Transmuxing vs. Transcoding: Essential techniques for optimizing video streaming

As global demand for high-quality, flexible video streaming continues to grow, expected to reach $606.77 billion by 2032, the need to understand and apply transmuxing and transcoding effectively is critical. These two processes may seem similar, but they have distinct roles within video streaming workflows. Transmuxing is focused on reformatting containers without changing underlying data, while transcoding re-encodes content to adjust bitrate, resolution, or codec, enabling more adaptable playback experiences.

In this blog, we’ll explore transmuxing and transcoding, highlighting specific use cases, relevant performance metrics, practical applications, and industry data to help guide your choices.

‍

Understanding transmuxing in video streaming

Transmuxing, or transformation of multiplexing, changes a video’s container format without modifying the underlying audio and video codecs. Containers, such as MP4, MKV, or HLS, act as wrappers around the media streams.
Transmuxing simply shifts content into a new container, making it a fast, low-resource solution when no quality loss or additional encoding is required. This approach is particularly useful for live streaming where low latency and real-time delivery are crucial.

‍

‍

Real-world example: Low-latency live streaming

In live streaming, latency reduction directly impacts viewer retention. Studies show that viewers start to abandon a video if it takes more than 2 seconds to start up, with each incremental delay of 1 second resulting in a 5.8% increase in the abandonment rate. Transmuxing is perfect for live events as it repackages video without re-encoding, making the stream instantly adaptable to protocols like HLS or DASH. For instance, if your live feed is encoded in a compatible format, transmuxing allows it to be repackaged into an HLS stream for Apple TV devices within milliseconds.

Transmuxing metrics and performance indicators:

• Latency: Less than 500 milliseconds added, critical for real-time applications.
• Resource usage: Low CPU/GPU and memory requirements, typically reducing infrastructure costs by up to 50% compared to transcoding.
• Format compatibility: Enables playback on multiple devices without compromising the original content quality.

‍

Example: Transmuxing with FFmpeg

To repack an MP4 video into HLS format without changing codecs, use the following FFmpeg command:

ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c copy -hls_time 6 -hls_list_size 0 -f hls output.m3u8

‍

Key parameters:

1. -c copy: Copies the video and audio codecs without re-encoding.
2. -hls_time 6: Breaks the video into 6-second segments for HLS.
3. -f hls: Specifies HLS output format for efficient adaptive streaming.

‍

Pros and cons of transmuxing

Pros

• Speed: Achieves near-instant format conversion, essential for live-streaming applications.
• Resource efficiency: Minimal CPU and memory requirements reduce operational costs.
• Quality assurance: Maintains original quality, suitable for content that’s pre-encoded in high-resolution formats.

Cons

Codec limitations: Since codecs are not altered, transmuxing doesn’t address compatibility issues for unsupported codecs on specific devices.
‍

Transcoding in video streaming

Transcoding, on the other hand, involves re-encoding video and audio data to a different codec, bitrate, or resolution. This process is vital for delivering content across a broad range of devices and adapting to diverse network conditions. Transcoding is essential for adaptive bitrate (ABR) streaming, which dynamically adjusts video quality based on network conditions to ensure seamless playback.

‍

Industry use case: Adaptive bitrate streaming (ABR)

ABR streaming has become an industry standard due to its impact on user experience 78% of viewers abandon videos that buffer frequently. In ABR, multiple versions of the same video are encoded at different bitrates and resolutions (e.g., 1080p, 720p, 480p). The player dynamically selects the optimal stream based on network and device conditions, helping reduce buffering and enhance viewer satisfaction. For example, Netflix encodes popular shows in five to eight different bitrates for ABR streaming, allowing users to switch seamlessly depending on their bandwidth.

‍

Transcoding metrics and key performance indicators

• Bitrate flexibility: Transcoded streams range from 144p to 4K to accommodate various network speeds and device capabilities.
• Latency impact: Re-encoding can add 2-5 seconds of delay, particularly for high-resolution outputs.
• Resource cost: Significantly higher CPU and GPU usage compared to transmuxing, requiring up to 10 times more processing power for HD and 4K streams.
• Quality trade-offs: Compression may impact quality, but settings like Constant rate factor (CRF) help balance quality with file size, particularly for ABR streaming.

‍

Example: Transcoding with FFmpeg

To convert a 4K HEVC video to Full HD H.264 for broad compatibility, you can use:

ffmpeg -i input_4k_hevc.mp4 -c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 23 -c:a aac -b:a 128k -vf "scale=1920:1080" -b:v 5000k output_1080p_h264.mp4

‍

Parameters:

1. -c:v libx264: Sets the video codec to H.264, supported on most devices.
2. -crf 23: Controls quality, with **lower values producing higher quality**.
3. -vf "scale=1920:1080": Resizes video to Full HD, suitable for network-limited scenarios.
4. -b:v 5000k: Targets a bitrate suitable for Full HD, balancing quality with streaming efficiency.

‍

Pros and cons of transcoding

Pros

• Device compatibility: Increases the video’s accessibility across a wide array of devices and platforms.
• Quality customization: Allows you to tailor quality and resolution to suit storage or streaming requirements.
• Adaptive streaming: Supports ABR for smoother playback on fluctuating networks, reducing buffering.

Cons

• Higher costs: Transcoding demands high computational resources, increasing cloud or server expenses by up to 300% in some cases.
• Potential quality loss: Re-encoding inherently reduces quality unless managed with careful parameter tuning.

‍

Transmuxing vs. Transcoding: At-a-glance comparison

Decision guide: When to use transmuxing vs transcoding

Choose transmuxing when:

• You need a quick way to adapt to new protocols or containers.
• The original codecs are compatible with the target playback devices.
• Latency and cost are primary concerns (e.g., live streaming sports, news).

Choose transcoding when:

• Compatibility across devices with different codec support is essential.
• You’re creating ABR streams for varying network speeds, especially for global audiences.
• Quality flexibility and optimization for different resolutions are needed (e.g., premium VoD services).

‍

Advanced tools for transmuxing and transcoding

1. FFmpeg: Open-source tool for diverse codecs and formats, supporting both transmuxing and transcoding.
2. GPAC (MP4Box): Efficient for CMAF and MP4 transmuxing, optimized for protocol adaptation in CMAF workflows.
3. GStreamer: Modular framework that handles both complex transmuxing and transcoding workflows.
4. FastPix: API service for transcoding and transmuxing, supporting adaptive streaming for HLS and DASH.

‍

Performance considerations for effective streaming

When integrating transmuxing or transcoding, consider:

• Cost and resources: Transcoding is resource-heavy, potentially increasing expenses by up to 10 times depending on stream resolution.
• Latency requirements: For real-time content, transmuxing offers low latency, while transcoding may introduce delays, especially with HD+ content.
• Audience reach: Transcoding is essential for high-quality ABR streams, accommodating viewers on networks from 1 Mbps to over 100 Mbps.

‍

Integration with FastPix API

FastPix provides both transcoding and transmuxing for the user, so that the user doesn’t need to worry about the complication’s underneath. The user can upload a media file by URL or from the device. The playback ID is provided in response for the user to stream the media content.

The output provided by FastPix is in the CMAF format which helps in reducing storage, easy DRM integration and provide low latency streaming for most of the devices.

The media is transcoded and transmuxed to support ABR streaming and adapt to the desired protocol. This helps in smooth streaming in any network condition. Integrating with FastPix is easy and one of the examples of how to create a media from URL for on-demand streaming is mentioned below:

API request example:

1POST https://v1.fastpix.io/on-demand 
2{
3  "inputs": [
4    {
5      "type": "video",
6      "url": "https://static.fastpix.io/sample.mp4"
7    }
8  ],
9  "metadata": {
10    "key1": "value1"
11  },
12  "accessPolicy": "public",
13  "maxResolution": "1080p"
14}
15

‍

API response example:

1{
2  "success": true,
3  "data": {
4    "id": "2104b7a9-549e-4c8e-a0db-efe48433db83",
5    "trial": false,
6    "status": "created",
7    "createdAt": "2024-10-30T07:00:42.089421Z",
8    "updatedAt": "2024-10-30T07:00:42.089425Z",
9    "playbackIds": [
10      {
11        "id": "06345401-5654-4136-b3bf-a832cbae72cc",
12        "accessPolicy": "public"
13      }
14    ],
15    "metadata": {
16      "key1": "value1"
17    },
18    "maxResolution": "1080p"
19  }
20}
21

‍

As we can see in the above response example the playback ID can be used for streaming the on-demand content using the URL stream.fastpix.io/{playbackID}.m3u8.

‍

Final thoughts

Transmuxing provides fast, efficient protocol adaptation, ideal for real-time streaming. Transcoding, on the other hand, enables high adaptability, essential for ABR streaming and device compatibility. As video continues to dominate online content, implementing these techniques effectively will boost streaming quality, reduce costs, and improve viewer satisfaction.

To find out how video is made easy with our APIs, create your free account and sign up today!