Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 AVC / H.264

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 9th November 2009, 12:39   #1  |  Link
Conquerist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 37
Worse Quality in Dissolve() Fades With Weightp Than Without

My avisynth script consists of this line repeated and concatenated for each image in the source folder.

Code:
Dissolve(ImageSource("IMG_2040.jpg",end=5).Spline36Resize(1024,768),BlankClip(6,1024,768,"RGB24").KillAudio(),5)
As I understand it, these linear fades should benefit the most from weightp. Here's my script:

Code:
for %%A in (0 1 2) DO (
..\x264.weightp --weightp %%A --bitrate 1500 --pass 1 --preset slow --bframes 8 --ref 8 --tune ssim --ssim "fades.avs" --output NUL
..\x264.weightp --weightp %%A --bitrate 1500 --pass 2 --preset slow --bframes 8 --ref 8 --tune ssim --ssim "fades.avs" --output "weightp.%%A.264"
)
And the results:

Code:
WEIGHTP 0
avis [info]: 1024x768 @ 24.00 fps (273 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64
x264 [info]: profile Main, level 3.1
x264 [info]: frame I:2     Avg QP:27.48  size: 66136
x264 [info]: frame P:80    Avg QP:30.22  size: 22919
x264 [info]: frame B:191   Avg QP:31.43  size:    76
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 14.4%  1.5%  1.1%  1.5%  1.8% 79.7%  0.0%  0.
0%  0.0%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 49.6%  0.0% 50.4%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4: 96.2%  0.0%  0.0%  P16..4:  0.2%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0
.0%    skip: 3.6%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.4%  0.0%  0.0%  B16..8:  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  direct:
 0.2%  skip:99.3%  L0: 8.9% L1:81.3% BI: 9.8%
x264 [info]: final ratefactor: 26.00
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:52.4% temporal:47.6%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 35.6% 27.2% 13.4% inter: 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 61% 14% 14% 10%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 12% 29% 15%  6%  7%  7% 10%  5%  9%
x264 [info]: SSIM Mean Y:0.9611572
x264 [info]: kb/s:1392.76

encoded 273 frames, 2.08 fps, 1392.76 kb/s
avis [info]: 1024x768 @ 24.00 fps (273 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
x264 [info]: frame I:2     Avg QP:30.05  size: 52183
x264 [info]: frame P:80    Avg QP:28.61  size: 24588
x264 [info]: frame B:191   Avg QP:28.58  size:   286
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 14.4%  1.5%  1.1%  1.5%  1.8% 79.7%  0.0%  0.
0%  0.0%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 38.8% 37.8% 23.5%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4: 55.6% 27.5% 11.0%  P16..4:  2.1%  0.3%  0.1%  0.0%  0
.0%    skip: 3.5%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.8%  0.5%  0.1%  B16..8:  0.2%  0.0%  0.0%  direct:
 0.1%  skip:98.2%  L0:43.9% L1:21.9% BI:34.2%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform intra:29.6% inter:72.1%
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:55.0% temporal:45.0%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 36.2% 31.6% 15.9% inter: 0.5% 0.4% 0.0%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 81%  5%  7%  7%
x264 [info]: i8 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 15% 22% 26%  5%  6%  6%  6%  6%  8%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 23% 26% 12%  5%  7%  7%  6%  6%  8%
x264 [info]: ref P L0:  1.3% 67.8%  5.8%  5.4%  0.8%  8.7%  2.6%  7.6%
x264 [info]: ref B L0: 48.0% 34.5%  6.4%  3.7%  5.0%  0.2%  2.3%
x264 [info]: SSIM Mean Y:0.9711909
x264 [info]: kb/s:1495.20

encoded 273 frames, 1.88 fps, 1495.20 kb/s

WEIGHTP 1

avis [info]: 1024x768 @ 24.00 fps (273 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64
x264 [info]: profile Main, level 3.1
x264 [info]: frame I:2     Avg QP:27.48  size: 66136
x264 [info]: frame P:80    Avg QP:30.22  size: 22919
x264 [info]: frame B:191   Avg QP:31.43  size:    76
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 14.4%  1.5%  1.1%  1.5%  1.8% 79.7%  0.0%  0.
0%  0.0%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 49.6%  0.0% 50.4%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4: 96.2%  0.0%  0.0%  P16..4:  0.2%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0
.0%    skip: 3.6%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.4%  0.0%  0.0%  B16..8:  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  direct:
 0.2%  skip:99.3%  L0: 8.9% L1:81.3% BI: 9.8%
x264 [info]: final ratefactor: 26.00
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:52.4% temporal:47.6%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 35.6% 27.2% 13.4% inter: 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 61% 14% 14% 10%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 12% 29% 15%  6%  7%  7% 10%  5%  9%
x264 [info]: SSIM Mean Y:0.9611572
x264 [info]: kb/s:1392.76

encoded 273 frames, 1.89 fps, 1392.76 kb/s
avis [info]: 1024x768 @ 24.00 fps (273 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
x264 [info]: frame I:2     Avg QP:30.05  size: 52183
x264 [info]: frame P:80    Avg QP:28.60  size: 24588
x264 [info]: frame B:191   Avg QP:28.59  size:   286
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 14.4%  1.5%  1.1%  1.5%  1.8% 79.7%  0.0%  0.
0%  0.0%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 38.8% 37.8% 23.5%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4: 55.7% 27.5% 10.9%  P16..4:  2.0%  0.2%  0.1%  0.0%  0
.0%    skip: 3.5%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.8%  0.5%  0.1%  B16..8:  0.3%  0.0%  0.0%  direct:
 0.1%  skip:98.2%  L0:45.3% L1:22.3% BI:32.4%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform intra:29.7% inter:73.7%
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:55.0% temporal:45.0%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 36.2% 31.6% 15.9% inter: 0.5% 0.4% 0.0%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 80%  5%  7%  7%
x264 [info]: i8 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 15% 22% 26%  5%  6%  6%  6%  6%  9%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 22% 26% 12%  5%  7%  7%  6%  6%  8%
x264 [info]: ref P L0:  0.6% 71.6%  0.8%  2.1%  5.0%  0.5%  9.2%  2.5%  7.7%
x264 [info]: ref B L0: 45.6% 36.4%  6.9%  4.3%  4.5%  0.2%  2.1%
x264 [info]: SSIM Mean Y:0.9711826
x264 [info]: kb/s:1495.24

encoded 273 frames, 1.59 fps, 1495.24 kb/s

WEIGHTP 2

avis [info]: 1024x768 @ 24.00 fps (273 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64
x264 [info]: profile Main, level 3.1
x264 [info]: frame I:2     Avg QP:26.77  size: 81072
x264 [info]: frame P:96    Avg QP:34.31  size: 16358
x264 [info]: frame B:175   Avg QP:36.94  size:  1000
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames:  8.1% 25.1% 14.4% 17.7%  0.0% 24.4% 10.3%  0.
0%  0.0%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 33.8%  0.0% 66.2%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4: 91.1%  0.0%  0.0%  P16..4:  4.3%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0
.0%    skip: 4.6%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4: 22.2%  0.0%  0.0%  B16..8:  1.0%  0.0%  0.0%  direct:
 0.5%  skip:76.3%  L0:64.1% L1:31.9% BI: 4.0%
x264 [info]: final ratefactor: 30.23
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:98.9% temporal:1.1%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 22.3% 19.8% 6.1% inter: 2.0% 2.0% 0.1%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 54% 22% 14% 10%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 14% 28% 14%  7%  7%  7%  9%  6%  9%
x264 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:0.0%
x264 [info]: SSIM Mean Y:0.9169969
x264 [info]: kb/s:1341.53

encoded 273 frames, 2.00 fps, 1341.53 kb/s
avis [info]: 1024x768 @ 24.00 fps (273 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
x264 [info]: frame I:2     Avg QP:30.95  size: 46367
x264 [info]: frame P:96    Avg QP:32.87  size: 17927
x264 [info]: frame B:175   Avg QP:34.44  size:  1686
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames:  8.1% 25.1% 14.4% 17.7%  0.0% 24.4% 10.3%  0.
0%  0.0%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 24.6% 55.1% 20.3%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4: 26.4% 56.0%  9.4%  P16..4:  2.9%  0.6%  0.1%  0.0%  0
.0%    skip: 4.6%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4: 10.0%  5.6%  0.4%  B16..8:  1.6%  0.0%  0.0%  direct:
 2.7%  skip:79.6%  L0:77.8% L1:20.4% BI: 1.8%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform intra:54.7% inter:90.0%
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:98.3% temporal:1.7%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 31.1% 27.2% 8.3% inter: 4.7% 2.3% 0.0%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 38% 26% 16% 20%
x264 [info]: i8 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 12% 16% 51%  3%  3%  4%  3%  3%  4%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 25% 27% 16%  5%  6%  6%  5%  5%  6%
x264 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:0.0%
x264 [info]: ref P L0: 15.6% 26.2% 32.9%  9.9%  2.7%  3.2%  3.3%  4.0%  2.1%
x264 [info]: ref B L0: 26.4%  3.3%  8.2%  6.4%  9.3%  4.3% 42.1%
x264 [info]: SSIM Mean Y:0.9459391
x264 [info]: kb/s:1483.12

encoded 273 frames, 1.64 fps, 1483.12 kb/s
Surprisingly the quality was worse, and 0.0% weighted p-frames were used! I know that metrics aren't always a good indication of quality, but the SSIM dropped from 0.9711909 to 0.9459391, and visual quality decreased accordingly.

Dropping --tune ssim from the command line resulted in nearly identical results with and without weightp.
Conquerist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2009, 12:42   #2  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Weighted P-Frames: Y:0.0% in a fade
Your copy of x264 is miscompiled. Stop using GCCs that suck, that is, every single GCC version whose version number starts with a "4".

And on a hunch, change
Code:
static void weights_plane_analyse(
to
Code:
static void NOINLINE weights_plane_analyse(
in encoder/slicetype.c and see if that fixes the miscompilation in crappy compilers.

Last edited by Dark Shikari; 9th November 2009 at 12:52.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2009, 13:00   #3  |  Link
drmpeg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Your copy of x264 is miscompiled. Stop using GCCs that suck, that is, every single GCC version after 3.4.5.
Just curious, but why does every version of gcc suck after 3.4.5? Is that for x86, or gcc in general? The reason I ask, is that I just went through a ginormous port from gcc 2.7.2 to gcc 4.1.2 (on SPARC of all CPU's). Aside from the super annoying requirement to have a newline at the end of each file and no text after #else or #endif, it went pretty smoothly. Performance wise, it seemed to be a wash.

Ron
__________________
HD MPEG-2 Test Patterns http://www.w6rz.net
drmpeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2009, 13:06   #4  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmpeg View Post
Just curious, but why does every version of gcc suck after 3.4.5? Is that for x86, or gcc in general? The reason I ask, is that I just went through a ginormous port from gcc 2.7.2 to gcc 4.1.2 (on SPARC of all CPU's). Aside from the super annoying requirement to have a newline at the end of each file and no text after #else or #endif, it went pretty smoothly. Performance wise, it seemed to be a wash.

Ron
Every single GCC version starting at 4.0 has had a catastrophic number of bugs and miscompilation issues. Furthermore, it took until gcc 4.3 to even tie the performance of 3.4. mplayer still won't compile correctly with 4.4.

More specifically, I have never had a miscompilation issue with gcc 3.4 that wasn't also in 4.X, but I've constantly had issues with miscompilation in 4.X that weren't in 3.4.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th November 2009, 13:11   #5  |  Link
Conquerist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 37
Thanks for the quick reply.

NOINLINE weights_plane_analyse didn't fix it for TDM GCC 4.4.1 I'm afraid.

bob0r's build with gcc 3.4.5 used Weighted P-Frames 36.5% of the time, but still with --tune ssim the SSIM dropped from 0.9711910 to 0.9604006.
Conquerist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2009, 17:28   #6  |  Link
Sagekilla
x264aholic
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
Conquerist, I think the real question should be: Am I seeing a noticeable difference in visual quality when I view the Weight P vs non-weight P?

Any change in PSNR or SSIM doesn't always correlate with a corresponding change in actual visual quality. Take Psy-RDO and AQ for example. Both are known to decrease metrics but vastly improve quality.
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame.

Last edited by Sagekilla; 10th November 2009 at 17:35.
Sagekilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2009, 23:12   #7  |  Link
Astrophizz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 184
Well that would only be the case if weight-p is a psychovisual optimization. Otherwise it should increase PSNR and SSIM.
Astrophizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2009, 23:18   #8  |  Link
nurbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,460
I only did one test run (2 pass; --tune ssim), but for me ssim was higher with weighted p-frames.
nurbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 15:22   #9  |  Link
juGGaKNot
Registered User
 
juGGaKNot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 733
I just encoded a clip, simple fade, i can confirm, its much worst with weightp.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
If they can beat x264 in visual quality on ordinary test clips without postprocessing, I'll eat my hat.
juGGaKNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 20:18   #10  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Are you insane or do you have a miscompiled build?

Smart weighting (203.99 kb/s):


No smart weighting (281.83 kb/s):
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 20:29   #11  |  Link
juGGaKNot
Registered User
 
juGGaKNot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 733
jeebs 4.3.4, 2 seconds, now encoding 6 minutes and posting screens

Quote:
--preset veryslow --level 3.2 --bitrate 4300 --ref 5 --min-keyint 30 --keyint 300 --bframes 3 --ratetol 2.0 --merange 32 --direct temporal --aq-mode 2 --no-fast-pskip --no-dct-decimate --sar 1:1 --weightp 2 --aud

avis [info]: 1184x666 @ 30.00 fps (60 frames)
x264 [info]: using SAR=1/1
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Slow
x264 [info]: profile Main, level 3.2
x264 [info]: frame I:1 Avg QP:19.00 size: 837
x264 [info]: frame P:27 Avg QP:16.57 size: 25239
x264 [info]: frame B:32 Avg QP:17.53 size: 15440
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 6.8% 47.5% 45.8% 0.0%
x264 [info]: mb I I16..4: 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
x264 [info]: mb P I16..4: 51.7% 0.0% 0.0% P16..4: 37.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0
.0% skip:10.8%
x264 [info]: mb B I16..4: 26.0% 0.0% 0.0% B16..8: 31.0% 0.0% 0.0% direct:
15.6% skip:27.3% L0:22.7% L1:25.1% BI:52.2%
x264 [info]: final ratefactor: 11.82
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 46.3% 32.4% 12.7% inter: 35.7% 27.6% 6.6%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 42% 33% 17% 8%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
x264 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:88.9%
x264 [info]: kb/s:4705.40

encoded 60 frames, 7.92 fps, 4705.40 kb/s
avis [info]: 1184x666 @ 30.00 fps (60 frames)
x264 [info]: using SAR=1/1
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Slow
x264 [info]: profile High, level 3.2
x264 [info]: frame I:1 Avg QP:16.00 size: 871
x264 [info]: frame P:27 Avg QP:16.37 size: 23208
x264 [info]: frame B:32 Avg QP:17.68 size: 15064
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 6.8% 47.5% 45.8% 0.0%
x264 [info]: mb I I16..4: 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
x264 [info]: mb P I16..4: 13.1% 20.3% 2.4% P16..4: 30.9% 14.7% 6.3% 0.3% 0
.2% skip:11.8%
x264 [info]: mb B I16..4: 3.0% 5.9% 0.4% B16..8: 37.5% 3.5% 3.7% direct:
16.5% skip:29.4% L0:32.0% L1:35.8% BI:32.2%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform intra:54.0% inter:66.5%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 41.9% 27.4% 9.1% inter: 41.4% 24.7% 5.9%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 66% 20% 6% 8%
x264 [info]: i8 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 11% 17% 15% 5% 9% 7% 16% 6% 14%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 12% 19% 9% 5% 15% 8% 17% 5% 9%
x264 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:88.9%
x264 [info]: ref P L0: 64.9% 1.1% 8.5% 0.6% 24.3% 0.3% 0.2%
x264 [info]: ref B L0: 93.6% 4.5% 1.1% 0.8%
x264 [info]: kb/s:4438.10
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
If they can beat x264 in visual quality on ordinary test clips without postprocessing, I'll eat my hat.

Last edited by juGGaKNot; 11th November 2009 at 20:31.
juGGaKNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 20:44   #12  |  Link
poisondeathray
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,389
^Do you think 60frames is enough? or an accurate or valid representation? It might be 1 GOP. Perhaps try on a decent sample length?
poisondeathray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 20:53   #13  |  Link
juGGaKNot
Registered User
 
juGGaKNot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 733
i saw good results on large clip than i encoded 6 minutes and i opened it, first fade was bad

so i tried a small sample, now encoding a large one and making a 60 seconds sample, fades only
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
If they can beat x264 in visual quality on ordinary test clips without postprocessing, I'll eat my hat.
juGGaKNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 21:21   #14  |  Link
ajp_anton
Registered User
 
ajp_anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm/Helsinki
Posts: 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Are you insane or do you have a miscompiled build?

Smart weighting (203.99 kb/s):
http://i37.tinypic.com/111ijah.png

No smart weighting (281.83 kb/s):
http://i36.tinypic.com/289wwts.png
Why does the left roof destroy the otherwise much better first picture? Or is that actually how the source looks like?
ajp_anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 21:35   #15  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajp_anton View Post
Why does the left roof destroy the otherwise much better first picture? Or is that actually how the source looks like?
I'm pretty sure it's how the source looks. Check LosslessMaikaze.mkv on mirror05.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 21:53   #16  |  Link
juGGaKNot
Registered User
 
juGGaKNot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 733
Code:
--preset veryslow --level 3.2 --bitrate 4300 --ref 5 --min-keyint 30 --keyint 300 --bframes 3 --ratetol 2.0 --merange 32 --direct temporal --aq-mode 2 --no-fast-pskip --no-dct-decimate --sar 1:1 --aud

Encoding settings                : cabac=1 / ref=5 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x133 / me=umh / subme=10 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.0:0.0 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=32 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=2 / 8x8dct=1
 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=3 / nr=0 / decimate=0 / mbaff=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=0 / b_adapt=2 / b_bias=0 / direct=2 / wpredb=1 / wpredp=2
 / keyint=300 / keyint_min=30 / scenecut=40 / rc_lookahead=60 / rc=2pass / mbtree=1 / bitrate=4300 / ratetol=2.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 
/ ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=2:1.00

Encoding X264 :

avis [info]: 1184x666 @ 30.00 fps (10800 frames)
x264 [info]: using SAR=1/1
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Slow
x264 [info]: profile Main, level 3.2
x264 [info]: frame I:116   Avg QP:21.45  size: 61227
x264 [info]: frame P:4608  Avg QP:24.67  size: 25584
x264 [info]: frame B:6076  Avg QP:27.46  size: 11411
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 10.0% 29.7% 38.3% 22.0%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 33.2%  0.0% 66.8%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4: 38.7%  0.0%  0.0%  P16..4: 49.8%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0
.0%    skip:11.6%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4: 10.3%  0.0%  0.0%  B16..8: 53.6%  0.0%  0.0%  direct:
 2.6%  skip:33.5%  L0:36.7% L1:43.9% BI:19.5%
x264 [info]: final ratefactor: 21.38
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 47.1% 32.3% 8.2% inter: 28.7% 11.1% 3.2%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 33% 26% 21% 19%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 19% 25% 13%  6%  8%  6% 10%  6%  8%
x264 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:11.3%
x264 [info]: kb/s:4318.31

encoded 10800 frames, 12.39 fps, 4318.31 kb/s
avis [info]: 1184x666 @ 30.00 fps (10800 frames)
x264 [info]: using SAR=1/1
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Slow
x264 [info]: profile High, level 3.2
x264 [info]: frame I:116   Avg QP:22.63  size: 59549
x264 [info]: frame P:4608  Avg QP:25.73  size: 23512
x264 [info]: frame B:6076  Avg QP:28.36  size: 12892
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames: 10.0% 29.7% 38.3% 22.0%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 14.9% 75.2%  9.9%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4:  7.8% 17.7%  1.6%  P16..4: 37.3% 11.1%  8.8%  0.3%  0
.2%    skip:15.2%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  1.1%  4.3%  0.5%  B16..8: 64.8%  2.8%  3.9%  direct:
 2.0%  skip:20.6%  L0:47.2% L1:42.6% BI:10.2%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform intra:67.4% inter:81.8%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 59.0% 45.1% 12.7% inter: 28.8% 13.2% 3.4%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 36% 23%  7% 34%
x264 [info]: i8 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 11% 11%  5%  8% 13% 11% 17% 10% 15%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 11% 10%  4%  7% 16% 12% 19%  8% 13%
x264 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:11.0%
x264 [info]: ref P L0: 52.6% 12.9% 18.0%  6.5%  5.5%  4.2%  0.4%
x264 [info]: ref B L0: 75.5% 12.0%  7.8%  4.7%
x264 [info]: kb/s:4301.88

encoded 10800 frames, 1.30 fps, 4301.88 kb/s
AVC-H264 import - frame size 1184 x 666 at 30.000 FPS
Import results: 10800 samples - Slices: 116 I 4608 P 6076 B - 1 SEI - 108 IDR
IsoMedia import - track ID 1 - Audio (SR 44100 - 2 channels)
Saving C:\x264\Movie_2D\1.Movie_X264_2D.mp4: 0.500 secs Interleaving

X264 Encoding started at 07:57 PM and finished at 10:31 PM

Overall Encoding started at 07:57 PM and finished at 10:31 PM
Quote:
AVIsource("C:\x264\movie.avi")
Crop(0, height%2, -width%2, 0)
ConvertToYV12(matrix="PC.601")

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
If they can beat x264 in visual quality on ordinary test clips without postprocessing, I'll eat my hat.

Last edited by juGGaKNot; 11th November 2009 at 21:56.
juGGaKNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 21:55   #17  |  Link
thewebchat
Advanced Blogging
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 483
Is that a levels bork or are those successive frames?
thewebchat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 22:01   #18  |  Link
juGGaKNot
Registered User
 
juGGaKNot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 733
Seems to be levels bork, hmm since i changed the 9800gt to 8600gt i'm not recording fullrange, weird

k, no fullrange in avs :


__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
If they can beat x264 in visual quality on ordinary test clips without postprocessing, I'll eat my hat.
juGGaKNot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2009, 22:16   #19  |  Link
Daemon404
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 128
From my personal tests I have concluded that weightp (2) improves ssim at the same bitrate, but makes it worse at the same crf, compared to no weightp. What you see visually follows this.

May not be true in all cases I guess, but at least in everything I tested.

P.S. Tested with --no-psy.

Last edited by Daemon404; 11th November 2009 at 22:22.
Daemon404 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2009, 03:46   #20  |  Link
Sagekilla
x264aholic
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
@Daemon404: At the same crf, does the bitrate decrease on the weightp encoded sample? If so, that explains the decrease in SSIM. 2-pass with fixed bitrate is the only way you can really show whether a setting improves quality, as in CRF mode there is a change in bitrate with different options.
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame.
Sagekilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.