Playback Issues with x264 in mkv

[Seraphic-]

Hi,

I'm having an issue when trying to playback a 4:04 long 720p (cropped to 1136x656) video that I encoded with HQ-Insane using CRF 15.0. Audio is 5.1 DTS.
The raw video size is 21.1GB and encoded size is 576MB.

It will play in audio/video sync and at full speed when I playing the raw, but when I try to play the x264 encoded version I get slower playback and audio/video is out of sync.

System is an Intel Quad Core, 4GB DDR2-1066, 1.7TB Raid0, with two overclocked ATI 3870s in crossfire.
These videos are for internet download distribution. So if my system can't play them, I don't see how other users will be able to.
What else can I try?

I've tried:
K-Lite Mega Codec Pack (http://www.free-codecs.com/download/K_Lite_Mega_Codec_Pack.htm)

Also tried (for some reason, when using this setup, have issues getting 5.1 DTS playback - just two channel stereo):
Media Player Classic - Homecinema (http://mpc-hc.sourceforge.net/)
ffdshow tryouts (http://ffdshow-tryout.sourceforge.net/)
Haali Media Splitter (http://haali.cs.msu.ru/mkv/)
AC3Filter (http://ac3filter.net/)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

What else can I try?

MPlayer for Windows (http://mulder.dummwiedeutsch.de/home/?page=projects#mplayer)

VLC Media Player (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/)


And forget about crappy Codec packs!

If you want a DirectShow-based player then install Media Player Classic + ffdshow-tryouts and that's it...

[Seraphic-]

I wouldn't call that codec pack "crappy" as it is one of the higher rated ones.
Comes with several install profiles, though I only ever use the "Profile 3 - Playback Only" which installs a few things.
Never had a problem with it, other when trying to play these HQ x264 encodes.

Tomorrow I'll post a one minute version of the video with 5.1 DTS and see if it plays slow and out of sync for other people.

What do you use for your x264 playback?

[poisondeathray]

If this was a retail source, did you decrypt it properly?
You said the "raw" played back normally, did you mean the original source? Was the source h.264 or something else?
How did you do your conversion?
Did you touch the audio? or re-encode?
What was the fps of the original and encoded file?
What are the running times of the audio and video of the original and encoded version?

You can use mediainfo to check these things

If it plays back normally with mplayer or vlc, then it's probably a configuration/codec issue, not an encoding issue

[LoRd_MuldeR]

What do you use for your x264 playback?



MPlayer for Windows (http://mulder.dummwiedeutsch.de/home/?page=projects#mplayer)

VLC Media Player (http://www.videolan.org/vlc/)

Media Player Classic + ffdshow-tryouts


(Codec packs are "crappy" per definition, as you really don't need them and they potentially mess up your system)

[Sharktooth]

try coreavc or a multithreaded decoder.
i also agree on the crappyness of codec packs.

[clsid]

Most of the people who download this file are probably not using CoreAVC. Most people will use some FFmpeg based decoder, such as ffdshow, VLC, or MPlayer.

You may want to try less insane encoding settings. Or maybe lower the resolution a bit further.

[Seraphic-]

Thanks for everyone's help.

Turns out somewhere along the lines of my editing/encoding, a ".570" delay came into play with the audio.
So that was the reason why the sync was off.
However, there is still some slowdown/tearing during parts of the video were there are a lot of graphical effects.

On a side note, I tried to add a audio delay using the Megui mkv muxer, but noting seemed to work.
Does each number stand for one second or like .100, .200, etc...? Whatever the case, didn't seem to change anything.

I've added the below sample video and would appreciate if some members could download it and see if they get slowdown during playback for the graphical intense parts.
On my system, the slowdown starts from 0:39 until the end of the video. Also, please reply on 51. DTS audio levels (if they sound peaked out or too low in volume).

When using Media Player Classic - Homecinema, ffdshow tryouts, Haali Media Splitter, and AC3Filter, I don't get 5.1 DTS audio playback in MPC-HC.
So I'm using the K-Lite Mega Codec Pack at the moment.
Not sure what does it, but it also seems to have some audio normalizing, so the audio sounds gear on my system.
But I'm not sure how it will sound to other users using different systems.

(right click and save link/target as to desktop or whatever)
720p - 5.1 DTS - MKV (http://www.temp.seraphicgate.com/720p51DTS.mkv)

Thanks

[Revgen]

I never get out of sync audio with this clip on my Intel Quadcore. I used 2 recent versions of Mplayer and ffmpeg. There were some slowdowns at some spots though, but no sync issues.

[Seraphic-]

I never get out of sync audio with this clip on my Intel Quadcore. I used 2 recent versions of Mplayer and ffmpeg. There were some slowdowns at some spots though, but no sync issues.

Yeah, there won't be any audio/sync issues in that 720p - 5.1 DTS - MKV (http://www.temp.seraphicgate.com/720p51DTS.mkv) video. I found what was caused the problem and fixed it, so it was in sync.

The slowdown might be from too high of a bit rate. Was encoded with HQ-Insane using CRF 15.0. I had slowdown/tearing on my system as well starting at about 0:39 seconds in.

Is your audio system 5.1 or 2.0? Whatever the case, how was the audio levels with the 5.1 DTS track from this video? Was it it peaking out, too low, or sounded good?

Thanks

[Revgen]

I have 5.1 speakers, but don't use them currently, so I can't tell for sure.

[Seraphic-]

I have 5.1 speakers, but don't use them currently, so I can't tell for sure.

But you said the audio was in sync? So you must have heard it somehow. Were the audio levels okay?

[Sharktooth]

lol at CRF 15 and HQ-Insane (bitrate based). some ppl doenst know how to encode or how to use x264.
:readguid: and :search: ... is it so complex?

[Seraphic-]

lol at CRF 15 and HQ-Insane (bitrate based). some ppl doenst know how to encode or how to use x264.
:readguid: and :search: ... is it so complex?

You mean a guide like this that doesn't go over CRF at all?
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/gknot-main6.htm

What is wrong with HQ-Insane at crf 15.0? Lower number will return higher quality then higher numbers.
I tried 20.0 and 15.0, the latter looked much better. Although this it also had much large file size and caused slowdown and tearing.

Oh, and unlike you, I haven't used x264 much at all until now.
Good to see someone who has used it for years and has a lot of experience would reply to two of my posts being a smart ass.
Rather then saying why that setting would be not the best approach.

[Pluis]

You mean a guide like this that doesn't go over CRF at all?
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/gknot-main6.htm

What is wrong with HQ-Insane at crf 15.0? Lower number will return higher quality then higher numbers.
I tried 20.0 and 15.0, the latter looked much better. Although this it also had much large file size and caused slowdown and tearing.

Oh, and unlike you, I haven't used x264 much at all until now.
Good to see someone who has used it for years and has a lot of experience would reply to two of my posts being a smart ass.
Rather then saying why that setting would be not the best approach.

Don't worry Seraphic,

Most of the bigtime posters here are real assholes, they are messing up the whole codec "environment" with their ever called beta's and other crappy inventions.

You cannot find any good info or guides here, except some 6 year old stuff that ain't worth shit.

If you really wanna get help to your problems, you better go to http://forum.videohelp.com/

There, people are helpful, here they're pathetically stupid, but they believe they are smart.;)

[gav1577]

You mean a guide like this that doesn't go over CRF at all?
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/gknot-main6.htm

What is wrong with HQ-Insane at crf 15.0? Lower number will return higher quality then higher numbers.
I tried 20.0 and 15.0, the latter looked much better. Although this it also had much large file size and caused slowdown and tearing.

Oh, and unlike you, I haven't used x264 much at all until now.
Good to see someone who has used it for years and has a lot of experience would reply to two of my posts being a smart ass.
Rather then saying why that setting would be not the best approach.

I have to agree sharktooth has a real bad attitude when i first joined the forum he made me feel nervous about posting because of the way he speaks to people as far as im concerned there is no need to speak to people the way he does

[Dark Shikari]

Oh wow, nice troll.Don't worry Seraphic,

Most of the bigtime posters here are real assholes, they are messing up the whole codec "environment" with their ever called beta's and other crappy inventions.Wait, you'd prefer that x264 not exist? Or do you mean that x264 is "messing up the codec environment" because its so much better than everything else? ;)There, people are helpful, here they're pathetically stupid, but they believe they are smart.;)Then where's the Videohelp H.264 encoder, if they're so smart and we're so "pathetically stupid"? Its a rather bad idea to insult the people who made the program you're using.

On that note, while Sharktooth is going over the top as usual, CRF15 is likely overkill. High bitrates require a lot of CPU to play back, and you might do better to use a bit higher CRF (maybe 17 or 18) in the interests of saving CPU time. It was asked "what's wrong with CRF15"--well, obviously if its causing playback issues, that's what wrong, isn't it? ;)

[Ranguvar]

:D :p :rolleyes:

I don't mean to talk bad about Videohelp, but there's a lot of misinformation there among the one or two useful bits I've found...

Considering Doom9 houses the majority of codec developers, AviSynth developers, etc....

Anyways...

[Sharktooth]

at least i dont offend ppl like someone else, however HQ-Insane is a MeGUI profile (if you didnt know you could find it by using the forum search function) and there's a sticky with a megui guide here in the forum. also there are 2 threads talking about presets...
the forum rules tell you to :search: before asking... obviously you didnt.
if you searched for HQ-Insane, you would have certainly know that x264 insane settings give a slightly better quality for a major encoding speed hit and that CRF 15 is just an overkill.
so, when im saying :search: and :readguid: im not an a$$, it's just what you were supposed to do before even posting as per forum rules (which im sure you didnt read...).
if you dont have the time or dont want to help yourself you cant pretend ppl will lose their time or will have the will to help you.


@Pluis: yours is a nice behaviour instead, isnt it? have a read at the forum rules again.

[Seraphic-]

Oh wow, nice troll.Wait, you'd prefer that x264 not exist? Or do you mean that x264 is "messing up the codec environment" because its so much better than everything else? ;)Then where's the Videohelp H.264 encoder, if they're so smart and we're so "pathetically stupid"? Its a rather bad idea to insult the people who made the program you're using.

On that note, while Sharktooth is going over the top as usual, CRF15 is likely overkill. High bitrates require a lot of CPU to play back, and you might do better to use a bit higher CRF (maybe 17 or 18) in the interests of saving CPU time. It was asked "what's wrong with CRF15"--well, obviously if its causing playback issues, that's what wrong, isn't it? ;)

Yeah, after the encode was done I knew CRF15 might have been a bit much as it did have playback issues.
Although, it looked damn good too. Anyway, are you able to use something like CRF17.5 or do you need to stick to whole numbers like CRF17 or CRF18?

[Dark Shikari]

Yeah, after the encode was done I knew CRF15 might have been a bit much as it did have playback issues.
Although, it looked damn good too. Anyway, are you able to use something like CRF17.5 or do you need to stick to whole numbers like CRF17 or CRF18?Nope, you can use fractions.

[Seraphic-]

On side topic, searched around the forums about non-mod16 resolutions with x264 and found a good ten or so posts.
But I just wanted to get confirmation on what I found.

So what it comes down to is, as long as you take into account the amount of extra pixel lines (padding) that will added when using a non-mod16 resolution, and add the extra bit-rate needed to your encoder settings, there will no quality loss, correct?
I mean, using something like CRF would insure the same picture quality for a non-mod16 as mod16 video, right (since it would be achieving the same quality padding or not)?

[Ranguvar]

With x264, the quality hit for using non-mod16 resolutions should be very minimal. It's basically not worth worrying about.

[Sharktooth]

x264 pads pixels automatically so it can accept non mod16 resolutions (mod4 for example). so you dont need mod16 to encode but at the price of a small compression/quality loss.
mod16 is necessary for some decoders and avisynth filter though.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Using a none-mod16 with CRF mode will result in a slightly bigger file. There should be no (noticeable) difference in quality...

[Seraphic-]

Why would there be any quality loss at all if all it is doing is padding (adding borders) up to mod16 during encoding, then setting a flag to crop/remove the padding on playback?
Although I don't think it can be done after encoding, wouldn't it be the same as adding the borders yourself with Avisynth to mod16, then after the encode, cropping down to the resolution without borders.
Why would quality change the other way around? (I'm sure there is a valid reason or maybe I misunderstand how the padding works during encoding of non-mod16)

[Dark Shikari]

Why would there be any quality loss at all if all it is doing is padding (adding borders) up to mod16 during encoding, then setting a flag to crop/remove the padding on playback?
Although I don't think it can be done after encoding, wouldn't it be the same as adding the borders yourself with Avisynth to mod16, then after the encode, cropping down to the resolution without borders.
Why would quality change the other way around? (I'm sure there is a valid reason or maybe I misunderstand how the padding works during encoding of non-mod16)The padding is better if the encoder does it, because a sharp boundary between two colors is very bad for compression--so the encoder takes the last line of pixels and duplicates it until it reaches the end of the frame.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Why would there be any quality loss at all if all it is doing is padding (adding borders) up to mod16 during encoding, then setting a flag to crop/remove the padding on playback?

Because the padded pixels need to be encoded, although you'll never see them. That takes some extra bits.
In CBR or 2-Pass mode this results in a slightly reduced quality. And in CRF mode it results in a slightly bigger file.
But again: The difference will be minimal, don't worry too much about it...