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. |
9th November 2005, 18:49 | #61 | Link |
gone
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,706
|
uhm... what if someone decides to install it in systems32? it is normal behaviour for an uninstaller to not remove the installation dir, if any other files are present that are not from installing the software. I'd say this IS your problem.
|
9th November 2005, 18:52 | #62 | Link |
Mr. Sandman
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
|
uhm... maybe you're right...
i'll update the installer script for the next build. however if you install it in system32 you're an idiot
__________________
MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! |
24th December 2005, 05:37 | #66 | Link |
<The VFW Sheep of Death>
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Deathly pasture of VFW
Posts: 1,149
|
A new version was planned, but this very early guide was written primarily for the vfw x264 of yesteryear, and recent settings packs for the newer, more updated CLI-frontend MeGui are generally considered the encoding norms of today (look for Sharktooth's "MeGUI Custom Video Profiles" included in Sharktooth's x264 Full Installation builds).
If people want it though, I suppose I could revamp it after New Years
__________________
Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds! |
24th December 2005, 14:32 | #68 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 154
|
ok, i just did my first x264 encodes and started to fiddle around with the options, but i'm still wondering if i'm expecting too much.
the results x264 produces are very smooth, i'm used to do high bitrate xvid encodes with qpel enabled and usually watch them without postprocessing, so i prefer a sharp picture with high details with some grain over the clinically smoothed version. what settings are mainly responsible for this in x264 and how can i tweak them to get x264 to produce more detailed and less smoothed pictures? or is x264 and the postprocessing that coupled that i will have to say goodbye to the grain and start to get used to smoothed pictures? |
24th December 2005, 17:50 | #70 | Link |
<The VFW Sheep of Death>
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Deathly pasture of VFW
Posts: 1,149
|
Yeah, check out the Deblocking section of the guide! Maybe it'll help
@all: OK, I'll revamp it right after New Years! (Or maybe as a Christmas present??) Cheers! And happy holidays for those of us who have 'em comin' up!
__________________
Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds! |
24th December 2005, 18:14 | #71 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 154
|
Quote:
currently i wonder if i'm just using it the wrong way or if h.264 might only be superior to asp-encoders in situations where postprocessing is used to conceal low bitrate blocks. |
|
24th December 2005, 18:23 | #72 | Link | |
<The VFW Sheep of Death>
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Deathly pasture of VFW
Posts: 1,149
|
It definately produces a picture that is somewhat...different than XviD.
AVC and ASP are indeed 2 very different formats despite their conformance to one or another part of "MPEG-4." Quote:
XviD's artifacts in high-detail scenes are often mistaken for detail. The Human Visual System tends to see XviD's artifacting in spatially complex scenes as the scene's actual detail. Indeed, the HVS often confuses artifacting for detail, and because x264 removes this artifacting by default, the HVS percieves this to be a "loss of detail" even though technically x264's detail is just as accurate. However, reducing the deblocking in accordance to the guide is the best way to go about sharpening the image (reducing the soft smearing of deblocking). You might as well give it a try on a small clip: do a 30-second clip with XviD and x264 with -1 or -2 deblocking and then evaluate. The general consensus as of yet (at least according to the metrics) is that x264 does tend to keep more detail more accurately than XviD at similar bitrates. However, the deblocker's removal of artifacts is occasionally confused by the HVS as a removal of legitamate detail, which the artifacts are occasionally mistaken for. If you find this to be the case, use a post-processing filter (AVISynth, mplayer, ffdshow maybe) to better synthesize noise.
__________________
Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds! Last edited by DeathTheSheep; 24th December 2005 at 18:41. Reason: Made it much clearer, folks. |
|
24th December 2005, 18:45 | #73 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 863
|
Quote:
Last edited by Tommy Carrot; 24th December 2005 at 19:10. |
|
24th December 2005, 19:10 | #74 | Link |
<The VFW Sheep of Death>
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Deathly pasture of VFW
Posts: 1,149
|
TC is right in general, but the resulting video won't have nearly as good of a quality measure as a video attained by using the default (or -1) deblocking settings; if you want noise, you'd almost always get better results with post-processing. I'd certainly never recommend turning off deblocking under any condition (unless the decoder doesn't support it or AVC playback is too complex for your machine).
__________________
Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds! |
24th December 2005, 19:17 | #75 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 863
|
Disabled deblocking may have lower results in quality measures, but it can look better, especially in near-transparent encodings, where the artifacts are already unnoticable, and the deblocking would destroy the very fine details.
|
24th December 2005, 20:30 | #76 | Link | |
<The VFW Sheep of Death>
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Deathly pasture of VFW
Posts: 1,149
|
Quote:
Therefore, it is best to leave it as it is: at (0,0) unless you have specific preferences with deviation of no more than +2/-2. The encoder should handle the rest.
__________________
Recommended all-in-one stop for x264/GCC needs on Windows: Komisar x264 builds! |
|
24th December 2005, 21:01 | #77 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 863
|
Lol, i know that deblocking strength is adaptive, but the default settings are not always the best. If someone prefer the 'xvid look' over the smoothness of h.264, imo it's better to disable the deblocking at higher bitrates (<q22), where the default setting is washing away too much details unnecessarily, because the artifacts are rarely noticable there anyway. Afaik deblocking is turning off by default at quant 15, which is way too low imo, and this probably answers why many people prefers xvid over x264 at high bitrates.
At lower bitrates though, i agree, in-loop filtering is very useful and beneficial. |
24th December 2005, 21:32 | #78 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
Posts: 392
|
You tried -5,-5? It may be better than disable it completely. H.264 was thought with deblocking in mind. It shoud be more blocky w/o deblocking than Xvid. But I don't know. I haven't tested yet.
|
24th December 2005, 21:41 | #79 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 154
|
Quote:
thats why i was a bit disappointed in the x264 look compared to my beloved xvid. but thanks for the tips, i'll fiddle around with the settings and try to find something that gets close to my expectations |
|
25th December 2005, 18:02 | #80 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
__________________
Toronto,ON |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|