View Single Post
Old 13th August 2005, 18:01   #19  |  Link
DeathTheSheep
<The VFW Sheep of Death>
 
DeathTheSheep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Deathly pasture of VFW
Posts: 1,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by doom9
so going above 32 [ME range with UMH estimation] only yields lower speed, lower psnr and higher bitrate..
So it would seem from this test, but this is not an entirely accurate assumption. A single test does not prove anything. In fact, I have found much evidence on the contrary; it all depends on the source material. A ME range of 64 is slightly beneficial (quality-wise) on low framerate, erratic-motion, anime content.
Because I am certain of my convictions, I picked an entirely random animation sample on my computer to test. It consists of 3306 frames of anime at about 12fps. I encoded at quant=36. I will host the result files shortly.

My results (range 64 vs. range 32):
1. Filesize was smaller (1,231,862 vs 1,234,412)
2. PSNR was very slightly higher (31.24 vs 31.23)
3. Encoding time was a bit longer (6:21 vs 5:10).

Output files will be here when available:
http://farmz.net/xsquared/ME32.avi
http://farmz.net/xsquared/ME64.avi

Cleary, this was not a sample indicative of the true potential of UMH_ME64, but it was a random sample designed all the same to show that different content (and different tests ) can yield different results.

Likewise, encoding speed varies based on the complexity of the source material. Still scenes go equally fast, but the more complex and erratic the motion becomes, the more the higher ranges show slowdown.

Additionally, UMH in and of itself isn't the best way to test ME range efficiency. The only certain way is an exhaustive search, which I am currently in the process of performing on the same clip for comparison purposes.

DTS
__________________
Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds!

Last edited by DeathTheSheep; 13th August 2005 at 18:48.
DeathTheSheep is offline   Reply With Quote