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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 17th September 2008, 01:32   #1  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
Psy-RDO / Psy-trellis test results (clean CGI/game recording)

Please vote (post)! Give details, and take a look at the full clips if you can. Once I get enough votes, I'll do another test with a grainy 1080p Blu-ray with those values that are favored.

Did a test with the short ~lossless Gears clip I made: here (Thanks to roo_ for hosting! Please only download if you will use; bandwidth does not grow on trees ).

Tested with my r977 build.

Complete settings used. Complete settings part 2. Complete settings part 3.

PLEASE USE THESE (one frame can only do so much):
ZIP of script, logs, stats, encoded streams, and DGA index files (a35): here.
Second ZIP, which contains 0:0, 0.5:0.5, 0.8:0.8, 1.3:1.0, 1.3:1.3, 1.5:1.0, and 2.0:2.0 (the first one doesn't have them): here. Another (sorry!) ZIP, with the last bunch of tests (1.15:0.3, 1.15:0.5, 1.15:0.7, 1.15:1.0, 1.3:0.3, 1.3:0.5, 1.3:0.7, 1.5:0.3, 1.5:0.5, and 1.5:0.7): here.


Some example pics (frame 71):
(I recommend Firefox's Ctrl+num_tab feature for quick switching comparison)

Source

--psy-rd 0.0:0.0

--psy-rd 0.5:0.0

--psy-rd 0.5:0.5

--psy-rd 0.8:0.8

--psy-rd 1.0:0.0

--psy-rd 1.0:0.5

--psy-rd 1.0:1.0

--psy-rd 1.0:1.5

--psy-rd 1.15:0.3

--psy-rd 1.15:0.5

--psy-rd 1.15:0.7

--psy-rd 1.15:1.0

--psy-rd 1.3:0.3

--psy-rd 1.3:0.5

--psy-rd 1.3:0.7

--psy-rd 1.3:1.0

--psy-rd 1.3:1.3

--psy-rd 1.5:0.0

--psy-rd 1.5:0.3

--psy-rd 1.5:0.5

--psy-rd 1.5:0.7

--psy-rd 1.5:1.0

--psy-rd 1.5:1.5

--psy-rd 2.0:0.0

--psy-rd 2.0:2.0


What are your thoughts? The only thing that's really sure is that psy-trellis owns, at least for this clip

Last edited by Ranguvar; 19th September 2008 at 02:32.
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 01:39   #2  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
15_15.png looks better to me (is it 1.5:1.5 or 1.5:0.5?)

Last edited by Sharktooth; 17th September 2008 at 01:45.
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 01:43   #3  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
Sorry, it was 1.5:1.5 Fixed.
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 01:45   #4  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
well maybe the 1.0:1.0 is better overall... the 1.5:1.5 pic has a sort of noise around the edges.
any chance for a --psy-rd 1.5:1.0 screenshot?

Last edited by Sharktooth; 17th September 2008 at 02:10.
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 01:52   #5  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
Sure. I'll do 0:0, 0.5:0.5, 0.8:0.8, 1.3:1.0, 1.3:1.3, 1.5:1.0, and 2.0:2.0

Last edited by Ranguvar; 17th September 2008 at 02:02.
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 02:11   #6  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
it seems from those pics that values higher than x.x:1.0 (psy-trellis > 1.0) tend to produce noise around the edges.
maybe the sweetspot is somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5.
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 02:30   #7  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
Updated.

EDIT: I think 1.3:1.0 looks the best, but it's close between that and 1.0:1.0.

Last edited by Ranguvar; 17th September 2008 at 02:51.
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 03:02   #8  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
uhm it's hard... but i think 1.0:1.0 still looks better. 1.3:1.0 is loosing details here and there while it is sharper in other spots.
1.0:1.0 is more consistent but has some chroma noise in the weapon icon.
maybe 1.1:1.0 or 1.2:1.0 will be better but i have no time to do test encodes.

Last edited by Sharktooth; 17th September 2008 at 03:37.
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 03:06   #9  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
OK, tomorrow I'll test in-depth between 1.0:1.0 and 1.3:1.3, and with 1.5:0.0 to 1.5:0.5, as 1.5:0.0 is quite good.

Last edited by Ranguvar; 17th September 2008 at 03:10.
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 03:07   #10  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharktooth View Post
uhm it's hard... but i think 1.0:1.0 still looks better. 1.3:1.0 is loosing details here and there while but is sharper in other spots.
1.0:1.0 is more consistent but has some chroma noise in the weapon icon.
maybe 1.1:1.0 or 1.2:1.0 will be better but i have no time to do test encodes.
Apparently the defaults were chosen wisely
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊
LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 03:13   #11  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
Apparently the defaults were chosen wisely
1.0:0.0 is default right now
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 03:43   #12  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
it used to be 1.0:1.0 but psy-trellis was disabled (0.0) since there were some negative reports
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 09:06   #13  |  Link
G_M_C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,076
Sharktooth: Will you be updating Megui & presets to accommodate these changes, or will you be waiting untill we agree on some "best" values in this thread ?


PS, <<note: Just my opinion>>:
x264's options are getting really complex now; Some options are quite un-understandable to new users an/or are quite confusing. Might be time to re-evaluate all those options and device some new names or some other way to get all te options set.

for ex: --no fast p-skip to yes, could be made much easier to understand by simply calling it --fast p-skip (that you than have to set to no offcourse) . The point beeing that it is more logical, and easier to explain / understand by new users.

Last edited by G_M_C; 17th September 2008 at 09:08.
G_M_C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 09:21   #14  |  Link
Avenger007
Bruce Wayne
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by G_M_C View Post
for ex: --no fast p-skip to yes, could be made much easier to understand by simply calling it --fast p-skip (that you than have to set to no offcourse) . The point beeing that it is more logical, and easier to explain / understand by new users.
Actually it's not more logical because that option was intended as a debugging option iirc, similarly for --no-dct-decimation.
Thus no one should have cause to disable those capabilities of the encoder without very good reason.
Avenger007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 09:25   #15  |  Link
G_M_C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avenger007 View Post
Actually it's not more logical because that option was intended as a debugging option iirc, similarly for --no-dct-decimation.
Thus no one should have cause to disable those capabilities of the encoder without very good reason.
If i'm not mistaken; I see many commandlines, and most of them have --no fast p-skip to yes, so actually your argument goes wrong there
G_M_C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 12:44   #16  |  Link
Comatose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 639
1:1 vs 1.5:0 vs 1.5:1.0 vs 1.5:1.5, 1.5:1.0 looks best for me.
Compare the third window from the right in those. The top line is almost completely smoothed in all but 1.5:1.0, where it's very visible
Comatose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 12:50   #17  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by G_M_C View Post
Sharktooth: Will you be updating Megui & presets to accommodate these changes, or will you be waiting untill we agree on some "best" values in this thread ?


PS, <<note: Just my opinion>>:
x264's options are getting really complex now; Some options are quite un-understandable to new users an/or are quite confusing. Might be time to re-evaluate all those options and device some new names or some other way to get all te options set.

for ex: --no fast p-skip to yes, could be made much easier to understand by simply calling it --fast p-skip (that you than have to set to no offcourse) . The point beeing that it is more logical, and easier to explain / understand by new users.
--no-fast-pskip (as well as --no-dct-decimation) is an useless option unless you're debugging or want the supreme quality using insane values for other options.
however i like to mantain a cerrain consistency with the encoder options. if you want --fast-pskip, ask the x264 devs and i will do that as well on megui.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G_M_C View Post
If i'm not mistaken; I see many commandlines, and most of them have --no fast p-skip to yes, so actually your argument goes wrong there
if someone says to jump off the bridge, you jump off the bridge? ppl using --no-fast-pskip claiming a better quality should think about it twice or even more...
most of them dont even know what fast pskip is ...

Last edited by Sharktooth; 17th September 2008 at 12:55.
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 12:54   #18  |  Link
G_M_C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharktooth View Post
--no-fast-pskip (as well as --no-dct-decimation) is an useless option unless you're debugging or want the supreme quality using insane values for other options.
however i like to mantain a cerrain consistency with the encoder options. if you want --fast-pskip, ask the x264 devs and i will do that as well on megui.


Hmm, thats not what i meant to ask you; But i did make an unclear posting, I only wanted to give my optionion on all those options. Ive just recently started to use x264, and it has a very steep learning-curve partly because of all the options. Making it all more understadable/transparent might help the "lower steepness of the learning-curve". But as I said, its my opinion.

And all i wanted was to ask you if Megui will be updated to accommodate the new --psy-rd xx:xx options

Last edited by G_M_C; 17th September 2008 at 13:00.
G_M_C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 12:56   #19  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
nope. one picture or one source arent a good test.
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2008, 13:21   #20  |  Link
Episodio1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Spain
Posts: 198
Shartooth, wasnt "no-fast-pskip" to avoid blokiness in bluesky areas? Is it not useful anymore then?
Episodio1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
gears, psy-rd, psyrdo, psytrellis, test

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 17:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.