VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 55 of 55
Thread
  1. It's all subjective, really. You could get all three encoders to produce the same quality file depending on what settings you use.
    The question is "which encoder at those settings produces that file in the least amount of time?"
    To me, atm. the question is more:
    Can x265/DivX265 produce the same quality (or better) than x264 at the same size for normal* data rates.

    Speed is not that important to me, since I'm confident that:
    a. new CPUs
    b. normal implementation optimization
    will, in the future, speed things up fast enough for it to be usable.

    Cu Selur

    Ps.: *Personally 'normal' would be something like 1-2.5mbit/s for an (anamorphic) 576p and 4.5-11.0mbit/s for 1080p content.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Instead Sintel (which is CG and artificial), use one of this clip's http://ultravideo.cs.tut.fi/#testsequences - they provide natural sequences very difficult to compress but way better to judge quality.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Your tests are Wrong. You used the worse quality of x.265, a weaker quality settings for x264, and the better quality settings for divx265
    no he didn't, when you see -qp in the command line for the divx encoder it means he used constant quantizer, when this is used, by definition adaptive quantization, which is what the divx presets refer to, is disabled
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by DarrellS View Post
    It's all subjective, really. You could get all three encoders to produce the same quality file depending on what settings you use.
    The question is "which encoder at those settings produces that file in the least amount of time?"

    VideoEnc: x264 core:142 r2409 d6b4e63
    --crf 17 --preset medium --tune film --demuxer raw --input-csp i420 --input-res %(width)x%(height) --fps %(fpsnum)/%(fpsden) -o "%(tempvideofile)" -
    encoded 360 frames, 4.88 fps, 7193.93 kb/s, 12.9 MB

    VideoEnc: DivX 265/HEVC Encoder version 1.3.0.74
    -qp 8 -I 5 -fps %(fpsnum)/%(fpsden) -i - -o "%(tempvideofile)" -aqo 3 -s %(width)x%(height) -v
    encoded 360 frames, 3.2 fps, 7152.53 kb/s, 12.8 MB

    VideoEnc: x265 HEVC encoder version 1.1+250-1dc27824bde1
    --preset ultrafast --qp 9 --input-res %(width)x%(height) --fps %(fps) - -o "%(tempvideofile)"
    encoded 360 frames, 3.16 fps, 7238.80 kb/s, 13.0 MB

    Click Image twice to show full resolution

    Your tests are Wrong. You used the worse quality of x.265, a weaker quality settings for x264, and the better quality settings for divx265
    I guess that I should've posted the rest of my message but felt it took up too much space. That was...

    Until x265 can encode as fast as DivX265 then it should not even be considered in the comparisons. That said, I used -q 9 for x265 which produced almost the exact same file as DivX265 balanced at -q 8 and x264 medium at --crf 17.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Spain
    Search Comp PM
    Is divx better?
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Wruckler View Post
    Is divx better?
    No. It has worse quality than x264.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Selur View Post
    It's all subjective, really. You could get all three encoders to produce the same quality file depending on what settings you use.
    The question is "which encoder at those settings produces that file in the least amount of time?"
    To me, atm. the question is more:
    Can x265/DivX265 produce the same quality (or better) than x264 at the same size for normal* data rates.

    Speed is not that important to me, since I'm confident that:
    a. new CPUs
    b. normal implementation optimization
    will, in the future, speed things up fast enough for it to be usable.

    Cu Selur

    Ps.: *Personally 'normal' would be something like 1-2.5mbit/s for an (anamorphic) 576p and 4.5-11.0mbit/s for 1080p content.

    true. Like you said earlier, there isn't much need for UHD video right now but photographers have been working with ultra high definition image files for a long time. Having HEVC as a compression option will allow for a lot more images than Raw.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by DarrellS View Post
    photographers have been working with ultra high definition image files for a long time. Having HEVC as a compression option will allow for a lot more images than Raw.
    Video codecs get most of their compression from temporal methods, not spacial methods. An h.264 or h.265 keyframe is not much different than a JPEG image. So individual images will not compress by much more.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by Wruckler View Post
    Is divx better?
    No. It has worse quality than x264.
    and yet you can provide zero proof of this idiotic claim, and it is idiotic, even by your standards.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Instead Sintel (which is CG and artificial), use one of this clip's http://ultravideo.cs.tut.fi/#testsequences - they provide natural sequences very difficult to compress but way better to judge quality.
    They look good, I want to try them

    Which program can transform them into avi files?
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    THEY WERE RECORDED BY SONY F65!!!! FANTASTIC QUALITY.



    Date: May 2013,
    Length: 5 s
    Camera: Sony F65
    Description: Closeup on female face, hair waving around. Black background
    Resolution: 4096 x 2160 pixels
    Frame Rate: 120 fps (progressive)
    Subsampling: 4:4:4
    Bit depth: 16 bit
    Data format: RAW
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Instead Sintel (which is CG and artificial), use one of this clip's http://ultravideo.cs.tut.fi/#testsequences - they provide natural sequences very difficult to compress but way better to judge quality.
    They look good, I want to try them

    Which program can transform them into avi files?
    ffmpeg should be able to deal with raw yuv - i hope it can be piped to any commandline encoder as usual - or avisynth as frame server but then perhaps loosing 10 bits where i see definitely most h.265 gain from consumer standard 10 bit (accepted btw by DVB as Europe target consumer profile - 8 bit video era finally start ending).

    btw
    whole discussion about h.265 is currently irrelevant - it is unavoidable - in future h.265 will go over h.264 but for now all implementations are limited and immature - comparing them to x264 which seem to be best open source h.264 encoder is unfair.
    to really match h.265 vs h.264 it should provide at the same quality (subjective and objective) reduction of bitrate at least twice (as promised) - i hope with time we will see this kind of figures.
    clear proof that h.265 is not ready to be deployed is lack of h.265 4k real time hardware encoders - there is a chance that they start being available somewhere as first half of the 2015, probably suffering from similar problems as at the beginning of h.264.
    We need to be patient and support h.265 developers.
    Last edited by pandy; 8th Jul 2014 at 13:14.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Instead Sintel (which is CG and artificial), use one of this clip's http://ultravideo.cs.tut.fi/#testsequences - they provide natural sequences very difficult to compress but way better to judge quality.
    They look good, I want to try them

    Which program can transform them into avi files?
    ffmpeg should be able to deal with raw yuv - i hope it can be piped to any commandline encoder as usual - or avisynth as frame server but then perhaps loosing 10 bits where i see definitely most h.265 gain from consumer standard 10 bit (accepted btw by DVB as Europe target consumer profile - 8 bit video era finally start ending).

    btw
    whole discussion about h.265 is currently irrelevant - it is unavoidable - in future h.265 will go over h.264 but for now all implementations are limited and immature - comparing them to x264 which seem to be best open source h.264 encoder is unfair.
    to really match h.265 vs h.264 it should provide at the same quality (subjective and objective) reduction of bitrate at least twice (as promised) - i hope with time we will see this kind of figures.
    clear proof that h.265 is not ready to be deployed is lack of h.265 4k real time hardware encoders - there is a chance that they start being available somewhere as first half of the 2015, probably suffering from similar problems as at the beginning of h.264.
    We need to be patient and support h.265 developers.
    Wrong. I posted an article in 2013, where a relatively little 8K (not 4K!) HEVC camcorder was tested in Japan.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    are you smoking some of that really good budapest source stuff again?

    the title of your thread is "X.264 AVC is better than DIVX265 HEVC. A TEST which proved it.DEAL WITH" which to me suggests that you would be offering some test encodes that supposedly would prove that x264 was better than divx265 and yet your entire opening post is:
    Comedy Gold!! We're all still waiting for test encodes which show x264's psy destroys the image.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    2013!!!!!!


    Quote Quote  
  16. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    *Wrong. I posted an article in 2013, where a relatively little 8K (not 4K!) HEVC camcorder was tested in Japan.
    Wrong. Testing by engineers is not even close to the same thing as making it available to consumers (whether broadcast/pro or mom&pop user). By their own admission, this thing is at least 2 years down the road (more like 5-6).

    Stop trying to pose as a technical authority when it is obvious you are not.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Budapest
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    *Wrong. I posted an article in 2013, where a relatively little 8K (not 4K!) HEVC camcorder was tested in Japan.
    Wrong. Testing by engineers is not even close to the same thing as making it available to consumers (whether broadcast/pro or mom&pop user). By their own admission, this thing is at least 2 years down the road (more like 5-6).

    Stop trying to pose as a technical authority when it is obvious you are not.

    Scott
    prove it

    There are no real scholars in this forum. All what the most experienced forum member know..is learnable within 2-3 months (with intensive learning)

    What hapend with you? You switched to redneck mode Usually you are more relaxed and balanced personality in the forum.
    Last edited by Stears555; 8th Jul 2014 at 15:44.
    Quote Quote  
  18. DECEASED
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Heaven
    Search Comp PM
    In the page of that YT clip, I found two VERY-pertinent comments:

    Too early.
    And where do I display 8K?
    Quote Quote  
  19. Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Instead Sintel (which is CG and artificial), use one of this clip's http://ultravideo.cs.tut.fi/#testsequences - they provide natural sequences very difficult to compress but way better to judge quality.
    you got it, nice find, i downloaded one of the 4k 10bit yuv sources but my pc can't handle them, for one thing the divx hevc encoder is purposely limited from working with 120fps sources and for another I/O and cpu/ram are a huge bottleneck on my system.

    i'm downloading some of the 1080p source for some test encodes.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Which program can transform them into avi files?
    The 8-bit files can be opened with RawSource() in AviSynth. Here's one example:

    Code:
    RawSource("Jockey_1920x1080_120fps_420_8bit_YUV.yuv", width=1920, height=1080, pixel_type="YV12") 
    AssumeFPS(120)
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    2013!!!!!!



    Yep, i saw NHK stand in 2011 and 2012 on IBC (2013 i giveup) - but this is proof of concept not real encoder you can order and place in your headend...

    For today non of major players on broadcast market offer h.265 4k 30fps (when 60fps?) capable encoder...
    Even current DVB-T2 transmission test by BBC are made with help of the 4 h.264 encoders...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/06/bbc-r-d-ultra-high-definition-trials
    Quote Quote  
  22. Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Even current DVB-T2 transmission test by BBC are made with help of the 4 h.264 encoders...
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2014/06/bbc-r-d-ultra-high-definition-trials
    If you live where I live (Australia) that article is a little depressing. Elsewhere the move to UHD is at least being considered (although I'm still very sceptical regarding the benefit of the extra resolution over 1080p, given 1080p video seems to rarely contain much more than 720p worth of picture detail) while here..... free to air broadcast is mostly overly compressed standard definition.

    Most of the time if I want to watch something in HD..... well I shouldn't talk about that, but I can't wait to buy a UHD TV to watch SD free to air, or maybe 4k video which really only has 900p worth of picture detail. Did I start ranting.....
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by hello_hello View Post
    If you live where I live (Australia) that article is a little depressing.
    Why? Australia is so pretty - go outside home and don't care about TV - there will be even more to see than in TV - I can watch Australia only in TV .

    ANd of course this is true about Australia but... this is proof of concept, UHD for long will be niche not regular broadcast, lack of sources, high bandwidth requirements, probably h.265 mean that more and more SD services will be replaced by HD version - not bad from my perspective as HD is still OK for many people.


    ----
    raw YUV 10 bit from link can be easily converted to avi trough ffmpeg with ffv1 lossless codec - files should compress quite nice (for example ShakeNDry_3840x2160_120fps_420_10bit_YUV_RAW_001.7 z from original 7z 1.75GiB to 1.45GiB avi)

    Code:
    @ffmpeg -f rawvideo -pixel_format yuv420p10le -video_size 3840x2160 -r 120.0 -i %1 -c:v ffv1 -an %1.avi
    Last edited by pandy; 9th Jul 2014 at 12:34.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
    Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Originally Posted by Wruckler View Post
    Is divx better?
    No. It has worse quality than x264.
    and yet you can provide zero proof of this idiotic claim
    You already provided the proof in post #13.

    https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/365665-X-264-AVC-is-better-than-DIVX265-HEVC-A-TEST...=1#post2332101

    I'm not saying that x264 is always better than Divx265. But in those particular examples it is.
    Last edited by jagabo; 9th Jul 2014 at 12:33.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Originally Posted by Stears555 View Post
    Your tests are Wrong. You used the worse quality of x265, a weaker quality settings for x264, and the better quality settings for divx265
    I think what he did tried is to compare all things kile Quality, File Size and the Speed...
    Only one would be different and then we can compare it....
    For an example.... if we compare DivX265 with x265, then File Size and the FPS is nearly same... then we can compare check the quality effectively...
    If we compare x264 and x265... then if the the File Size and the Quality would be nearly same (if), the we can compare the Speed...
    Quote Quote