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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
27th May 2013, 11:09 | #161 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,126
|
Quote:
|
|
27th May 2013, 16:30 | #162 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
VP8 also smooths a lot, but it also blocks and bands a lot (way more than VP9).
Same test conditions as above, but x264 against VP8 1350 kbps (The binary used was 1.1.0 Eider, last encoder they released, a year ago; the VP8 commandline is the same as with VP9, x264 encode is the same) - some frames are the same, some which were too troublesome to find I replaced with different ones. encode a = x264, encode b = vp8 Last edited by mandarinka; 27th May 2013 at 17:59. |
27th May 2013, 17:12 | #163 | Link |
Yes, I'm weird.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 271
|
From what he describes, I can assume that "encode a" was encoded by x264, and "encode b" was encoded by VP9 (or VP8 in x264 against VP8 test).
__________________
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” — Mark Twain |
27th May 2013, 17:56 | #164 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
Yeah, in both cases, A = x264. I added the explanation as an edit to the original post (I didn't want to clog the thread too much), sorry for not being clear. The VP codecs with their PSNR tuning (or you could call it utter lack of psychovisual model) result in very smoothed video with blur and possibly blocks/banding, so anybody aware of that will probably know which one is x264 right away.
Last edited by mandarinka; 27th May 2013 at 17:58. |
28th May 2013, 03:53 | #165 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 335
|
I've seen some that are quite similar and still, VP8 yeld a much sharper video. The video for Calvin Harris' I Need Your Love is practically the same filesize for both H264 and VP8 and yet, the x264 version is a little blurry.
|
28th May 2013, 08:49 | #166 | Link |
Yes, I'm weird.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 271
|
Of course, this is true when applying to YouTube. Because, ahem, it is from Google.
__________________
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” — Mark Twain |
30th May 2013, 18:45 | #168 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
Quality==Fitness for use, so judging the quality of any given encoder is only possible in the context of particular use. |
|
30th May 2013, 18:57 | #170 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Yes, which is my entire point. Saying "no SD content" is ridiculous since there is overwhelmingly plenty of content that will never be available at anything but SD resolutions. |
|
30th May 2013, 19:25 | #172 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
As yes, VP9 certainly can and probably should introduce an animation tuning mode. Good psychovisual tuning requires tuning for animation, even if it is an internal mode switch or a sufficiently advanced psychovisual model that has been extensively tested against cel animation. The encoders that do badly with it are generally ones that didn't get good subjective visually tuning against animation sources. One of the big risks for codec developers is an insufficiently diverse library of sources. |
|
30th May 2013, 20:02 | #173 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
I have chosen my sample for a single reason - nobody tests any clips like this. Note that this isn't particularly "anime" sample - it shakes, has noise, is cel (not used anymore today), is not digital, has grain. It might be closer to film sources (16mm in this case, I think?).
And it perfectly shows how much VP encoders suck when you are targeting transparent quality. Of course, I didn't use transparent bitrates (although a few months back I tried 2 megabits) but you can clearly see where VP9 aims to be - it is effectively tuning for PSNR and nothing else. This is no news though. I just hope the format itself isn't compromised in visual quality by development with an encoder that sorta ignores it. IMHO this is an interesting type of footage to try (definitely more fun that Foreman and I would say less crazy than Parkrun/Parkjoy) and as benwaggoner says, it is better suited to no tuning or tune film in x264. (And when I say interesting, I don't mean just the battle bikini...) Here is a link with an archive that contains 1) vp9, vp8 and x264 encodes I posted screens from. 2) lossless reencode of the source footage 3) lossless reencode of teh VP9 encode, so that you can actually watch it (in motion, it looks worse than on stills, because there is a weird flickering of brightness in many scenes, I think it is a nasty side-effect of the altref smoothing or something?). Quote:
You can watch the actual encodes if you download the zip. I think you would agree that x264 is more watchable. Last edited by mandarinka; 30th May 2013 at 20:23. |
|
30th May 2013, 22:24 | #174 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 552
|
Here is my little (3 samples) VP9 vs x264 test. Not very representative (need more samples) but at least I didn't used parkrun / park_joy for test which were criticized as insane.
Here is archive xls-files with metrics and plots:VP9_vs_x264_metrics.zip And here encoded samples with cmd-files I used for encoding: VP9_vs_x264_samples.zip P.S. Sorry, no time to make screenshots or to make formatted post with tables so download archives. |
30th May 2013, 23:36 | #175 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,770
|
Quote:
|
|
31st May 2013, 02:03 | #176 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 153
|
Uncheck the checkbox that tells you accept to download with their download tool, click on the button download now (or something like that, i don't remember exactly) , the page reloads, click on "Click here to start download from sendspace"
|
31st May 2013, 10:49 | #177 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 201
|
Quote:
|
|
13th June 2013, 19:31 | #179 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 729
|
Am I the only person that finds it very weird that changes to the format are pursued and hectically made in the last few days and even hours prior to the bitstream finalization?
IMHO there is no way there could have been enough review to really do this all properly and search for possible problems. Compare that to the lengthy and careful process HEVC has been through... true, maybe it was too lengthy and too slow, but surely that can't hurt as much as this hurry. |
Tags |
google, ngov, vp8, vp9, vpx, webm |
|
|