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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 8th November 2008, 12:17   #81  |  Link
Soulhunter
Bored...
 
Soulhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Unknown
Posts: 2,812
Regarding DVD-Rs vs HDDs: Around 1/4 of my (supposed to be high quality) Verbatim/TJ discs got CRC errors over the years, even the ones I never used! >_< But my HDDs still run fine, and they run 24/7...

__________________

Visit my IRC channel

Last edited by Soulhunter; 8th November 2008 at 12:20.
Soulhunter is offline  
Old 11th November 2008, 20:35   #82  |  Link
Industrial_One
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Heh! Sept 2003 was the time I first signed up. Oh the memories... [...], wishing videos wouldn't take up so much space... To be honest, I didn't give a **** about digital video to wonder how it'll develop in 5 years time. Them video standards never impressed me up until I discovered H.264, but even that is only an extension and practically nothing new.

I dunno about 5 years, but we may finally step out of the matrix in 10 years time -- ditch the retarded 2D+3Dtime macroblock-based concept and move onto 3D+4Dtime compression where you'll save 20x the space.

The problem is, there is no reliable mathematical definition for depth yet. Even though you look at a 2D image, you can tell how far an object is in the pic, but can't really explain. What is a pixel with more or less depth? Darker? Brighter?

Currently, high-dynamic range videos can be manipulated in intriguing ways using such technology, as well as restoring quality. But it only works with static scenes, which *****.

But as I said, 10 years from now, they'll fix that problem, and you'll be able to convert all your **** low-quality DivX encodes to high quality and bring 700-4700 megs down to 50. So feel free to encode to low bitrates; you can compensate for it later.

As far as the movie industry goes, CGI films will be distributed in closed-source .EXE with its procedurally-generated textures and graphics. Perfect lossless quality and resizable to any resolution. Maybe this way they could utilize a practical lockout chip to prevent piracy like some games do, and we will just use a screen recorder and continue to distribute 'em in crappy, lossy multimedia formats.

And 50 years from now, we'll all have video/audio cards with exabyte-sized libraries and Kolmogorov codecs that'll losslessly compress UHD-quality 3DTV movies down to a couple megs. The final limit. Mark my words.

Last edited by Guest; 14th November 2008 at 14:36. Reason: rules 4 and 6
 
Old 12th November 2008, 11:29   #83  |  Link
Raptus
heretic nuB
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Industrial_One View Post
I dunno about 5 years, but we may finally step out of the matrix in 10 years time -- ditch the retarded 2D+3Dtime macroblock-based concept and move onto 3D+4Dtime compression where you'll save 20x the space.
Not if we're still encoding 2D material.

Quote:
But as I said, 10 years from now, they'll fix that problem, and you'll be able to convert all your **** low-quality DivX encodes to high quality and bring 700-4700 megs down to 50. So feel free to encode to low bitrates; you can compensate for it later.
No you can't. You might try to extrapolate some of the lost information to fake some detail, but you'll never be able to restore the original data.
As for huge improvements in compression efficiency, we are actually getting diminishing returns for increasing complexity, so the efficiency curve is asymptotic. But that is nothing to worry about as storage capacities are still growing fast.
Probably the largest gains that still can be made is from a better exploitation of psychovisual effects.

Last edited by Guest; 14th November 2008 at 14:36.
Raptus is offline  
Old 12th November 2008, 12:52   #84  |  Link
*.mp4 guy
Registered User
 
*.mp4 guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,350
There is a lot of redundancy that we juct can't get at the way we are doing things now (in video coding). If we will ever get close to using all of this redundancy is debatable, but it is there, unlike with image compression, where we could thoretically get close to an optimal solution in 5 or 10 years.
*.mp4 guy is offline  
Old 12th November 2008, 13:40   #85  |  Link
pcordes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Industrial_One View Post
Heh! Sept 2003 was the time I first signed up. Oh the memories... [...], wishing videos wouldn't take up so much space... To be honest, I didn't give a **** about digital video to wonder how it'll develop in 5 years time. Them video standards never impressed me up until I discovered H.264, but even that is only an extension and practically nothing new.

I dunno about 5 years, but we may finally step out of the matrix in 10 years time -- ditch the retarded 2D+3Dtime macroblock-based concept and move onto 3D+4Dtime compression where you'll save 20x the space.

The problem is, there is no reliable mathematical definition for depth yet. Even though you look at a 2D image, you can tell how far an object is in the pic, but can't really explain. What is a pixel with more or less depth? Darker? Brighter?

Currently, high-dynamic range videos can be manipulated in intriguing ways using such technology, as well as restoring quality. But it only works with static scenes, which ****.

But as I said, 10 years from now, they'll fix that problem, and you'll be able to convert all your **** low-quality DivX encodes to high quality and bring 700-4700 megs down to 50. So feel free to encode to low bitrates; you can compensate for it later.
I wrote a big long reply on the assumption you weren't joking/exaggerating for fun. 'cause it didn't sound that way...

Not without magic. Once you destroy information, it's gone. You might be able to reconstruct 3D from even a blocky or blurry video, but all the textures of everything would still be blurry and artifacted. That link you posted is about adding new information about the original source (the high quality still photo) to each frame of the video. You _need_ the HQ still of the source. The equivalent for a full-length movie would be HQ still pictures of every scene. So if you have that, then you can make a low-qual encode and fix it later. But if you can get a frame of every scene from e.g. a BluRay, why not just rip the BluRay and forget about your divx encode? Even with HQ stills of each scene, it wouldn't work as well for dynamic scenes, because it would have to figure out what was going on and what detail to put where. New stuff that came on screen (e.g. an explosion) wouldn't have any information that could be applied to it.

The need for the HQ still photo is not something that will go away, ever. Information theory says you can't get more information out of something than is there in the first place. Of course, you're arguing that future magic will be able to figure out how all the sharp detailed textures are supposed to look from the less-detailed information left in your video. Not impossible, in theory, if the magic algorithm can assume that it's a video of a real-life 3D scene containing the sorts of things humans usual have around. So if it thinks something is a face, it could make it look like a highly detailed face. But that's just making up details, not recovering the information you threw away in low qual encode.

Anyway, I'm going stand by my claim that there's no way you'll ever get a crappy old 1CD divx to look as good as a 2CD x264 rip, even with whatever post-processing you want on the divx and none on the x264. (I'm talking about a typical feature film here. And I suppose this depends on your definition of good... And of course the postprocessor isn't allowed to have any information from the original source to add detail back in to the video.)

Quote:
As far as the movie industry goes, CGI films will be distributed in closed-source .EXE with its procedurally-generated textures and graphics. Perfect lossless quality and resizable to any resolution. Maybe this way they could utilize a practical lockout chip to prevent piracy like some games do, and we will just use a screen recorder and continue to distribute 'em in crappy, lossy multimedia formats.
Yeah, video on the Internet (esp. p2p) is going to keep sucking as long as most people don't know they could be making better encodes than the default settings on whatever they use. And various other things like that. [...], and it will continue to be mostly horrible, both low vid qual (mpeg1 and 2 will never die...), and not very erotic: unrealistic with bored-looking actors.

About the only thing with any decent quality is HD movie rips (which is quite a pleasant surprise, considering how crappy quality everyone seems to be willing to accept in everything else). [...], but for anything but the most popular/cult movies, mostly made when the movie came out on DVD. That's ok for current stuff, since x264 is starting to mature, but not many people encode older movies. Although a lot of people make encodes with non-optimal x264 settings. I wish the x264 defaults included maybe 3 b-frames and 2 reference frames. e.g. [...] There is a ton of strobing going on, but the x264 string in the bitstream looks like mostly default settings: ref=1. Which is really bad for videos with e.g. flash photography or stuff like that going on. Not to mention the stage light-show. It did use 2 bframes, which is maybe why it was watchable at all.

(Is this kosher with the forum rules regarding discussion of illegal filesharing? I'm trying to be oblique, and definitely not mention any specific movies. Everything I've said applies equally to Creative-Commons licensed DVD releases, etc.)

Quote:
And 50 years from now, we'll all have video/audio cards with exabyte-sized libraries and Kolmogorov codecs that'll losslessly compress UHD-quality 3DTV movies down to a couple megs. The final limit. Mark my words.
lossless? Not that small. Noise prevents lossless from being that small. With storage and bandwidth as cheap as they probably will be in 50 years, what's the incentive to make some kind of AI codec that 3D-models the things in the video... (Figuring out what's going on and storing just geometry and textures is probably the most efficient way, but it would require absurd amounts of CPU time, and like I said, probably some AI.)

Technology isn't magic, and it's possible to put some hard limits on what's theoretically possible. I know video is pretty highly redundant, but it's just not _that_ redundant. Even the script (i.e. written by the screenwriter) would be a few percent of a couple MB when compressed with e.g. LZMA or PPM (which I think I read gets close to the entropy limit on most text, i.e. almost 8 bits of information per byte of compressed output).

I could believe a couple GB for UHD, but still not for lossless. There's always going to be too much entropy in the noise. Hopefully by then we'll be using more than 8 bits per channel, so there's more "information" in the noise for the same amount of noise. (noise being random, you can't gain anything from losslessly compressing it.)

Last edited by Guest; 14th November 2008 at 14:42. Reason: rule 6
pcordes is offline  
Old 12th November 2008, 22:10   #86  |  Link
Industrial_One
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptus
Not if we're still encoding 2D material.
I am talking about 2D material. A 2D image has a visual (3D) depth, and by exploiting the redundancies with a codec that can model the objects, you can do way better, save a shitload of space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptus
As for huge improvements in compression efficiency, we are actually getting diminishing returns for increasing complexity, so the efficiency curve is asymptotic. But that is nothing to worry about as storage capacities are still growing fast.
Probably the largest gains that still can be made is from a better exploitation of psychovisual effects.
That's cuz you are thinking in only one direction, fixated on one concept.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcordes
Not without magic. Once you destroy information, it's gone. You might be able to reconstruct 3D from even a blocky or blurry video, but all the textures of everything would still be blurry and artifacted. That link you posted is about adding new information about the original source (the high quality still photo) to each frame of the video. You _need_ the HQ still of the source. The equivalent for a full-length movie would be HQ still pictures of every scene. So if you have that, then you can make a low-qual encode and fix it later. But if you can get a frame of every scene from e.g. a BluRay, why not just rip the BluRay and forget about your divx encode? Even with HQ stills of each scene, it wouldn't work as well for dynamic scenes, because it would have to figure out what was going on and what detail to put where. New stuff that came on screen (e.g. an explosion) wouldn't have any information that could be applied to it.
That's the problem. It needs some smart temporal interpolation modelling scheme in addition to the spacetime-fusion technique or whatever to compensate for the artifacts that would arise in dynamic scenes. However, this will improve in the future. Just think how your own mind works. Can you visualize an HQ version of an LQ video just by looking at it? Would an HQ photo help? Do you now have a general idea of what's infesting the quality? Cool, you should now be able to imagine what the next kickass scene with the nukes would look like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcordes
The need for the HQ still photo is not something that will go away, ever. Information theory says you can't get more information out of something than is there in the first place. Of course, you're arguing that future magic will be able to figure out how all the sharp detailed textures are supposed to look from the less-detailed information left in your video. Not impossible, in theory, if the magic algorithm can assume that it's a video of a real-life 3D scene containing the sorts of things humans usual have around. So if it thinks something is a face, it could make it look like a highly detailed face. But that's just making up details, not recovering the information you threw away in low qual encode.
True. Feeding the app HQ source photos will be mandatory. So you would have to touch the photo up yourself, or hire a photoshop professional. I doubt that having a photo for every scene will be necessary, as there should be some interval of the amount of parameters the program needs to get an idea how to fix the whole video, e.g. you got a sitcom that takes place in only one location throughout the whole series -- you just take photos of a couple scenes that encompass what the general show looks like.

[...]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcordes
lossless? Not that small. Noise prevents lossless from being that small. With storage and bandwidth as cheap as they probably will be in 50 years, what's the incentive to make some kind of AI codec that 3D-models the things in the video... (Figuring out what's going on and storing just geometry and textures is probably the most efficient way, but it would require absurd amounts of CPU time, and like I said, probably some AI.)
We won't be shooting film by that time. Everything will be procedurally constructed CGI, hence no noise. And if we wanted some noise into the film for extra texture, that can be stored as a tiny 8-byte pseudorandom seed. Also, it is in everyone's interest for multimedia to be high quality and as small as possible. Stuff that takes days/hours to distribute is not what I call "distributable." The real future of P2P is instant sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcordes
I could believe a couple GB for UHD, but still not for lossless. There's always going to be too much entropy in the noise. Hopefully by then we'll be using more than 8 bits per channel, so there's more "information" in the noise for the same amount of noise. (noise being random, you can't gain anything from losslessly compressing it.)
Try 32 bits.

P.S. Notice how I have the class to completely hijack this thread and **** about 10-50 years predictions like some LSD-binging nerd. So I'll get back on topic and give my 10 cents on what I predict in 5 years time:

H.265 will be available, somewhat less dominant than H.264 is today, but popular. People [...] as the 50% efficiency increase will make sub-HD possible at bitrates below the megabit range.

Retards will be releasing encodes with 8-channel 192 KHz audio at like 10 Mbps and brag about their "ultrahigh quality encodes."

Avery Lee will find some time to upgrade Avidemux, turn it into a professional, reliable application like VirtualDub that can actually EDIT content contained in MP4/MKV without crashing/producing corrupt video/errors or otherwise **** up in any way. Then all the [...].

Joost will replace BitTorrent (yo, BT sucks) for video content, and 3rd generation P2P apps will dominate current 2nd gen apps, but will still be popular in 3rd world countries where people can't afford the multiplied bandwidth of their traffic being routed thru proxy peers. Stealthnet and Tesla will be big, Freenet will develop a user-friendly GUI and maybe become more popular.

Ultrareal CGI films will be more common and less expensive to produce. There will be more credible movies than Flatland completely created by one person. Indies in general will be more common, especially with oldschool 8/16-bit games.

Tapestry media and HVDs will quickly replace Blu-rays, and Blu-rays will become the standard casual media format as DVDs are today. Ultrahigh-definition will be prominent, but won't replace HD. HD will be more common as machines get more powerful and make processing high resolutions a casual activity. SD will still be popular as 720x576 for all intents and purposes is enough, but any lower-res rips will be rare.

These faulty [...] LCDs will start to be replaced by LEP displays (that you can fold like paper) which take way less power, have a way higher contrast ratio and don't distort from other angles. Virtual retinal displays will be developed and finalized, but not yet affordable or widely available.

[...]

And I'll be in Japan makin' phat cash.

[/10cents]

Last edited by Guest; 14th November 2008 at 14:48. Reason: rules 4 and 6
 
Old 13th November 2008, 02:58   #87  |  Link
squid_80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, AU
Posts: 1,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Industrial_One View Post
Avery Lee will find some time to upgrade Avidemux, turn it into a professional, reliable application like VirtualDub that can actually EDIT content contained in MP4/MKV without crashing/producing corrupt video/errors or otherwise **** up in any way.
Not a chance in hell of this happening.

Last edited by Guest; 14th November 2008 at 14:48.
squid_80 is offline  
Old 13th November 2008, 04:26   #88  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 12,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Industrial_One View Post
Avery Lee will find some time to upgrade Avidemux, turn it into a professional, reliable application like VirtualDub that can actually EDIT content contained in MP4/MKV without crashing/producing corrupt video/errors or otherwise **** up in any way.
VirtualDub is still stuck in the VFW era of the early 1990's and you call it a "professional" application?

If Avery Lee had some free time to spend, I think he'd better kick all the VfW code out of VirtualDub and add support for encoder plugins. Allowing decoder plugins already was a first step into the right direction

And before you further bash on Avidemux, please name us one fully-fledged OpenSource video editor with fully working H.264 + MP4/MKV support or what you have contributed to create one
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.



Last edited by Guest; 14th November 2008 at 14:49.
LoRd_MuldeR is offline  
Old 13th November 2008, 09:01   #89  |  Link
Industrial_One
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
VirtualDub is still stuck in the VFW era of the early 1990's and you call it a "professional" application?

If Avery Lee had some free time to spend, I think he'd better kick all the VfW code out of VirtualDub and add support for encoder plugins. Allowing decoder plugins already was a first step into the right direction
I should've said: There will be a professional, user-friendly app that will let us edit MP4/MKV streams as easy as AVI today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
And before you further bash on Avidemux, please name us one fully-fledged OpenSource video editor with fully working H.264 + MP4/MKV support
There is none, that's the whole problem. But I'm not gonna turn this into a VfW lecture [...] and I grow weary of wasting my time educating them of the benefits of x264vfw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
what you have contributed to create one
[...]

Now give me one good reason why I should ever spend a second programming an MKV editor for free.

Last edited by Guest; 14th November 2008 at 14:52. Reason: rules 4 and 6
 
Old 13th November 2008, 09:52   #90  |  Link
squid_80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, AU
Posts: 1,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Industrial_One View Post
I don't even know why I still post here after that.
I don't know why you do either, this forum doesn't support any of the things you've supposedly "contributed." Since it seems to have brought you so much grief maybe you should consider a new (legal) hobby.
squid_80 is offline  
Old 13th November 2008, 17:35   #91  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 12,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Industrial_One View Post
Now give me one good reason why I should ever spend a second programming an MKV editor for free.
Because you obviously don't hesitate to use existing OpenSource tools for free as long as they serve you well.

Maybe you feel like giving something back to the community one day?

(If we exclude all the software that was developed and contributed by people for FREE, the video world would be a really sad place - no Avisynth, no ffmpeg/libavcodec, no x264, no LAME, no Xvid, no ffdshow, no VirtualDub, no Avidemux, no MPlayer, no Media Player Classic, no VLC Player, no DG(AVC)Index - just to name a few)
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.



Last edited by LoRd_MuldeR; 13th November 2008 at 18:03.
LoRd_MuldeR is offline  
Old 14th November 2008, 04:25   #92  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Industrial_One View Post
deleted by mod
so, your contribution to the "community" was spreading illegal material all over the world along with your stupidity. what can you expect from an illegal activity?
get a life and since you're so unrespectful of other ppl (legal) work, please REFRAIN to use ANY opensource software. if you want one, make your own... and ensure it will NOT be opensource.
your second option is to pay for softwares that do what you want... if they will ever exist (good luck!!!).
remember: NO ONE OWE YOU ANYTHING. that's a lesson i hope you will learn...

Last edited by Guest; 14th November 2008 at 14:53.
Sharktooth is offline  
Old 14th November 2008, 06:20   #93  |  Link
Industrial_One
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Since this is originally a thread where we smoke chronicles/guess the future and is going off-topic, don't reply to this post, just read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
Because you obviously don't hesitate to use existing OpenSource tools for free as long as they serve you well.

Maybe you feel like giving something back to the community one day?
[...]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharktooth
so, your contribution to the "community" was spreading illegal material all over the world along with your stupidity. what can you expect from an illegal activity?
get a life and since you're so unrespectful of other ppl (legal) work
[...]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharktooth
please REFRAIN to use ANY opensource software.
Ok, can I still use closed-source freeware? _

Last edited by Guest; 14th November 2008 at 14:55.
 
Old 14th November 2008, 06:39   #94  |  Link
foxyshadis
ангел смерти
 
foxyshadis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,231
Way off any kind of topic, devolving into a flamewar laced with profanity, and discussion way out of line for this forum. This is supposed to be a professional forum, act with a professional decorum. Closed.
__________________
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. ~ Ed Howdershelt
foxyshadis is offline  
Closed Thread

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 19:56.


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