matters.time should be saved.