Presets pointless with lossless?

I want to compress lossless so I use this: Code:

All lossless encodes have the exact same quality, i.e. they are truly lossless. The difference is indeed the file size.

Lossless is lossless. So quality-wise the preset cannot make a difference - obviously ;) However this doesn't mean that using a slower preset cannot improve the compression efficiency, even with lossless mode. Indeed, this means you could get a smaller file size by using a slower preset... (Though the "placebo" preset, as the name implies, may not be worth the extra encoding time, compared to "veryslow") [edit] sneaker_ger was faster :p [/edit]

If you're capturing in lossless, you can ignore what he said. He was suggesting that if you had compressed video, such as MPEG2, that the lossless output from x264 would almost certainly be larger. The remuxing would be taking this existing video and putting it into the container you want, e.g. MPEG TS into Matroska. x264 uses all cores by default, including hyper-threading. You are probably limited by the speed at which you can read or write from disk or decode and process the video.

--demuxer lavf doesn't require indexing.

60fps? 

thanks for the info. Code:

Barring the presence of any bugs, yes, the output fps will match the source fps.

So what? It was an example. I don't care what problems you have with BS, strike that, TS. Nor does this guy it would seem. But I will remember to not use this particular example again!