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 25th October 2009, 00:23   #1  |  Link
jsevakis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8
x264 for BD encoding - does it work now?

I've been pouring over the forums and it seems like there's been quite a bit of progress lately in adding BD compliance to x264.

From what I can gather, a compliant stream needs both --slices:4 (in the svn since early September) and --hal-nrd (patch available for some time, being worked into the SVN now). Is this accurate?

If so, has anyone released a binary with both of these features activated? Have the results been tested for replication? (BD is a bit of a mess, since authoring successfully doesn't necessarily mean it'll replicate OK.)

Any assistance would be really helpful. If replication hasn't been tested yet, I can get some test encodes submitted to a plant to find out.
jsevakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 00:23   #2  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,690
I'm still waiting for some BD-verifier results from a contact of mine...
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 00:26   #3  |  Link
jsevakis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8
Awesome. Can I anticipate some noise being made when it passes?

I can't wait to put this into use. The encoder built into the new version of Compressor is... acceptable, but really chokes on noisy sources. Everything else is way out of my price range. T_T
jsevakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 01:32   #4  |  Link
cacepi
Just as bad up as down.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsevakis View Post
I can't wait to put this into use. The encoder built into the new version of Compressor is... acceptable, but really chokes on noisy sources. Everything else is way out of my price range.
There's a Quicktime component for x264, but I don't believe that the newer options like slices and the such are supported since it uses ffmpeg as a backend. The cli binary does have all the options, but you wouldn't be able to use Compressor with it. I can compile a binary of the latest git sources if you want.

jsevakis... is this for ImaginAsian or personal use?
cacepi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 01:52   #5  |  Link
jsevakis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8
lol, ImaginAsian is not even a company anymore. I work for Anime News Network, but I also do freelance DVD/BD authoring on the side. But even if it doesn't replicate successfully yet, I have a few personal projects I can put it to work on.

I don't need to use it with Compressor; honestly I'd be thrilled if I can use it as a CLI on either Intel Mac or Windows. I guess Windows would come in handier, since I could feed it AVIsynth sources, but the Mac version would really come in handy too. (I'm stuck with XP, so multithreading is not gonna go all that fast for me on the Windows side.) I'd be most grateful for either one.

Last edited by jsevakis; 25th October 2009 at 02:00.
jsevakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 02:04   #6  |  Link
shon3i
BluRay Maniac
 
shon3i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
I'm still waiting for some BD-verifier results from a contact of mine...
Did Scenarist not good enough? since check everything in stream including possible underflows in stream tought mux, btw i see many streams extracted from original blu-ray that not pass scenarist check or mux.

Quote:
If so, has anyone released a binary with both of these features activated? Have the results been tested for replication? (BD is a bit of a mess, since authoring successfully doesn't necessarily mean it'll replicate OK.)
Here is builds for you http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...postcount=2526, use patched bulds.

Last edited by shon3i; 25th October 2009 at 02:08.
shon3i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 02:11   #7  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by shon3i View Post
Did Scenarist not good enough? since check everything in stream including possible underflows in stream tought mux, btw i see many streams extracted from original blu-ray that not pass scenarist check or mux.
Does the latest patch from Alex Giladi work? Trahald says that Alex's patch is much better and that we should get that one into git, not his.

Last edited by Dark Shikari; 25th October 2009 at 02:13.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 02:17   #8  |  Link
shon3i
BluRay Maniac
 
shon3i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Does the latest patch from Alex Giladi work? Trahald says that Alex's patch is much better and that we should get that one into git, not his.
No , but i test only two builds posted here i don't know is there maybe newer since then. I tested many times and both scenarist and elecard reject stream, second time is more strange. If you want to do something about that i will test if need. Even Trahald last rev19 crashes x264 if --keyint 24 is set, with --keyint 48 work fine.
shon3i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 09:32   #9  |  Link
Underground78
Registered User
 
Underground78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: France
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Does the latest patch from Alex Giladi work?
Thahald wrote this on the mailing-list about the last version of the patch by Alex Giladi :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trahald
I think your x264_vbv_fullness() routine is broken. initial cpb removal delay is holding negative values. it is what is causing elecard to reject the stream.

Last edited by Underground78; 25th October 2009 at 11:07.
Underground78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 10:56   #10  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by shon3i View Post
Did Scenarist not good enough? since check everything in stream including possible underflows in stream tought mux, btw i see many streams extracted from original blu-ray that not pass scenarist check or mux.
Scenarist check is minimal (mainly: level, slices, buffer). I've tested it with "bad streams" end they were improted with no problems. You need verifier to test encoder for BD compliancy (the best one is Sony).

This is preaty impossible- extracted streams have to import and mux (even if BDs were created with Blu-print). It means there is something wrong with extracting.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 15:09   #11  |  Link
shon3i
BluRay Maniac
 
shon3i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak
Scenarist check is minimal (mainly: level, slices, buffer). I've tested it with "bad streams" end they were improted with no problems. You need verifier to test encoder for BD compliancy (the best one is Sony).
I agree, but scenarist wont mux stream out of specs that is key thing, i don't care if stream is broken itself, that should be done by encoder, like DTS verifier after encoding. The key thing is that stream contain 100% compilacy parameters. btw did this Sony BD verifyer is avaible in public? as demo/trial or something? or with some app like Blu print?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak
This is preaty impossible- extracted streams have to import and mux (even if BDs were created with Blu-print). It means there is something wrong with extracting.
I am not sure, because i just demux streams with several applications, and results are same. The problem is in muxing stage, and always at same place. I read from other users, and somebody notice that one stream have much higher buffer than should > 30000.
shon3i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 18:27   #12  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by shon3i View Post
I agree, but scenarist wont mux stream out of specs that is key thing, i don't care if stream is broken itself, that should be done by encoder, like DTS verifier after encoding. The key thing is that stream contain 100% compilacy parameters. btw did this Sony BD verifyer is avaible in public? as demo/trial or something? or with some app like Blu print?
Muxing is one thing- there are many more restricions and rules- seamless connetion in playlists, multiangel, etc. Scenarist can produce out of the spec BD discs (evn if seperate assets are BD compliant) and you won't know about it unless you verify the imnage. It either comes to your knowledge or you need to use verifier.

BD verifier is not available in any trial/demo version- as far as I know. You can have trial version of Blu-print, but you need a company which has to go through credit check process.

If you make discs which are replicated in thousands copies, you have to be sure about your software.
If stream from x264 passes one verification it still doen't mean it can be safetly used for commercial use. We would need at least few tests with different settings and options used for encoding.

Andrew

Last edited by kolak; 26th October 2009 at 01:15. Reason: delete OT content
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 18:32   #13  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by shon3i View Post

I am not sure, because i just demux streams with several applications, and results are same. The problem is in muxing stage, and always at same place. I read from other users, and somebody notice that one stream have much higher buffer than should > 30000.
Hmmm- I don't know, but can you explain me how come Scenarist muxed it in the first place than? If it's commercial disc than it was done either with Scenarist BD or with Blu-print-both share exactly the same muxing engine.

There can be possibility that new version had bigger restricions, so some streams may not mux- I don't know.
I don't use 30Mbit for buffer, but slightly less and never had any problems with muxing, even if my assets peaks close to the limit.

Andrew
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 19:58   #14  |  Link
shon3i
BluRay Maniac
 
shon3i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak
Muxing is one thing- there are many more restricions and rules- seamless connetion in playlists, multiangel, etc. Scenarist can produce out of the spec BD discs (evn if seperate assets are BD compliant) and you won't know about it unless you verify the imnage. It either comes to your knowledge or you need to use verifier.
Well we here talking of video stream itself, not what scenarist do, main thing is that x264 encode fully pass all restrictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak
Hmmm- I don't know, but can you explain me how come Scenarist muxed it in the first place than? If it's commercial disc than it was done either with Scenarist BD or with Blu-print-both share exactly the same muxing engine.

There can be possibility that new version had bigger restricions, so some streams may not mux- I don't know.
I don't use 30Mbit for buffer, but slightly less and never had any problems with muxing, even if my assets peaks close to the limit.

Andrew
I don't know here is prue example of situation http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...rist+underflow, Van Helsing BD retail is source. I have same situation with some BD's with various Scenarist versions. I thinked if i upgrade to newer maybe pass, since Scenarist BD 5.0 more weaker about restrictions.

Last edited by shon3i; 25th October 2009 at 20:01.
shon3i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 20:11   #15  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by shon3i View Post
Well we here talking of video stream itself, not what scenarist do, main thing is that x264 encode fully pass all restrictions.

I don't know here is prue example of situation http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...rist+underflow, Van Helsing BD retail is source. I have same situation with some BD's with various Scenarist versions. I thinked if i upgrade to newer maybe pass, since Scenarist BD 5.0 more weaker about restrictions.
There are some PIP streams, so for me it's 99% problem with rebuilding process.
There can be many reasons with such a complicated title.
BD is new- all rebuilding tools are far from being perfect, so there are many possible problems. Bad assets from reatail BD are the last one to suspect in my opinion.

Andrew
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th October 2009, 20:41   #16  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by shon3i View Post
Well we here talking of video stream itself, not what scenarist do, main thing is that x264 encode fully pass all restrictions.
Verifiers work on muxed streams not elementary stream, which makes sens. That's why you need all header information to be correct, becuase they're used during muxing process.

Old days we had problems with muxing for HD DVD, becuse muxing engine didn't understand some information in AVC header. Two companies (responsible for encoder and muxing tool) had to talk to each other and find the problem. It's end up tha muxer expected some information in the header (excatly value=2), but encoder was using different one=3. It was all becasue HD DVD spec didn't specify this, and AVC spec allowed for any number from 1-5. Muxing engine was written to accept only 2. At the end muxing engine was changed to accept all possible numbers, becuase different encoders could use different ones.

Some information are not specified in BD spec or they are only recommended, but not mandatory. x264 can produce very good AVC stream (correct header, ect.), but it can still don't work well with eg. Scenarist. That's why you need to verify few streams to have at least some prove that it works fine.

Andrew
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2009, 00:23   #17  |  Link
J_Darnley
Registered User
 
J_Darnley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob0r View Post
P.S.: When will x264 have native .ts and .m2ts container support?
There has been discussion of other output formats, but from what I recall of the discussion, no one has been able to find an existing muxer framework/library/source that works correctly.

Wouldn't this only be of use when full libav input is done?
__________________
x264 log explained || x264 deblocking how-to
preset -> tune -> user set options -> fast first pass -> profile -> level
Doom10 - Of course it's better, it's one more.
J_Darnley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2009, 00:47   #18  |  Link
Guest
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 21,924
I have deleted all the OT posts spawned by kolak's original OT troll.

@kolak

Knock it off! You can make one thread about CCEHD, but don't spam unrelated threads.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2009, 02:01   #19  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsevakis View Post
I can't wait to put this into use. The encoder built into the new version of Compressor is... acceptable, but really chokes on noisy sources. Everything else is way out of my price range. T_T
I don't believe that's it's a new H.264 implementation, just Apple's standard (meh) implementation with the correct defaults for BD compliance.

Among other things, MPEG-2 is still required for interlaced coding.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Instant Video

My Compression Book

Amazon Instant Video is hiring! PM me if you're interested.
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2009, 13:14   #20  |  Link
jsevakis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Among other things, MPEG-2 is still required for interlaced coding.
That's... not true. I just made an interlaced .264 file with it, and TSMuxer confirms it as 1080i. Haven't plugged it into authoring yet, but it appears OK.

Agreed that it's a meh h.264 implementation at best, tho.
jsevakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blu-ray, builds, x264

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 05:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.