How slow can it to be?

[sysKin]

Hi. This is actually a copy of a poll from our homepage (xvid.org) but this question is actually pretty important.

Imagine you're encoding something at, say, 640x272 resolution. You have a 1 GHz cpu. Question is:

What minimal encoding speed is OK with you, if you could improve quality at cost of speed? This includes all filters etc.

[Sigmatador]

quality first ;) and then increase the speed (but quality first :D )

[Didée]

Quality above all, no question.
As long as speed stays in "reasonable" ranges. For sure, I don't want to encode movies with the actual speed of reference hdot264 ...

But sometimes you ARE time-limited.
E.g. when capturing and encoding daily series, the encoding should by all means finish within max. 22 hours (1 hour capping, 1 hour setting-up and audio stuff, plus a little room to breathe). Otherwise, one would get into serious trouble very soon ;)

Generally, I can stand 1/2 to 1/3 of realtime without tearing my hair.
Below ~4 fps, my hair gets in danger ...

[seewen]

Why not add an option to XviD, like the one of DIvX 5 :

"Performance/quality".

With a range of choice from "fastest" to "slowest". (fastest, fast, medium, slow, slowest ).

So everybody could get what he want..

Bye

P.S.
I've never tested this DivX 5 option. I always set it on "slowest". SO I don't know if it really works.

[Selur]

don't have a 1Ghz PC that's fit for encoding atm,...
But like most others I prefer quality over speed, though if I can make an encode on my dual athlon 1.8MP+ within a day it's fine for me ;)

Cu Selur

[SiXXGuNNZ]

I don't get the ? but I get 11 - 15 fps with the current xvid builds, b-frames/chroma only

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by seewen
Why not add an option to XviD, like the one of DIvX 5 :

"Performance/quality".

With a range of choice from "fastest" to "slowest". (fastest, fast, medium, slow, slowest ).

So everybody could get what he want..

Bye

P.S.
I've never tested this DivX 5 option. I always set it on "slowest". SO I don't know if it really works.

Look at the codecs closer. Xvid has exactly what you speak of. But Xvid calls it what it is. "Motion Search Precision". With Divx it is just some control that gives you no clue about what it actually does for you. Set it to zero and watch you encoding speed up dramativally. But don't expect as good of quality.

[TheXung]

Originally posted by SiXXGuNNZ
I don't get the ? but I get 11 - 15 fps with the current xvid builds, b-frames/chroma only

The question pertains to "if they add such and such a feature that will increase quality, how much speed are you willing to give up to use that feature?"

[TheXung]

There are some movies that I spend days on because somewhere in the back of my head, I feel that it's not good enough quality and there's room to be had for improvements. That being said, spending days on an encode isn't a big deal if I assured that I can't get better quality by fiddling around with the settings more. I have noticed that there are some movies that through poor dynamic b-frames managment, are very difficult to get better quality than DivX.

[seewen]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Look at the codecs closer. Xvid has exactly what you speak of. But Xvid calls it what it is. "Motion Search Precision". With Divx it is just some control that gives you no clue about what it actually does for you. .

I didn't knew that "Motion Search precision" of XviD = "Performance/qulity" of DivX 5.

I thought that it was "Motion Search precision" + ? .


Set it to zero and watch you encoding speed up dramativally. But don't expect as good of quality

It's exactly the subject of the poll.. no ?

[asqwe]

between 4~10
......=_=!!!

I have alredy choice "fastest".....

[Teegedeck]

...and don't forget that the question is fps per Ghz! ;)

[BoNz1]

And don't forget about the resolution either since I can probably do about 300fps encoding postage sized movies, :D. Anyhow, I always go for quality but if it is < 4 fps it might take me a whole day to encode a longer movie, so I would say per 1 ghz at 640x480 4-10fps. EDIT: Oh, the res was already mentioned, oh well, I still would say 4-10fps. :)

[symonjfox]

Quality is the most important thing.

PC speeds grow up in few months, maybe now it will take 1 day, tomorrow it will take 1 hour.

Maybe if the option that allows better quality is too slow, just create an option to Enable or Disable it so an user can decide.

[NuclearFusi0n]

why target a 1 ghz processor, lots of people have more.,

just aim for quality at ANY speed, and let people disable features they dont like. i think 1 to 2 fps with all features on, on a loaded 2.5 ghz ATHLON XP system should be an appropriate limit

[symonjfox]

Originally posted by NuclearFusi0n
just aim for quality at ANY speed, and let people disable features they dont like.

Maybe you're right ...
I don't know. Maybe it's better enable them by default and hide those settings deep inside the very very very advanced proprieties.

Or create some default settings

FAST
NORMAL
HIGH QUALITY
and of course, CUSTOM - for advanced users

and then inexpert people won't have to be afraid of particular settings. Remember that most people use DivX just because it's easyer to configure, also if XviD gives more quality.

Remember that some people real time capture videos just for watchin it later, they won't take care about quality.

Instead, for a DVD backup or other purposes, there's people (like me) that encode the video 3 or 4 times just to see what is the best result.

I don't know.

[Topaz]

I used to get 3-5fps with my old p2-300 so I say the best quality no matter the time ;-)

Although it is much nicer with my new computer which gives me about 25fps.

The problem as I see it is knowing what is the best quality when using xvid builds. I mean what options gives the best quality and so on. Also getting a conforming bitrate etc etc

[kilg0r3]

Speed/Quality ratio in Xvid can already be adjusted. Encoding without all the fancy features and a low setting for motion estimation is lightning fast. If you want maximum quality, do the reverse. I don't understand what the poll is for?

For people who want speed there is always a possibility to gain it.

[sysKin]

Originally posted by kilg0r3
Speed/Quality ratio in Xvid can already be adjusted. Encoding without all the fancy features and a low setting for motion estimation is lightning fast. If you want maximum quality, do the reverse. I don't understand what the poll is for? That's simple. I need to know if working on certain things is worth it.
I can add new options which would improve quality at cost of speed. However, if most people wouldn't use the new options, I would be wasting my time. I'm sure you understand why I don't want to waste my time :).

Radek

PS. all quality freaks: expect a surprise soon (today maybe?).

[kilg0r3]

@ ok. i see. :stupid:

PS. all quality freaks: expect a surprise soon (today maybe?).

Which? What? Where? When? .. Give it here .. to me! Now! :Dhttp://kilg0r3.cjb.net/img/klayman7.jpg

Hm, hm, hm nice box. Tingelinglong, what might be inside?
http://kilg0r3.cjb.net/img/klayman2.jpg

[Teegedeck]

VHQ, VHQ, VHQ...

:D :D :D

Looks like Santa will be VERY early this year.

[kilg0r3]

VHQ? :stupid: again ...



it's up ----->

savings of about 8% with the strongest setting in a first test! :)

[EDIT] Just had to ad an exclamation mark above. 8% from scratch is a lot. i guess bitrate saving is not getting easier at an already high level ...

My speed went down from 21-23fps to about 9fps using the strongest setting. That is still cool!

[NoLogo]

As far as I'm concerned, my goal is QUALITY, I don't care about time needed. Tight now, with my poor P3 500, encoding time goes from 12fps (low-res, no filter, low bitrate) to 1-2 fps (C3D, hi-res, high birate). So, keep on the very good work :)

PS: VQF sounds really interesting, will have (more than) a look on it. :)

Best regards
NoLogo

[NuclearFusi0n]

Originally posted by sysKin
That's simple. I need to know if working on certain things is worth it.
I can add new options which would improve quality at cost of speed. However, if most people wouldn't use the new options, I would be wasting my time. I'm sure you understand why I don't want to waste my time :).

Radek

PS. all quality freaks: expect a surprise soon (today maybe?).

ahah, this is exciting :)

BTW, i think presets would be a good idea for people that dont know any better. Let's worry about that when we get some of these killer new features into the stable build. yummy.

[Defiler]

Before I answer.. how fast does a 1GHz CPU encode XviD these days?
I get 32fps or so after Decomb/BicubicResize->640x480 with Avisynth 2.5. If the quality was noticeably better, I'd be willing to cut that speed in half, but maybe not much more than that.

[cult]

@Defiler

whats your cpu that you get 32fps with?Hope not a 1ghz...

[Defiler]

Originally posted by cult
@Defiler

whats your cpu that you get 32fps with?Hope not a 1ghz... Dual 2.8GHz/533MHz Xeon, E7505 chipset. HyperThreading is cool. During certain parts of the encoding process, it's worth a 50% performance boost.

[Mango Madness]

grrr, i want that kind of encoding power : )

[Prosper]

@Defiler - OT - That's a very similar maching to the one I am speccing for my next unit, depending on how much Opteron will cost...


But in terms of fps/Ghz, I'd say 2-3 minimum, otherwise it's just not worth the time.

[Defiler]

Originally posted by Prosper
@Defiler - OT - That's a very similar maching to the one I am speccing for my next unit, depending on how much Opteron will cost...The 2.4GHz chips had a vastly higher GHz/dollar ratio, but I figured.. "Hey.. If I'm getting a Xeon anyway, I might as well go all the way."
Of course, now the 3.06GHz chips are out, but there's always someone with a faster machine anyway. :D