VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 27
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 782
Thread
  1. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    yeah, but, if that would be the case, then anything that is interlaced (not consistant 3:2 cadense pattern) would become 720p/60 or 1080p (by conversion to progressive and then reinterlaced by time expanding but still be progressive) something like that.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member PuzZLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by vhelp View Post
    yeah, but, if that would be the case, then anything that is interlaced (not consistant 3:2 cadense pattern) would become 720p/60 or 1080p (by conversion to progressive and then reinterlaced by time expanding but still be progressive) something like that.
    Yes, I was thinking that, for example, if splitting fields to different pictures, or frames to pictures, you'd have to play with the frame rate (maybe increase it over a given time length/duration) to avoid serious quality loss.
    I hate VHS. I always did.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Danmark
    Search PM
    do not know if it is the right place to ask but are there a a friendly person that will help to make a cmd I can use for Riping my Fringe blu-ray so the quality remains but get the lower filesize it can get whit better compression sorry for the noob questions but there are so many different options it is of being dizzy of
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member PuzZLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Search Comp PM
    @tola5: I don't think this encoder is quite ready yet. This thread, and other similar ones on it here, are dedicated to its development. Sure it's going to be great, but it needs a bit of time.

    Use x264 for now. "Quality remains" will not happen compressing to a smaller size, with x264 or even with x265 here in the future, however today you can still get a good encode with x264 to a smaller size (use crf=18).
    I hate VHS. I always did.
    Quote Quote  
  5. "needs a bit of time." -> try again in a year or so,..
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member PuzZLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Search Comp PM
    I say 1 year to be "ready" and to be "very good". Try 2-3 to be more "mature" (and "great").
    I hate VHS. I always did.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Why does x265 explicitly disable stuff that should be disabled implicitly?

    a few example from common.cpp:
    Code:
    else if (!strcmp(tune, "zero-latency"))
    {
        param->bFrameAdaptive = 0;
        param->bframes = 0;
        param->lookaheadDepth = 0;
    }
    since both lookaheadDepth and bFrameAdaptive require bframes > 0 why mention both ?
    (all the other settings like bpyramid&co do not get mentioned)

    Code:
    if (!strcmp(tune, "psnr"))
    {
        param->rc.aqMode = X265_AQ_NONE;
        param->rc.aqStrength = 0.0;
        param->rc.cuTree = 0;
    }
    since cuTree and aqStrength both require aqMode != X265_AQ_NONE why mention them?

    I understand that the defaults should mention these but all other method should explicitly change stuff which should be implicitly set.

    ----

    Also the defaults mention 'param->bframes = 4;' as does
    Code:
    else if (!strcmp(preset, "slow"))
    {
        param->lookaheadDepth = 25;
        param->bframes = 4;
        param->rdLevel = 4;
        param->subpelRefine = 3;
        param->maxNumMergeCand = 3;
        param->searchMethod = X265_STAR_SEARCH;
    }

    Cu Selur
    Quote Quote  
  8. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    ah, selur pointed out what i was missing.
    Last edited by deadrats; 24th Dec 2013 at 10:45.
    Quote Quote  
  9. i'm probably overlooking something obvious but i find the way all this is written to be very odd.
    Yes, you did not check what strcmp returns
    Returns an integral value indicating the relationship between the strings:
    A zero value indicates that both strings are equal.
    A value greater than zero indicates that the first character that does not match has a greater value in str1 than in str2; And a value less than zero indicates the opposite.
    see: http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/cstring/strcmp/
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member x265's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Selur View Post
    Why does x265 explicitly disable stuff that should be disabled implicitly?

    a few example from common.cpp:
    Code:
    else if (!strcmp(tune, "zero-latency"))
    {
        param->bFrameAdaptive = 0;
        param->bframes = 0;
        param->lookaheadDepth = 0;
    }
    since both lookaheadDepth and bFrameAdaptive require bframes > 0 why mention both ?
    (all the other settings like bpyramid&co do not get mentioned)

    Code:
    if (!strcmp(tune, "psnr"))
    {
        param->rc.aqMode = X265_AQ_NONE;
        param->rc.aqStrength = 0.0;
        param->rc.cuTree = 0;
    }
    since cuTree and aqStrength both require aqMode != X265_AQ_NONE why mention them?

    I understand that the defaults should mention these but all other method should explicitly change stuff which should be implicitly set.

    ----

    Also the defaults mention 'param->bframes = 4;' as does
    Code:
    else if (!strcmp(preset, "slow"))
    {
        param->lookaheadDepth = 25;
        param->bframes = 4;
        param->rdLevel = 4;
        param->subpelRefine = 3;
        param->maxNumMergeCand = 3;
        param->searchMethod = X265_STAR_SEARCH;
    }
    Cu Selur
    x265 first sets all parameters to default values. These default values are used for the "medium" performance preset.

    So, I think the real question is - what should the default settings be? We want to provide high quality and good performance when someone runs x265 with default settings. At this point, these are the values we have determined to be the best choice. We welcome feedback on this topic (but of course, you and other experienced x265 users are always free to explicitly set any and all values to your preferred settings).


    Tom
    Quote Quote  
  11. Preset slow sets 'param->bframes = 4;' which is the same as the default presets -> there is not reason for that line to exist.
    -> seems like you did not get my point
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member x265's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Selur View Post
    Preset slow sets 'param->bframes = 4;' which is the same as the default presets -> there is not reason for that line to exist.
    -> seems like you did not get my point
    Oh... I see what you are saying now. Yes, you're correct. I had cleaned that up when we did the last major change of performance presets, but it seems that there might be a few lines of redundant code in this section of common.cpp again.

    Patches are always welcomed!


    Thanks,
    Tom
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Hello Guys!

    The official webpage of x265 project (Member of Multicoreware INC) http://x265.org/about.html


    I talked with the x265 developers (multicoreware) via facebook.

    Here is their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/multicoreware , where you can ask them about x265.


    My first post:
    "HI!
    Are there any directshow version of x265 encoder? (For V.dub and Premiere) ?
    Do you plan to make a vfw / directshow version of x265?
    It would be very important!
    Thank you!"


    Their answer:
    MulticoreWare Inc:

    "Hi,
    Thanks for your query. We got a response from the x265 team..

    ------------ We don't have one, it's not on the roadmap right now. It's very easy. Someone could do this in a few days; it's just a matter of resources and priority."


    My second post:

    "HI!

    Is it allowed to create a vfw / directshow version of your x265 encoder?"


    Their answer:
    MulticoreWare Inc:

    "Yes. x265 has a Open-source GPL license with the entire source code available for anyone to contribute back. Look at this link - https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/wiki/Home



    multicoreware / x265 / wiki / Home — Bitbucket
    bitbucket.orgTo compile x265 you must first install Mercurial (or TortoiseHg on Windows) and CMake 2.8.8 or later. To insure your build of x265 is capable of full performance, install YASM 1.2.0 or greater to compile assembly primitives. Then follow these easy steps "



    So, are there any talented programmer who can do this "very easy" task?


    DO NOT FORGET: IT WOULD BE A MILESTONE IN HEVC-HISTORY !

    Thank you for your reply!
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member x265's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Hello Guys!

    The official webpage of x265 project (Member of Multicoreware INC) http://x265.org/about.html

    I talked with the x265 developers (multicoreware) via facebook.

    Here is their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/multicoreware , where you can ask them about x265.
    Better yet, go to our x265 page here... https://www.facebook.com/x265project

    My first post:
    "HI!
    Are there any directshow version of x265 encoder? (For V.dub and Premiere) ?
    Do you plan to make a vfw / directshow version of x265?
    It would be very important!
    Thank you!"

    Their answer:
    MulticoreWare Inc:

    "Hi,
    Thanks for your query. We got a response from the x265 team..

    ------------ We don't have one, it's not on the roadmap right now. It's very easy. Someone could do this in a few days; it's just a matter of resources and priority."

    My second post:
    "HI! Is it allowed to create a vfw / directshow version of your x265 encoder?"

    Their answer:
    MulticoreWare Inc:

    "Yes. x265 has a Open-source GPL license with the entire source code available for anyone to contribute back. Look at this link - https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/wiki/Home

    So, are there any talented programmer who can do this "very easy" task?

    DO NOT FORGET: IT WOULD BE A MILESTONE IN HEVC-HISTORY !

    Thank you for your reply!
    As my colleagues pointed out, x265 is an open-source project, and we welcome contributions from open-source developers. All contributions (patches) are published for review on the development mailing list, and after review (and possibly debugging or other refactoring), patches that are determined by the project leads to be valuable are committed to the project.

    Best wishes for Happy Holidays!

    Tom
    MulticoreWare
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member PuzZLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Do you plan to make a vfw / directshow version of x265?
    The Movement has begun. Here we go again.
    I hate VHS. I always did.
    Quote Quote  
  16. DirectShow okay, but heck vfw is:
    a. avi centric so, b-frames (multiple reference frames) require 'patching'
    b. simply old and hopefully dying
    -> I don't think vfw should be a target and even DirectShow should not really be considered before 1.0
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member PuzZLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Yes, DirectShow is fine. But VFW is best left to the "rebels". I wouldn't prioritize it with x265.

    I don't know if even AVI 2.0 worked with H.264 properly (seeing frames forward and backward, b-frames, multiple reference frames, etc.). I DOUBT it will be better with HEVC.

    (Am I flame throwing? Nah. )
    I hate VHS. I always did.
    Quote Quote  
  18. vfw requires the same hacks for H.264 that it required for MPEG-4 ASP regarding the b-frames&co, so it wouldn't require anything new for H.265 (aside from a new FOURCC) which then would again need some vfw decoder which associates that fourcc with a HEVC and can decoder HEVC. Still vfw really should die out,..
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Selur View Post
    vfw requires the same hacks for H.264 that it required for MPEG-4 ASP regarding the b-frames&co, so it wouldn't require anything new for H.265 (aside from a new FOURCC) which then would again need some vfw decoder which associates that fourcc with a HEVC and can decoder HEVC. Still vfw really should die out,..

    Ok, VFW was a bad idea, but can anyone create its directshow version?
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Danmark
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by PuzZLeR View Post
    @tola5: I don't think this encoder is quite ready yet. This thread, and other similar ones on it here, are dedicated to its development. Sure it's going to be great, but it needs a bit of time.

    Use x264 for now. "Quality remains" will not happen compressing to a smaller size, with x264 or even with x265 here in the future, however today you can still get a good encode with x264 to a smaller size (use crf=18).
    thanks for your reply hope you have a good Christmas, looks like I just have to wait and give it some time
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by tola5 View Post
    Originally Posted by PuzZLeR View Post
    @tola5: I don't think this encoder is quite ready yet. This thread, and other similar ones on it here, are dedicated to its development. Sure it's going to be great, but it needs a bit of time.

    Use x264 for now. "Quality remains" will not happen compressing to a smaller size, with x264 or even with x265 here in the future, however today you can still get a good encode with x264 to a smaller size (use crf=18).
    thanks for your reply hope you have a good Christmas, looks like I just have to wait and give it some time

    Wrong, The quality of x264 is worse than the quality of x265 at the same bitrate.
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Wrong, The quality of x264 is worse than the quality of x265 at the same bitrate.
    Not yet:
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/360748-The-fascinating-quality-of-x265!1080p-video-with-fast-movements-in-1300kb?p=2286939
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Brazil View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Wrong, The quality of x264 is worse than the quality of x265 at the same bitrate.
    Not yet:
    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/360748-The-fascinating-quality-of-x265!1080p-video-with-fast-movements-in-1300kb?p=2286939

    Did you read the full discussion?

    The x264 fan-boys finally admitted that they did not use the similar settings. (they used the best options for x264 and fastest & worse options for x265) So they lost the debate.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    they lost the debate.
    It's not about a debate, it's about facts. Test it yourself, encode the ParkJoy sample and check the resulting videos.
    This sums it up pretty well:
    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1658982#post1658982
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Brazil View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    they lost the debate.
    It's not about a debate, it's about facts. Test it yourself, encode the ParkJoy sample and check the resulting videos.
    This sums it up pretty well:
    http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1658982#post1658982

    Vast majority of doom9.org users are not professionals. (and they didn't use objective meters like PSNR)

    Read this scientific comparison:

    http://labs.divx.com/term/HEVC

    Or this:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/x265-hevc-encoder,3565-3.html
    Quote Quote  
  26. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Brazil View Post
    est it yourself, encode the ParkJoy sample and check the resulting videos.
    parkjoy? this is your idea of a good test source representative of most user's sources?

    LOL, in one sentence you summed up all the idiocy that revolves around x264 worship.
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member PuzZLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by tola5 View Post
    Originally Posted by PuzZLeR View Post
    @tola5: I don't think this encoder is quite ready yet. This thread, and other similar ones on it here, are dedicated to its development. Sure it's going to be great, but it needs a bit of time.

    Use x264 for now. "Quality remains" will not happen compressing to a smaller size, with x264 or even with x265 here in the future, however today you can still get a good encode with x264 to a smaller size (use crf=18).
    thanks for your reply hope you have a good Christmas, looks like I just have to wait and give it some time

    Wrong, The quality of x264 is worse than the quality of x265 at the same bitrate.
    That wasn't my point. I never implied that x264 does, or will, have better compression advantages over x265. I was suggesting x264 because it's fully ready now. And, I have no appetite to revisit a similar debate that was the early days of Xvid vs x264 of over 5-10 years ago. It got childish and became a waste of time when it should have been merely hypothetical and its only purpose to serve as a tracking of progress in the early days.

    Of course we know x265 does/will have better compression advantages over x264. That's why we are even bothering with this in the first place and all of its growing pains.

    Which is better today? I couldn't care less right now, and I don't think it's important at this point in time especially when things will change on a daily basis. I'm just waiting to see how much better x265 should be when it's much more ready in the future.
    I hate VHS. I always did.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member PuzZLeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Stears
    Vast majority of doom9.org users are not professionals.
    I agree, and I agree in regards to how silly they looked (described in my last post).
    I hate VHS. I always did.
    Quote Quote  
  29. - the link to the x265 Evaluators Guide in the first post links to an old version.
    - any plans for a new x265 Evaluators Guide since, the defaults&co changed?
    Quote Quote  
  30. DECEASED
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heaven
    Search Comp PM
    To whom this may interest...

    Code:
    From:  Tim Walker <tdskywalker@gmail.com>
    Reply-To:  Development for x265 <x265-devel@videolan.org>
    To:  x265-devel@videolan.org
    Subject:  [x265] x265 integration and HandBrake
    Date:  Wed 2014-01-15 02:21 AM
    
    
    Hi everyone,
    
    Someone named Zhang Zhiqiang has submitted a patch for review to 
    integrate x265 encoding to HandBrake. The patch looks good overall, but 
    some changes are still needed.
    
    While we do use ReviewBoard ( http://reviews.handbrake.fr ) for code 
    review purposes, a lot of our development still happens on IRC, and I 
    feel the patch would move forward quicker if we could get this developer 
    to contact us on IRC.
    
    Does anyone here know Zhang Zhiqiang and could make this happen? He 
    could join #handbrake-dev on freenode (voice will be given to him if he 
    announces himself in #handbrake). If it's deemed preferable, the #x265 
    channel would do just fine.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Tim
    and

    Code:
    From:  Tom Vaughan <tom.vaughan@multicorewareinc.com>
    Reply-To:  Development for x265 <x265-devel@videolan.org>
    To:  Development for x265 <x265-devel@videolan.org>
    Subject:  Re: [x265] x265 integration and HandBrake
    Date:  Wed 2014-01-15 03:12 AM
    
    Hi Tim,
    Yes, we know Zhang.  He works for MulticoreWare (leaders of the x265
    project).  We'll have Zhang connect with you on IRC to move this 
    forward.
    
    Thanks,
    Tom
    P.S.: @ Mr. Vaughan ---
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads