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 > Capturing and Editing Video > Avisynth Development

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 15th September 2011, 22:55   #261  |  Link
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: rude
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkT View Post
Wait, so if you aren't using 2.6 for MT, what are the benefits then of 2.6 over 2.5.8?
It has a few new colorspaces. That's basically the only reason to use it right now.
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 22:56   #262  |  Link
Groucho2004
 
Groucho2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
I have found 2.6 to crash less than 2.5.8.
I have seen statements like this about MT Avisynth several times but it still seems bizarre to me.
It's like hearing something like "I have a car that only breaks down once a week instead of every other day."
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 22:57   #263  |  Link
DarkT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 280
I don't get it. What's good about moare colorspaces? You mean that yv12/yuy/rgb/whatever thingies? If you encode to h264, ain't you bounf to yv12 at the end anywya?
DarkT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 22:58   #264  |  Link
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: rude
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkT View Post
I don't get it. What's good about moare colorspaces? You mean that yv12/yuy/rgb/whatever thingies? If you encode to h264, ain't you bounf to yv12 at the end anywya?
2.6 supports YUV 4:4:4 which is like YV12 but without the chroma subsampling. x264 does support encoding that these days, too. Unfortunately, almost nobody actually uses 4:4:4, and the thing people actually do use (high bitdepth YUV, such as 10-bit YV12) is not supported.

Last edited by TheFluff; 15th September 2011 at 23:00.
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:00   #265  |  Link
SubJunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkT View Post
Wait, so if you aren't using 2.6 for MT, what are the benefits then of 2.6 over 2.5.8?
Official changelog between 2.6 and 2.5.8
SubJunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:00   #266  |  Link
DarkT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFluff View Post
2.6 supports YUV 4:4:4 which is like YV12 but without the chroma subsampling. x264 does support encoding that these days, too.
What's it good for? Does it take care of the color banding or something? Does it require more bitrate? More encoding time?
DarkT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:01   #267  |  Link
SubJunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho2004 View Post
I have seen statements like this about MT Avisynth several times but it still seems bizarre to me.
It's like hearing something like "I have a car that only breaks down once a week instead of every other day."
No, I run encoding every day and it never, ever, ever crashes.
The only exception to that statement was 2011.07.19 caused crashing but that was fixed with 2011.09.13
SubJunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:02   #268  |  Link
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: rude
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkT View Post
What's it good for? Does it take care of the color banding or something? Does it require more bitrate? More encoding time?
It has full chroma resolution. It does not really solve problems with banding the way high bitdepth does, but it does provide "sharper" colors, I guess. It requires a lot more bitrate, takes a lot longer to encode and has quite bad decoder support still.

Last edited by TheFluff; 15th September 2011 at 23:05.
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:04   #269  |  Link
Groucho2004
 
Groucho2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFluff View Post
It has a few new colorspaces. That's basically the only reason to use it right now.
Also, the resizers are much faster (at least on more recent CPUs).
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:06   #270  |  Link
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: rude
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho2004 View Post
Also, the resizers are much faster (at least on more recent CPUs).
That's cool, I suppose, but I've never really felt I've been bottlenecked on the speed of a resizer...
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:16   #271  |  Link
junh1024
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 16
I use MT all the time. I found 2.6 may be faster, but more unstable than 2.58.

With 2.58, I don't need to use setmemorymax. With 2.6, I baisically need to use setmemorymax(768) all the time.

Also, I only enclose the bottlenecks in my script, like fft3d, hqdering, or mdegrain 2 in MT(""" """)
junh1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:19   #272  |  Link
DarkT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by junh1024 View Post
I use MT all the time. I found 2.6 may be faster, but more unstable than 2.58.

With 2.58, I don't need to use setmemorymax. With 2.6, I baisically need to use setmemorymax(768) all the time.

Also, I only enclose the bottlenecks in my script, like fft3d, hqdering, or mdegrain 2 in MT(""" """)
So... you are pro using 2.5.8 mt- in 32bit mode I am guessing? or 64?
DarkT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:27   #273  |  Link
Groucho2004
 
Groucho2004's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFluff View Post
and if you have to use so many filters that you run out of memory, the source was probably so bad that it wasn't worth encoding anyway.
Good point.
Groucho2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:29   #274  |  Link
junh1024
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 16
I usin 2.6 on Windows 7 Professional 32bit.
junh1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:29   #275  |  Link
DarkT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho2004 View Post
Good point.
I wanted to use 64 bits coz I saw that on set's page, where he links to many filters, like, masktools works 25% faster or something, I figured, that's extra speed gains...

Infact, I'd rather use 32 bits, because there's more filters... Some of my favourite filters, no 64bit version
DarkT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:32   #276  |  Link
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: rude
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by junh1024 View Post
I use MT all the time. I found 2.6 may be faster, but more unstable than 2.58.

With 2.58, I don't need to use setmemorymax. With 2.6, I baisically need to use setmemorymax(768) all the time.

Also, I only enclose the bottlenecks in my script, like fft3d, hqdering, or mdegrain 2 in MT(""" """)
Do I really have to quote myself from the bottom of last page? Let me try one last time:

It is basically meaningless to make any statements about the relative stability of different multithreaded Avisynth variants (this includes the MT() filter).
A script and environment that is rock solid for one user may crash every time for another, due to the inherent nondeterministic behavior of using a non-threadsafe application in multithreaded mode. There are simply way too many variables that can affect how the application behaves in different scenarios to make any reliable predictions about what might crash and what might not.
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:35   #277  |  Link
DarkT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 280
If many people get it to work consistantly... or semi consistantly... I'd say that puts your idea of why it sux outta business tbh...
DarkT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:36   #278  |  Link
SubJunk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 441
TheFluff, we're just talking about our experiences. If it's so upsetting for you to "let" us talk to eachother then just go away, I assure you no one will care either way.
SubJunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:38   #279  |  Link
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: rude
Posts: 1,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkT View Post
If many people get it to work consistantly... or semi consistantly... I'd say that puts your idea of why it sux outta business tbh...
But you're not asking many people. You're asking two people, and their findings are different.
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th September 2011, 23:40   #280  |  Link
DarkT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 280
i am asking many people. As many as read this particular page. Out of those who do, and chose to reply, I'd say the percentage is quite high . Nattttttttturally, this ain't no poll - which I think is actualyl quite a good idea... To make a thread where people would contribute their experience with MT... Hmmm...

Edit:

P.s. Greetings to all our friends at DarkHold .

Last edited by DarkT; 16th September 2011 at 00:52.
DarkT 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 14:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.