Yes, I use Interleave very often.
And a differences script:Code:v1 = WhateverSource().Subtitle("v1") v2 = WhateverSource().Subtitle("v2") Interleave(v1,v2)
Code:v1 = WhateverSource() v2 = WhateverSource() sub = v1.subtract(v2) substrong = sub.levels(112,1,144,0,255) StackVertical(StackHorizontal(v1.subtitle("v1"),v2.subtitle("v2")),StackHorizontal(sub.subtitle("Difference"),substrong.subtitle("Difference amplified")))
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 121 to 150 of 203
Thread
-
-
^^^^ ah yes, that's what I'm talking about
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
What do you mean? There is no reason why other people can't post encodes using decent settings. I can post proper encodes for the other encoders; I'm quite familiar with most of them. We are just doing this to make some observations and learn things right?
I'd like to see someone come in, claim MPEG2's superiority, and try to prove it, though. -
Yep, thx jagabo for posting the scripts. You're the actually one who taught me that method a few years ago.
I tend to use after effects for the difference amplified overlays now, because it's easier to swap layers quickly
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
I'd like to see someone come in, claim MPEG2's superiority, and try to prove it, though. -
Below is a link for encodes from some of the other encoders @2.5Mbps, 2pass VBR. Because of this type of content, you could use 1 keyframe for this entire sequence (depending on scenecut threshold), but efficiency gains quickly drop off, and "seekablilty" is greatly reduced. There is a crossover point when quality actually suffers as well. So for consistency, I set max keyframe interval at 300 when possible, which I think is a reasonable once per 10 sec interval. I used high quality settings for each, if anyone wants the complete settings or version numbers for any of the encoders, PM me and I can list them or post screenshots
Notes:
-Apple h.264 . Encoded with QTPro on a lossless .mov intermediate. I've already mentioned the color coefficents issue. There are controls for keyframe interval, but no fine controls for things like b-frames or reference frames for example. Most of this has to do with QT player limitations (e.g. things like >1bframes, b=pyramid, I8X8 will cause stuttering or black screen), so right off the bat, Apple h.264 is at a disadvantage
-DivX 7 (h.264) encoder doesn't have any adjustments or fine tuning like GOP size, short of desired filesize (and even that is approximate, I oversized it a bit, because you can't enter an exact bitrate). I used the GUI, so it's representative of what most people would get. As I mentioned in an earlier post, they trade off quality for ease of use and DivX compatibility certification. Right off the bat, it's at a disadvantage, because of the lack of custom settings. You can compare the difference with MCR (which has more control), since they are both based on Mainconcept's SDK.
-MCR is not like the bundled encoders that come with Vegas, Premiere Pro, Sorensen, TPMG, or other MC licenesed products. The bundled encoders are usually "dumbed down" with very few controls. MCR has quite a few settings and control, but short of the MC studio level encoders such as Cinevision. For example, it doesn't have lumimasking or AQ type functionality. (This test clip is a good illustration of what happens to encoders who don't have AQ).
-VC-1. Encoded with EE2. "Best" profile. Fricken slow.
-VP7. Encoded with vdub. Like h.264, VP7 has the potential to blur, especially when using default settings. Encoded with sharpness = 6 (of 7)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YEY476C4
Please discuss strengths/weaknesses and any curious observations & comments -
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
well so much for that plan, i just noticed that poison already did a pretty nice comparison test and i'm sure his encodes would be better than what i could do, downloading now, can't wait to see the results. -
I tried to compare Apple, DivX and MCR. On random frames I often couldn't decide which was best; the differences didn't seem to be very great. Preliminarily I'd say (for detail retention):
(teddy bear) DivX H.264 > MCR > Apple
(purty girlfriend) MCR > Apple > DivX
but I'll probably revise my opinion when I compare them properly again tomorrow, against the source, with screenshots. It's probably just me being tired. -
My lagarith clip with MPEG 2 encoding, HC and TMPGEnc Plus. ~3000 average, 8000 max (both encoders appear to have hit 6000 max), 23.976 fps (no pulldown). Not as good as h.264 but I was surprised they weren't even worse:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BP98CZEK -
I thought someone else was going to post x264?
Here is x264, with some comparison frame shots of each of the encoders and original of the FFV1 clip
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ETUSXRXK -
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
Here is a classic example, where an "objective" measure can fail.
PSNR 37.165
PSNR 38.152
Which do you think has better "quality"? It's always better to use a combination of methods to evaluate "quality", but at the end of the day, it's "your eyes" that provide the best measure IMO
EDIT: fixed correct screenshot -
Wait, did you label them right? Because the PSNR 38.152 one is clearly much more detailed...
-
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
Anyone can test this out for themselve: you can do some encodes use the --tune presets for x264 for ssim and psnr (they both use --no psy), and then do some with psy settings. Remember the psy effects are essentially adding noise, making the picture more detailed. This is a deviation from original, which means a lower Signal to Noise ratio, even though it may "look" better.
Excessively high psy settings can definitely make the picture's subjective perception worse, with excessive ringing and artifacts. Also some types of content are more adversely affected than others e.g. low bitrate scenarios and anime (where clean lines show the noise effects more prominently), and the "noise" requires extra bitrate, which can be counter productive in the low bitrate scenario. But proper use can dramatically improve the end user's subjective perceptions - again this depends on the specific scenario and type of content. -
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
-
Originally Posted by deadrats
My understanding is that the cuda enabled encoder quality is slightly better than badaboom, which is slightly better than spurs engine cards...which suggests still significantly worse than x264
If you look at these graphs below you can get a general idea of relative quality, since they were done on the same setup, same source. You can see some image quality shots of spurs engine here:
https://forum.videohelp.com/topic371906.html
-
Originally Posted by jagabo
Thx jagabo.
Anyone care to make any comments on HCenc vs. TPMG's encode?
Any guesses at to what approx. bitrate one of the MPEG2 encoder would require on this source to have similar "quality" to the x264 encode?
For completeness, here are encodes of jagabo's lagarith testclip using the other encoders: apple h.264, divx h.264, mcr
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=F3NYZ0JI -
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
Originally Posted by poisondeathray -
Ok, finally did some evaluations.
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
Apple H.264
Mainconcept Reference
VC-1
VP7
DivX H.264
x264
DivX and x264 are clearly ahead of the rest, with DivX slightly in the lead IMO. Both are detailed, but x264 is less true to the source (it has micro-shifting), probably due to psy-RDO. On the other hand, x264 has grain/detail everywhere while DivX has very faint blocking and is slightly more smoothed.
But when I compare one of the later frames (750):
x264
DivX H.264
DivX does a horrible job on this frame compared to x264. I'm thinking it's a difference in frametype and quantization.
In this comparison, from what I can tell, DivX preserved detail well up to a certain threshold, but once past it, everything got smoothed. x264 was more conservative in retaining detail, so it kept detail which DivX considered to be noise and smoothed away.
It's hard to tell exactly which one wins out overall, since frametypes and quantizations don't match. I'd like to know the SSIM figures, if they're available. Did you happen to calculate them, PDR? -
No sorry I didn't save the SSIM values.
It's important to look at the entire picture; I want to draw your attention specificially in the shadow details and backround details (I know you're busy looking at the girl , but try to look away for a moment), not so much in the "bear" sequence, but definitely in all the others. Flip between the screenshots, and compare with the original - it should be pretty obvious
This difference is almost all AQ. Almost all encoders (h.264 and otherwise) underallocate to dark scenes and shadow areas, leaving the details obscured. If you lower the AQ value or disable it , the allocation pattern of x264 becomes similar as the other encoders. I'll post some other dramatic examples to illustrate later -
This is a short AVCHD 1080i30 camcorder clip, yadif, lanczosresized 720x400, encoded at 1000kbps. You can find the original here for your own testing and learning: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9B84U1II
It's a good clip to illustrate what x264's AQ does. Now there is no model here to distract you . Pay attention to the shadow detail, and details in the water (and under the water). After examining this clip, go back to the FFV1 clip and re-examine that one. If you still can't see the differences clearly, I'll post cropped image to highlight some of the bigger differences.
Not to sound like a broken record, but again this is a single frame just to illlustrate a point, and you should be looking temporally at the whole clip, different frames, different quality measures, etc. etc....blah blah blah....you get the point. Note I only posted AME , but every encoder that doesn't have AQ like functions has similar results (I tested about 20 different ones)
Original
Adobe Media Encoder CS4 (based on MC)
x264 AQ=0
x264 AQ=0.5
x264 AQ=1.0
x264 AQ=1.5
-
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
This difference is almost all AQ. Almost all encoders (h.264 and otherwise) underallocate to dark scenes and shadow areas, leaving the details obscured. If you lower the AQ value or disable it , the allocation pattern of x264 becomes similar as the other encoders. I'll post some other dramatic examples to illustrate later -
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
Can you point out the AQ difference in the 2nd frame I compared? As far as I could tell, DivX was deblocking/smoothing significantly more than x264 was. Is that what you mean by the difference caused by AQ?
On the 1st sequence, the images are closer in quality between the h.264 encoders. I agree the Divx h.264 and x264 probably look the best, but the nose texture on the DivX encode is missing and that separates it for me
On the 2nd sequence, look at the detail differences in the shadows behind the water, and near the pioneer logo. Some of the encoders completely drop and smooth the detail. Again this is largely the effect of AQ
On the 3rd sequence, as you already pointed out, biggest differences are in the rock & leaves shadow detail. AQ again.
On the last sequence, where the girl has her hand on the palm tree. Look at the palm tree, compare the detail with the x264 encode vs. the others. Look at the leaves in the background, on some of the other encodes, entire leaves and textures are missing. Compare the sharpness of the details. This is largely due to AQ.
Play with different AQ settings when you do your x264 encodes, and you will learn how it affects different types of content. The general principle is illustrated in both the camcorder pond/tree example, and this FFV1 example. -
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
The microshifting of fine detail was completely absent in DivX's frame. Is it a result of x264's psy-RDO, or something else? Do you need me to clarify what shifting I'm talking about? (It resembles the shifting you get when you use HQDn3D...)
If I recall what I read about AQ correctly, it helped improve static image quality/detail (presumably at the expense of motion). Sound right to you? -
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
The new AQ in the recent builds have 3 different modes (as opposed to strength), 1,2,3. They all can redistribute between frames (interframe). Defintely work temporally, not just intraframe. Have a look at the park/pond video below, I included the AQ1.5 and the AME encode to compare. Compare the motion and smoothness temporally.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7FKI4R8A
The trade off or "side effects" of using AQ with (normal strengths) is quite minimal on most types of content . It can hurt smooth content like anime, and things like graphic titles, where edges get more ratty, and the "side effects" are more pronounced at low bitrate levels, much like psy side effects. But since it redistributes bits, you have to look at the whole frame , and other frames temporally as well (because the reallocated bits have come from somewhere) - ie. is the AQ strength so high that it degrades other frames or parts of the same frame? As usual , there is no 1 setting for every scenario and YMMV. -
Good stuff to mull over. I'll do the comparison of your pond encodes later today/tomorrow, because I'm on my small laptop at the moment.
I can sort of see that psy-rd may be responsible for both the "microshifting" and the grain, because the x264 encode certainly had more fine grain-detail than the slightly smoother DivX one. I can't help but think that a lower psy-rd value may have been better, since the fine grain would be unnoticeable in real playback.
All this aside, I think it can be safely taken that we've investigated MPEG2, XviD, H.264 and other codecs enough to come to some conclusions. x264 beats the other H.264 encoders in this test, and jagabo has found MPEG2 to be less efficient and prone to macroblocking.
I hope we can agree that it's pretty much settled that MPEG2 (and XviD) does not beat x264. If anyone claims otherwise again, we should direct them to this thread and ask them to prove it.
Hurray! -
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
as for mpeg-2, i have to disagree, all we proved is that the encoders we used are sub-standard, i would like to see a comprehensive mpeg-2 comparison with main concept. ffmpeg, mencoder, nero's recode (<--a really good mpeg-2 encoder in my opinion), cce basic (perhaps the cream of the crop, as far as mpeg-2 is concerned) and procoder.
all i know is that i have seen some italian adult dvd's that are clearer and crisper than some commercial blu-ray's, and even if we assume that the adult movie was shot with a hollywood caliber camera, with the most perfectly focused setting possible, and absolutely perfect lighting, i still don't see how a dvd spec mpeg-2 can be clearer than a commercial blu-ray. -
Originally Posted by deadrats
You will find if you do examine enough tests, mainconcept based encoders are the ones that give AVC the bad name. They oversmooth and lack detail in shadow/dark areas. Even these couple of mini tests showed that trend. One of the big selling points of using AVC is compression. If you need 1.3-1.4x the size just for equivalent quality, why bother? Everything looks good given enough bitrate LOL. The point is x264 reaches any certain "quality" level at a much lower bitrate than other AVC encoders, MPEG2 or MPEG4-ASP, and this has been shown many many times in other threads and other forums. What we should be doing is varying the bitrate, and seeing at what bitrate the "quality" is matched or a certain quality level is obtained
I'm still looking for that source/scenario where this trend doesn't happen... If you're "not impressed" by x264 encoders, it's usually user error as the root cause, as was the case here.
all i know is that i have seen some italian adult dvd's that are clearer and crisper than some commercial blu-ray's, and even if we assume that the adult movie was shot with a hollywood caliber camera, with the most perfectly focused setting possible, and absolutely perfect lighting, i still don't see how a dvd spec mpeg-2 can be clearer than a commercial blu-ray. -
Originally Posted by deadrats
as for mpeg-2, i have to disagree, all we proved is that the encoders we used are sub-standard
all i know is that i have seen some italian adult dvd's that are clearer and crisper than some commercial blu-ray's, and even if we assume that the adult movie was shot with a hollywood caliber camera, with the most perfectly focused setting possible, and absolutely perfect lighting, i still don't see how a dvd spec mpeg-2 can be clearer than a commercial blu-ray.
Excuse our skepticism, because it really doesn't seem very likely that MPEG2 beats x264. At very high bitrates, they look similar, but that's about it.
Similar Threads
-
High Quality Encoding AVI -> MPEG2
By vl0001 in forum MacReplies: 2Last Post: 21st Jan 2012, 08:40 -
Encoding WAV and M2V to AVI [high quality]
By duudo in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 2Last Post: 28th Feb 2009, 05:57 -
Tutorial on encoding for YouTube high quality - feedback requested
By webvideopro in forum Video Streaming DownloadingReplies: 8Last Post: 24th Sep 2008, 08:19 -
h264 and xvid encoding for: near-lossless and high quality ?
By vhelp in forum Video ConversionReplies: 10Last Post: 14th Sep 2008, 15:31 -
Encoding RM to AVI (high Quality)
By hzgg2 in forum Video ConversionReplies: 2Last Post: 22nd Apr 2008, 14:11