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 > High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 9th February 2018, 23:22   #5901  |  Link
Selur
Registered User
 
Selur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,929
@Ma: thanks for the insight

Cu Selur
__________________
Hybrid here in the forum, homepage
Notice: Since email notifications do not work here any more, it might take me quite some time to notice a reply to a thread,..

Last edited by Selur; 10th February 2018 at 00:08.
Selur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2018, 01:11   #5902  |  Link
burfadel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,234
I wonder whether lookahead could be repurposed to allow more efficient use of large CU size, or only use it when it appears most efficient to do so.
burfadel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2018, 10:39   #5903  |  Link
Anthonytex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
Hello everyone, I know that this question was posted a lot of time so apologize: is it true that it's better to encode a 8bit video to 10bit even if the source it's 8 bit? What's the difference? Does the x265 encoder works better? Thank you
Anthonytex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2018, 10:46   #5904  |  Link
Selur
Registered User
 
Selur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,929
Quote:
is it true that it's better to encode a 8bit video to 10bit even if the source it's 8 bit?
-> Why does 10-bit save bandwidth (even when content is 8-bit)?
__________________
Hybrid here in the forum, homepage
Notice: Since email notifications do not work here any more, it might take me quite some time to notice a reply to a thread,..
Selur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2018, 11:10   #5905  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ma View Post
I've made some tests about '--qg-size'. For my eyes '--qg-size 32' is better than '--qg-size 16'. After checking all possible values (8, 16, 32 and 64) the best is 64 (PSNR/SSIM and for my eyes). It is a bit strange, the default value in x265 is 32.
Funny thing is that in the "--tune film" thread, the exact opposite was suggested: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=172458

Could you repeat the test with some high-detail film content, please?
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2018, 11:21   #5906  |  Link
Anthonytex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
Thank you I've read that article, I was looking for something x265 specific rather than a general case
Anthonytex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2018, 12:21   #5907  |  Link
Dope
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 9
I haven't seen x265 to compress more efficiently in 10-bit. x264 - yes. But not x265.
Dope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2018, 17:15   #5908  |  Link
poisondeathray
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dope View Post
I haven't seen x265 to compress more efficiently in 10-bit. x264 - yes. But not x265.
Those are my findings too
poisondeathray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2018, 17:33   #5909  |  Link
Anthonytex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
Thank you
Anthonytex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2018, 18:28   #5910  |  Link
Selur
Registered User
 
Selur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,929
Still 10bit makes sense to avoid introducing banding artifacts,..
__________________
Hybrid here in the forum, homepage
Notice: Since email notifications do not work here any more, it might take me quite some time to notice a reply to a thread,..
Selur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2018, 14:44   #5911  |  Link
Asmodian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 3,763
10-bit is still more efficient, only it is a very small improvement with x265 compared to x264. x265 uses a higher bit depth in important places internally, even when set to 8 bit; its internal data structures are not all required to use the same bit depth as the output video.

Also, banding is never good so that is also a quality/size efficiency boost.
__________________
madVR options explained
Asmodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2018, 15:10   #5912  |  Link
sneaker_ger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,502
The problem is x265 can produce banding even at 10 bit. x264 10bit doesn't have those problems, it's "fire and forget". Hard to beat if you aim for high bitrate/high quality.
https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.p...53#post1762253
sneaker_ger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2018, 17:34   #5913  |  Link
Ma
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 325
The problem with qg-size could be related to 8bit vs. 10bit question.
I've made tests with 10bit output and I prefer qg-size 64 (for 10bit output).
Maybe the change from 64 to 32 for qg-size was for 8bit output?
Ma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th February 2018, 19:00   #5914  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneaker_ger View Post
The problem is x265 can produce banding even at 10 bit. x264 10bit doesn't have those problems, it's "fire and forget". Hard to beat if you aim for high bitrate/high quality.
https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.p...53#post1762253
Filmgrain preservation is overrated

Filmgrain is just a noise. Pleasant noise, but still noise.
Iíd prefer video source without filmgrain than with it. Two reasons for that. First reason, microscopic details arenít drowned in grain. Second reason, significantly better compressibility. In the end you have better both: visual quality and compressibility. Win-win situation.

Good news that new Netflix series/shows have much less filmgrain or donít have it at all.
Instead of blaming x265 developers for not preserving grain itís time to forget about useless filmgrain to begin with
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2018, 16:30   #5915  |  Link
Sp00kyFox
Registered User
 
Sp00kyFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motenai Yoda View Post
I would suggest a possible tune animation:
Code:
aq-mode 3 aq-strength 0.6 aq-motion qg-size 16 rc-lookahead +20 psy-rd 1.2 rdoq-level 2 psy-rdoq 0.3 deblock 1:-1 cbqpoffs -1 crqpoffs -1
can somebody actually provide an encoding example where aq-mode 3 is beneficial? made some tests a while ago and really can't say that it's better or worse than mode 1. both seem better than mode 2 though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthonytex View Post
Hello everyone, I know that this question was posted a lot of time so apologize: is it true that it's better to encode a 8bit video to 10bit even if the source it's 8 bit? What's the difference? Does the x265 encoder works better? Thank you
10bit-depth prevents banding artifacts better and since HEVC hardware decoders also support it unlike with AVC I don't see a reason not to use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorC View Post
Instead of blaming x265 developers for not preserving grain itís time to forget about useless filmgrain to begin with
it's the classic problem of video filtering to distinguish between grain and details. so a video encoder that fails to keep this picture information also has issues with keeping details. despite that grain can also create details over the temporal axis.

anyways, since the introduction of the new lambda tables (in v2.4) x265 does a great job with keeping grain. for me it has made x264 obsolete.
Sp00kyFox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th February 2018, 23:18   #5916  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sp00kyFox View Post
anyways, since the introduction of the new lambda tables (in v2.4) x265 does a great job with keeping grain. for me it has made x264 obsolete.
Great.Thank you for clarifying that as I didn't followed x265 devt last year.
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th February 2018, 10:57   #5917  |  Link
LigH
German doom9/Gleitz SuMo
 
LigH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany, rural Altmark
Posts: 5,983
x265 2.6+39-01b685d6fa33

CMake: fix generation of version info from .hg_archival.txt; fix output to pipe on Windows (enable binary mode)
__________________

New German Gleitz board
MediaFire: x264 | x265 | VPx | AOM | Xvid
LigH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th February 2018, 18:24   #5918  |  Link
Barough
Registered User
 
Barough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 341
x265 v2.6+42-52782aeb2081 (GCC 7.3.0, 32 & 64-bit 8/10/12bit Multilib Windows Binaries)

Code:
https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/commits/branch/default
Barough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th February 2018, 22:09   #5919  |  Link
VoodooFX
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneaker_ger View Post
The problem is x265 can produce banding even at 10 bit. x264 10bit doesn't have those problems, it's "fire and forget". Hard to beat if you aim for high bitrate/high quality.
https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.p...53#post1762253
Definitely I had same problem with aq-mode=2 (and maybe with 3 too, I don't remember now), using default aq-mode=1 solved exact banding like in those screenshots.
VoodooFX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd February 2018, 13:15   #5920  |  Link
hajj_3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 912
x265 v2.7 is out, can't find a changelog though.
hajj_3 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 13:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.