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 11th May 2011, 09:09   #1481  |  Link
mp3dom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ds View Post
btw. is there ever a reason to use a smaller level than 4.1? All bluray players should play level 4.1, isn't it?
Standard Def video doesn't need 40 Mbps to be encoded, even for max bitrate. In general level 3.2 or 4.0 is enough (maxrate is 24 Mbps) and this allows to have 1 slice only. It can be a matter of taste, you can encode anyway a standard def. video with level 4.1 and 4 slices.
mp3dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2011, 09:30   #1482  |  Link
nurbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,457
When you want to put a Blu Ray structure on DVD using level 4.0 is also better since you can use longer GOPs and don't need slices, so you get a little better compression.
nurbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2011, 15:58   #1483  |  Link
QBhd
QB the Slayer
 
QBhd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by nurbs View Post
When you want to put a Blu Ray structure on DVD using level 4.0 is also better since you can use longer GOPs and don't need slices, so you get a little better compression.
In this scenario, the only difference would be the # of slices... What is the benefit of going with slices 1 over slices 4 from a quality stand point?

QB
__________________
QBhd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th May 2011, 16:57   #1484  |  Link
nurbs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,457
VBV would also be different in that scenario since DVDs usually don't have high enough transfer speed to support the full level 4.0 bitrate. Since you have lower bitrate you can also use 2 second GOPs. Going from 4 slices to 1 won't give much benefit, I'd guess way less than 1%, but every bit helps.
nurbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2011, 10:43   #1485  |  Link
burfadel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,235
The new rev 1995 builds on x264.nl are 25.4mb... To me thats just a little large? 25.4MB! I didn't bother downloading it since there's something wrong with it.
(mirror01 didn't seem to respond, the other mirrors all came up with 25.4mb)...
burfadel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2011, 11:02   #1486  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
jarod forgot to strip his builds.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2011, 11:08   #1487  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,525
Is Simon Horlick's work on MBAFF now finished or are there any new things (except from optimizations and fine-tunings) expected?
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2011, 11:50   #1488  |  Link
upyzl
zj262144
 
upyzl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 105
It seems that I don't need to deint NTSC-30i any longer when see the changes of MBAFF if I encode just for myself by r1995...
__________________
MPC-HC 1.7.8 / LAV Filters 0.64+ (tMod) / XySubFilter 3.1.0.705 / madVR 0.87.14

Direct264 Mod (src & win32 builds): code.google.com/p/direct264umod (maybe outdated)

Last edited by upyzl; 12th May 2011 at 11:54.
upyzl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th May 2011, 13:08   #1489  |  Link
laserfan
Aging Video Hobbyist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Off the Map
Posts: 2,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder View Post
Is Simon Horlick's work on MBAFF now finished
Having followed the commit history for a little while now I'd been amazed at the output of this individual, and with the recent release (and an interlaced project I'll be interested to try with r1995) I had to look him-up. Apparently one of the things one has to do these days is keep a blog journal.

Altho I can bearly spel MBAFF I appreciate all the work!
laserfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2011, 19:04   #1490  |  Link
Brazil2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by burfadel View Post
on x264.nl
mirror01 didn't seem to respond
Mirror01 seems to be down for several weeks.
Brazil2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2011, 20:15   #1491  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,300
Are there any x264's benchmarks of ARM Cortex-A9 and Atom?
What is the state of omptimizations for ARM's SIMD extension NEON vs Atom and performance per watt?

Google search doesn't return much on it.
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 05:48   #1492  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,483
Seriously, MBAFF is badass. I can officially forget about mainconcept now.
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 09:20   #1493  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
Seriously, MBAFF is badass. I can officially forget about mainconcept now.
Can you post some test results? I've got a pile of DVD extras to encode as interlaced to add to my media jukebox, and I've been waiting for the feature to be finished
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 10:22   #1494  |  Link
Sharc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
Seriously, MBAFF is badass. I can officially forget about mainconcept now.
What do you mean by "badass" (for us non-native English speakers)? Google didn't translate "badass" for me .....
Is MBAFF generally poor (in x264)? Or dou you mean that it is now much better in x264 than Mainconcepts hence you can forget Mainconcept? I am still interested in doing interlaced (MBAFF) encodes.
Thanks for enlightening me
Sharc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 10:52   #1495  |  Link
nixo
Registered User
 
nixo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: EUR
Posts: 159
Badass = awesome, great.

--
Nikolaj
nixo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 10:53   #1496  |  Link
Groucho2004
 
Groucho2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharc View Post
Google didn't translate "badass" for me .....
You must be using the wrong Google.

Second link I got from Google:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=badass

Interpretations 2 and 4 on that page would be a match to what Blue_MiSfit meant.
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 11:01   #1497  |  Link
Sharc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,435
Thanks guys. Great to learn that its meaning is so positive for x264 MBAFF!
Sharc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 11:33   #1498  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,483
Correct. It's a substantial improvement in quality (or even metrics like psnr if you optimze for that).

Some random hard 3:2 content picked up about 1 db in psnr in my fairly restrictive tests: 1.2mbps cbr 480i, short GOPs and small buffers as required for a specific client. 1db of PSNR is quite substantial, to say nothing of the visual improvement when using psy optimizations.

Derek
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 12:14   #1499  |  Link
CruNcher
Registered User
 
CruNcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,949
Yeah especially for the user they don't have to care anymore if their content is progressive or interlaced content even both mixed on the same frame thus being macroblock adaptive will be equally well encoded that's a big plus of usability improvement in the encoding framework
MBAFF was the first step to have a Interoperability layer for old (analog TV age interlaced content) for moving on into the full progressive digital age without braking old analog concepts and still allow Broadcasters to save bandwidth if they want or need to put some more stations on the transponders
Nice finally to see it it arriving in x264 after so much years
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :)

It is about Time

Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late !

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004

Last edited by CruNcher; 14th May 2011 at 12:34.
CruNcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2011, 12:34   #1500  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,525
Did anyone test CRF mode yet? I did a very quick test and noticed that the previous build (without adaptive MBAFF) produced a smaller file with the same settings and CRF. So do we need to adjust CRF again to compensate for the changes?
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
coding, development, x264 dev

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 16:55.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.