Worse Quality in Dissolve() Fades With Weightp Than Without

[Conquerist]

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

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:

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:

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.

[Dark Shikari]

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

static void weights_plane_analyse(

to

static void NOINLINE weights_plane_analyse(

in encoder/slicetype.c and see if that fixes the miscompilation in crappy compilers.

[drmpeg]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

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

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by drmpeg

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.

[Conquerist]

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.

[Sagekilla]

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.

[Astrophizz]

Well that would only be the case if weight-p is a psychovisual optimization. Otherwise it should increase PSNR and SSIM.

[nurbs]

I only did one test run (2 pass; --tune ssim), but for me ssim was higher with weighted p-frames.

[juGGaKNot]

I just encoded a clip, simple fade, i can confirm, its much worst with weightp.

[Dark Shikari]

Are you insane or do you have a miscompiled build?

Smart weighting (203.99 kb/s):


No smart weighting (281.83 kb/s):

[juGGaKNot]

jeebs 4.3.4, 2 seconds, now encoding 6 minutes and posting screens

--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

[poisondeathray]

^Do you think 60frames is enough? or an accurate or valid representation? It might be 1 GOP. Perhaps try on a decent sample length?

[juGGaKNot]

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

[ajp_anton]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

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?

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by ajp_anton

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.

[juGGaKNot]

--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

AVIsource("C:\x264\movie.avi")
Crop(0, height%2, -width%2, 0)
ConvertToYV12(matrix="PC.601")

[thewebchat]

Is that a levels bork or are those successive frames?

[juGGaKNot]

Seems to be levels bork, hmm since i changed the 9800gt to 8600gt i'm not recording fullrange, weird

k, no fullrange in avs :

[Daemon404]

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.

[Sagekilla]

@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.