Wow, those are some crazy differences. What is x264 trading off at AQ 1.5?Originally Posted by poisondeathray
aedipuss:
(caveats: aedipuss's frame isn't the same as the one PDR used, the preprocessing is different, the snapshot is a JPG, and the bitrate is much higher.)
I lanczos-resized in Irfanview to compare your snapshot with PDR's. The MPEG2 CCE snapshot is a lot more blurry than x264, but it doesn't smear out shadow detail like Adobe Media Encoder does. Still, it's at a whole 6Mbps while the H.264 decoders are at 1Mbps.
aedipuss's CCE MPEG2 screenshot, cropped and resized to be more comparable, PNG
I really doubt CCE can turn out anything close to H.264 at low and medium bitrates.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 151 to 180 of 203
-
-
Originally Posted by aedipuss
I compared using your new screenshot, and x264@1Mbps is still a bit better. I'm willing to attribute part of the difference to better preprocessing (deinterlacing, resizing) for the x264 shot. -
Originally Posted by aedipuss
Originally Posted by manono -
I don't think CCE accept any higher resolution than 720x576 maximum but I might be wrong here since I have not used CCE in many years. HCenc can do higher resolutions.
I must say this is a very interesting thread. I have just started to use x264 with MeGUI and I use the presets. But all those command line options would be nice to learn what they really do. As always the people that know how to set everything up do get nice looking encodings...
How about interlaced h.264? I have heard that x264 is not yet fully optimized for interlaced content. Is DivX better for interlaced h.264? Any ideas? My solution is to bob deinterlace with something like MCTemporalGauss from 1080 25i and downsize to 1280x720 50P and encode with x264, but I wonder if this is really the best approach for converting HDV to bluray compatible h.264? In theory I could make 1440x1080 interlaced h.264 as an alternative. -
Guys, the park/pond clip was only meant to illustrate the effects of AQ. MPEG2 was never meant for low bitrate encodes. But HCenc has AQ ported from x264, it's just not as effective. Here you can see the effects of AQ using HCEnc. The key areas are to look at the shadow detail, and pond/underwater detail.
HCEnc 2Mbps AQ=0
HCEnc 2Mbps AQ=4
Wow only 2Mbps and it looks "passable right?" Wrong. Broken record time: You have to look at the entire clip. The beginning sequence where there is tree/leaf movement is a mess.
HCEnc 2Mbps AQ=0
HCEnc 2Mbps AQ=4
x264 1Mbps AQ=1.5
CCE is much worse at low bitrate (but arguably better than HCenc for high bitrate encodes)
Wow, those are some crazy differences. What is x264 trading off at AQ 1.5? -
Originally Posted by ronnylov
How about interlaced h.264? I have heard that x264 is not yet fully optimized for interlaced content. Is DivX better for interlaced h.264? Any ideas? My solution is to bob deinterlace with something like MCTemporalGauss from 1080 25i and downsize to 1280x720 50P and encode with x264, but I wonder if this is really the best approach for converting HDV to bluray compatible h.264? In theory I could make 1440x1080 interlaced h.264 as an alternative.
yes, x264 is less efficient at interlaced encoding than progressive. In my tests, Mainconcept does a slightly better job. Having said that, even with the poor efficiency, it's still more efficient than MPEG2 for interlaced HD material at blu-ray bitrates in my testing. If you are willing to use BD50 instead of BD25, I suspect you can get away with using MPEG2 (of course varies depending on your content complexity and compliation length) -
Originally Posted by manono
as for video size cce sp2 will accept 1920x1080 as input.--
"a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303 -
Sorry, I mentioned yadif, lanczos, but forgot to mention AVCSource (Index using DGAVCIndex)
Code:AVCSource("ezsm021.dga") Yadif(order=1) #TFF LanczosResize(720,400)
-
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
thanks - i didn't have dgavcindex, couldn't index it to frameserve to cce sp2 before.--
"a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303 -
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
Psy-RDO is a bit more controversial, essentially allowing better grain retention at the cost of more artifacting. I guess it really is responsible for the microshifting I mentioned. Honestly speaking, it seems like Psy-RDO might not be such a good thing if you aren't looking for particularly good grain. I'm currently reading up more about it. -
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
-
Do you (or anyone) have a link to a good comparison? Doom9 isn't working well for me (overloading) and the comparison on DS's blog isn't available because of bandwidth limit exhaustion.
-
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
There aren't very many good ones that illustrate exactly what is happening that I've seen (not as clear as the AQ example above). This one is tough to make generalizations with, except the picture gets more noisy as you increase strengths. It's essentially adding noise, mainly around lines. You will notice your crf encoded size will increase with strengths (just like if you added grain or noise). "sagekilla" did a whole bunch in one thread on Doom9, search for that one. You will learn more just by testing it out yourself, and varying the settings. The effects vary within bitrate ranges (ie. "high" is relative and applicable only for a certain bitrate range, on a certain source and complexity type). It can be very dangerous if you're not careful -
Indeed, after reading up on it I'm not sure if I want to use it on most sources. Apparently it retains detail while causing ringing artifacts. I'm going to do a comparison encode.
-
Read up, did comparisons, came to the conclusion that it's good at preserving grain after all despite resulting in small artifacting. Without psy-RDO, video looks smoothed.
I wouldn't use it for Youtube uploads and other intermediate formats, but it's certainly good for grainy, detailed sources. -
I use MainConcept Reference for professional projects, and the output is nowhere near as bad as the Adobe export samples shown above. I will say that the Adobe MainConcept version does not appear to be as good as the standalone MC encoder app, however. I've seen x264 look the same, and worse, than MC Reference -- rarely have I see it better. And that's just "samples", with next to nothing known about the workflows used to get it there.
Seriously, I can't spend my day toying with command-line apps. Make a GUI or understand that nobody (willing to spend $$$$ on it) actually cares if it looks 10% better. Not worth the effort, poor ROI on time.
This rallymax person has the right idea: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic372349.htmlWant my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
I've NEVER seen MCR encodes look at good as x264 overall (assuming decent settings). Never is a fricken strong word, but I stand by it 100%. It maybe "better" on the odd frame, but the usual distribution is ~80% of the frames where x264 is clearly better , ~10% where they are similar, and ~10% where MCR is better. This varies, but is pretty consistent on all types of scenarios and content
If you have time, go read over this whole thread, do some tests and come back see if you've changed your mind. Everything is transparent, from the settings, sources used, workflow, testing methology. If you want anything repeated feel free to discuss. I have 100's of tests that show the exact same thing.
I agree MCR is better than the AME, simply because it has more functional settings and control. On the park/pond example MCR does about the same as the AME example because of the lack of AQ or lumimasking. If you go back a page, you will see x264 with AQ=0 looks just as bad too! I only posted that specific example to illustrate the effects of AQ - this is an extreme example. On "normal" sources (without shadow details), the differences aren't as huge. Only the very high end Mainconcept encoders (like Cinevision) , and the SDK have AQ like functionality. But overall the same trends remain when using consumer level Mainconcept based encoders: they provide less detailed encodes (things like grain and fine details are smoothed away), poor quality in background and shadow areas when compared to x264 encodes. I dare anyone to prove otherwise
10% better? Perhaps only on low quality sources. Try the DPX sourced lagarith Dreamworks trailer posted. I'm seeing 40-50% higher bitrates required from MCR to equal x264. I'm seeing similar trends at for my blu-ray authoring on high quality sources, as have many others. Often chosing x264 vs. another encoder is the difference between stuck using an "expensive" BD-R 50 vs. "cheap" BD-R 25. -
Originally Posted by lordsmurf
Seriously, I can't spend my day toying with command-line apps. Make a GUI or understand that nobody (willing to spend $$$$ on it) actually cares if it looks 10% better. Not worth the effort, poor ROI on time.
There's no need to be dismissive of something just because it doesn't seem to fit your needs as a video professional. Lots of people are dealing with amateur footage and DVDs and BDs as a hobby, and want as good quality as they can get. -
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
perhaps there is a setting somewhere within the encoder to turn smoothing off? i find it very hard to believe that an app that costs $2000+ and has such a pro following doesn't have the ability to a) turn off smoothing and b) improve the encoding quality. just as you say that the weaknesses people usually find in x264 is because they misconfigured the encoder, maybe the same holds true for main concept based encoders?
also i'm wondering how sony's avc compares, perhaps someone with vegas could run some of these test encodes for comparison? -
Originally Posted by deadrats
But seriously, there is no special setting - even maxed out - all consumer/prosumer level Mainconcept based encoders tend to 1) oversmooth, and 2) underallocate to dark areas. (believe me, I've tried every setting thoroughly). My friend has a studio , and I tested cinevision, and even the studio level version $50K does a lot worse in terms of efficiency than x264! For real. The only switch that has any real bearing for Mainconcept based encoders in most situations will be lowering the alpha / beta deblock values (the defaults are -1/-1, but you can try -2/-2 for example). Higher end versions do have lumimasking and psy settings similar to x264, but they usually are not accessible in the consumer versions.
Yep, I've tested Sony AVC from Vegas 8 and 9; significantly worse than Mainconcept (even worse than the gimped Mainconcept version that comes bundled, it's that bad). -
Originally Posted by deadrats
People will keep paying $2000 because of brand recognition and marketing. Freeware is looked down upon to some extent
just as you say that the weaknesses people usually find in x264 is because they misconfigured the encoder, maybe the same holds true for main concept based encoders? -
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
edit: seems like Cinevision has multiple AQ modes, including the lumimasking one, so yeah. -
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
The higher end MC encoders have AQ in luminance, contrast and complexity. You can use them all in varying ranges, together or separately, but still not as effective as x264's (in any combination) -
One guy on Doom9 claims:
Originally Posted by kolakOriginally Posted by kolak
I'd be interested to find out if I could see a difference at such high bitrates. I've never tried it, but I doubt I'd see much of a difference. -
Originally Posted by creamyhorror
Kolak and shon3i both seem familiar with cinevision, but I only had a few days to test it so it might be I didn't get optimal encodes. But x264 was clearly more efficient in my testing, and shon3i's comments seem to suggest that as well. But how many people here are willing to pay $50K for an encoder...I would love to see more complete head to head testing as well -
Originally Posted by poisondeathray
Kolak and shon3i both seem familiar with cinevision, but I only had a few days to test it so it might be I didn't get optimal encodes. But x264 was clearly more efficient in my testing, and shon3i's comments seem to suggest that as well. But how many people here are willing to pay $50K for an encoder...
Originally Posted by Lyris -
Yes I remember reading that...too bad he never expanded on who it was....
Well cinevision is a $50K encoder....Some other studios use blu-code. I'm not aware of any other
I prefer to see with my own eyes to believe it. I was skeptical x264 was better than a $50K encoder, but my tests showed that trend to me. I would have liked to spend more time with it to test it more thoroughly ...but I'm still pretty convinced.
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