Hi,
is there any better performance with avisynth+ then with Avisynth 2.6MT + QTGMC [vit mod]
is there 64bit combo for any of those two?
on I5 650 CPU based system, I am getting 40fps for SD video at QTGMC fast setting . (no other filters involved, only deinterlacing)
For ex. should it be possible to get 20 more fps with the same settings, on the same computer or my expectations should be set lower?
I try to tweak MT parameters, but maybe someone could help with that a bit ?
Regards.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 30 of 51
Thread
-
Last edited by logicom; 27th Nov 2014 at 15:49.
-
64 bit won't be significantly faster.
Without encoding, On my i5 2500K I get about 110 fps and nearly 100 percent CPU usage with QTGMC(preset="fast") when encoding 720x480 material.
Code:SetMtMode(5,4) Mpeg2Source("filename.d2v") SetMtMode(2) QTGMC(preset="fast")
Code:x264.exe --preset=slow --crf=18 --keyint=50 --sar=8:9 --output %1.mkv %1
Last edited by jagabo; 27th Nov 2014 at 09:35.
-
Hi,
QTGMC is well threaded, I see that cpu is squeezed at 100%, I am using 2.6 MT, 32 bit and I noticed that delay introduced by the chain FFmpegSource2, DV decoder and ffmpeg is actually the reason for having maybe a bit lower FPS than expected. Source is 4:2:0 DV25>MOV
Just for reference, there is a SSD raid 0 and 8 GB of ram. Any suggestion for ffmpeg version/flavor ?
Regards. -
Since you're already at 100% usage, not much is going to help
The only thing that will make it faster is to use faster settings : either in QTGMC settings, or encoding settings, or both -
Hi,
I do not encode, but just for testing I will run it now on dual X5470 and e5 2697 v2
Regards.Last edited by logicom; 27th Nov 2014 at 16:05.
-
-
There is no call to x264 , I am just piping trough ffmpeg to null. And there is no "uncompressed mov" in this case.
ex:ffmpeg -i deintMOV.avs -vcodec copy -an -f null out.null
Tautologically speaking, CPU mark is one most important parameter for filtering or encoding, or processing in general , but I was looking into possibilities for further optimization with the goal of getting better result in FPS units.
Regards.Last edited by logicom; 28th Nov 2014 at 03:55.
-
I partially agree on that, but taking ffmpeg as a reference would be mandatory as it just reflects one real scenario so that it is wise to have a comparison testing,taking into account possible delay produced by its I/O routines , while not kilning the cpu with encoding task for the moment, nor rewrapping nor performing any other additional processing. I would rather look into the chain of processes and individual actions, trying to minimeze impact, and then go for real drive.
All benchmarking methods are giving slightly higher fps initially, but I wait a while to get the stable average resault.
Ironically enough, benchmarking tool you have mentioned gives higher result than vdub but lower than ffmpeg
c:\AVSMETER>avsmeter C:\ffmpeg\deintMOV.avs -l
AVSMeter 1.9.0 (x86) by Groucho2004
AviSynth 2.60, build:Sep 28 2013 [15:09:12] (2.6.0.4) (MT)
Active MT Mode: 1
Number of frames: 85710
Length (hh:mms.ms): 00:57:08.400
Frame width: 720
Frame height: 576
Framerate: 25.000 (25/1)
Colorspace: YV12
Frames processed: 1232 (0 - 1231)
FPS (min | max | average): 2.599 | 346396 | 38.98
CPU usage (average): 98%
GPU usage: GPU monitor disabled
Thread count: 37
Memory usage (phys | virt): 1145 | 1169 MB
Time (elapsed): 00:00:31.602Code:c:\ffmpeg\ffmpeg -i deintMOV.avs -vcodec copy -f null out.null ffmpeg version N-65991-g8c63a0d-Sherpya Copyright (c) 2000-2014 the FFmpeg developers built on Aug 31 2014 05:10:22 with gcc 4.9-win32 (GCC) Input #0, avisynth, from 'deintMOV.avs': Duration: 00:57:08.40, start: 0.000000, bitrate: N/A Stream #0:0: Video: rawvideo (I420 / 0x30323449), yuv420p, 720x576, 25 fps, 25 tbr, 25 tbn, 25 tbc Output #0, null, to 'out.null': Metadata: encoder : Lavf56.3.100 Stream #0:0: Video: rawvideo (I420 / 0x30323449), yuv420p, 720x576, q=2-31, 25 fps, 25 tbn, 25 tbc Stream mapping: Stream #0:0 -> #0:0 (copy) Press [q] to stop, [?] for help frame= 1759 fps= 42 q=-1.0 Lsize=N/A time=00:01:10.36 bitrate=N/A video:110kB audio:0kB subtitle:0kB other streams:0kB global headers:0kB muxing overhead: unknown Received signal 2: terminating.
Regards.Last edited by logicom; 28th Nov 2014 at 05:24.
-
-
May be too extreme, except you really have 2 Octocore with HT. Remember, QTGMC also spawns EDI threads on its own.
-
I assigned 2 thread for EDI , at this moment I dont see extra threads by it, however MT have to be higher, and not extreme, otherwise, CPU load variations are noticeable or suboptimal result in FPS is present. I am looking forward to put it on double dodeca core with HT - e5 2697 v2.
Last edited by logicom; 28th Nov 2014 at 07:52.
-
You should be testing real life scenario. While script testing is important for bottlenecks, the effect on actual encoding scenario might be different. You have other threads that required for encoding. In your setup you will get better results with parallel encoding multiple instances (faster overall, higher quality, fewer problems)
-
-
Here's the ffmpeg log:
Code:C:\Users\John\Desktop>"G:\Program Files\ffmpeg\bin\ffmpeg.exe" -i C:\Users\John\ Desktop\VTS_01_1.avs -vcodec copy -an -f null out.null ffmpeg version N-67331-g547fce9 Copyright (c) 2000-2014 the FFmpeg developers built on Nov 1 2014 22:01:52 with gcc 4.9.1 (GCC) configuration: --enable-gpl --enable-version3 --disable-w32threads --enable-av isynth --enable-bzlib --enable-fontconfig --enable-frei0r --enable-gnutls --enab le-iconv --enable-libass --enable-libbluray --enable-libbs2b --enable-libcaca -- enable-libfreetype --enable-libgme --enable-libgsm --enable-libilbc --enable-lib modplug --enable-libmp3lame --enable-libopencore-amrnb --enable-libopencore-amrw b --enable-libopenjpeg --enable-libopus --enable-librtmp --enable-libschroedinge r --enable-libsoxr --enable-libspeex --enable-libtheora --enable-libtwolame --en able-libvidstab --enable-libvo-aacenc --enable-libvo-amrwbenc --enable-libvorbis --enable-libvpx --enable-libwavpack --enable-libwebp --enable-libx264 --enable- libx265 --enable-libxavs --enable-libxvid --enable-zlib libavutil 54. 11.100 / 54. 11.100 libavcodec 56. 10.101 / 56. 10.101 libavformat 56. 12.100 / 56. 12.100 libavdevice 56. 2.100 / 56. 2.100 libavfilter 5. 2.101 / 5. 2.101 libswscale 3. 1.101 / 3. 1.101 libswresample 1. 1.100 / 1. 1.100 libpostproc 53. 3.100 / 53. 3.100 Input #0, avisynth, from 'C:\Users\John\Desktop\VTS_01_1.avs': Duration: 00:00:33.37, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 0 kb/s Stream #0:0: Video: rawvideo (I420 / 0x30323449), yuv420p, 720x480, 59.94 fp s, 59.94 tbr, 59.94 tbn, 59.94 tbc Output #0, null, to 'out.null': Metadata: encoder : Lavf56.12.100 Stream #0:0: Video: rawvideo (I420 / 0x30323449), yuv420p, 720x480, q=2-31, 59.94 fps, 59.94 tbn, 59.94 tbc Stream mapping: Stream #0:0 -> #0:0 (copy) Press [q] to stop, [?] for help frame= 2000 fps= 38 q=-1.0 Lsize=N/A time=00:00:33.36 bitrate=N/A video:125kB audio:0kB subtitle:0kB other streams:0kB global headers:0kB muxing o verhead: unknown
-
With that script (opening an NTSC VOB file, 720x480) I get about 115 fps with ffmpeg and VirtualDub. distributor() is making the difference with ffmpeg.
Interestingly, with this script:
Code:SetMtMode(5,4) Mpeg2Source("VTS_01_1.d2v") SetMtMode(2) QTGMC(preset="very fast") Distributor()
Last edited by jagabo; 28th Nov 2014 at 23:11.
-
QUOTE=poisondeathray;2359604]You should be testing real life scenario. While script testing is important for bottlenecks, the effect on actual encoding scenario might be different. You have other threads that required for encoding. In your setup you will get better results with parallel encoding multiple instances (faster overall, higher quality, fewer problems)[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about ? -
Are you asking about the quality hit ? or fewer problems
I'm referring to the encoder side of things, there is an inverse relationship: the more threads , the lower the quality (eg. SSIM, PSNR) . But it's negligible at low thread counts. Once you get into higher thread counts (eg. workstation / server encoding like your setup) it becomes more relevant -
Last edited by logicom; 29th Nov 2014 at 01:37.
-
We just discussed about filtering performance and possible optimizations, but thanks for the input, again nothing to do with encoding
But anyway, could you please provide some reference paper which further discuss this phenomena that you mentioned? Like impact on video quality and implicitly video quality measurement parameters due to the high number of threads ? I would love to dig into that inverse equation.