The decision Beamr Video makes are "smarter" than x264's CRF mode, since they are based on a perceptual quality measure we have developed. This quality measure is similar to the one used in JPEGmini, our image optimization technology, and has been proven (in standard ITU BT.500 testing) to have higher correlation with subjective results than other quality measures such as SSIM.
I'm no expert on this matter, so apologies if this is a dumb question, but: has the perceptual quality measure used in CRF been subject to the same ITU BT.500 testing?
If it hasn't, then I'm afraid your case remains unproven.
If that is so, show examples of video files which prove it! Show us some uncompressed video files which compress both smaller and with better quality using Beamr (as compared to x264's CRF mode).
Being generous - It sounds like beamr has a tool that can choose, for a given input video, which minimum crf option will provide a 'transparent' transcode.
