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 ASP

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 17th June 2008, 04:49   #141  |  Link
Avenger007
Bruce Wayne
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 283
@Dark Shikari:
Thanks for the info. Even though intra prediction visually often results in a smooth, blurred block, like you said it is very RD-optimal and is extremely effective for coding actual new information in the image, giving H.264 a huge advantage over other standards like VC-1, MPEG-4 ASP, etc. Thus, all the more reason for people to let go of Xvid (since there is only so much benefit you can get by porting patches) and start using x264.

I would prefer to have an encoder encoding images as close to the original as possible and use filters to cleanup and add detail than to have the encoder adding fake detail while blocking and smudging the background to boot.

I guess a future improvement for x264 is to have a better algorithm (perhaps based on more metrics) for choosing inter over intra prediction when appropriate (assuming the problem isn't "etched" into H.264).

@Ranguvar:
The use you speak of for MPEG-4 ASP is one of compatibility since MPEG-4 AVC is the modern successor of MPEG-4 ASP. That's exactly what I meant when I said "sticking (almost religiously) to old technology". If you want to be on the cutting-edge and benefit from all that the latest technology has to offer then sometimes compatibility has to be sacrificed, but only if the improvements are significant and the choice to do so is economical.

I think x264 meets those requirements; it meets H.264 specs, it's free and is easily accessible. Besides, Blu-ray players support H.264/AVC and ffdshow also supports H.264. So when you think about it, compatibility really isn't an issue; people are just too lazy to change on their own and will only do so when they are compelled to change to by some external force (just like Newton's law of inertia ).

Having said all of that, compatibility is still a factor so there will still be the need to use ASP. However, I would still try hard to use AVC if I could and use ASP only in exceptional cases (unless you goal isn't quality ).
Avenger007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2008, 05:29   #142  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
I use AVC whenever I have a choice

But the fact is that sometimes the job at hand calls for ASP. At the moment, only with ASP can I have a solution with 5.1 audio that plays easily on my portable, TV (through Xbox 360 or XBMC), and ancient laptop I'm using right now...

I'm not sticking religiously, and I don't think that maintaining Xvid is a bad thing, or that most people still using Xvid are sticking religiously. The majority of them just don't want to upgrade their equipment, I'd say.
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2008, 09:38   #143  |  Link
LeXXuz
21 years and counting...
 
LeXXuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avenger007 View Post
P.S. Sorry for spamming but I just have to speak my mind when I see people sticking (almost religiously) to old technology and refusing to change when something better exists and is easily accessible.
Please send me 600 bucks so I can upgrade all my hardware to use AVC. Then I won't have to stick so religiously with this old technology! Wire transfer or cheque would be nice. THANK YOU SO MUCH in advance!
LeXXuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2008, 19:42   #144  |  Link
laserfan
Aging Video Hobbyist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Off the Map
Posts: 2,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeXXuz View Post
Please send me 600 bucks so I can upgrade all my hardware to use AVC. Then I won't have to stick so religiously with this old technology! Wire transfer or cheque would be nice. THANK YOU SO MUCH in advance!
Avenger007 if you are so anxious to get everyone off Xvid, put your money where your mouth is. I'm with LeXXuz, though I'd need about a grand to upgrade my stuff!
laserfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2008, 21:03   #145  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
And if you could please pay off Archos, Sony, Microsoft, the former to upgrade my Archos with a better H.264 decoder so I can watch reasonable level AVC clips on it, and I want Sony and Microsoft to decode Matroska videos with AC3 audio :P
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th June 2008, 22:50   #146  |  Link
Avenger007
Bruce Wayne
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avenger007 View Post
If you want to be on the cutting-edge and benefit from all that the latest technology has to offer then sometimes compatibility has to be sacrificed, but only if the improvements are significant and the choice to do so is economical.
Xvid FTW!
Avenger007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2008, 03:11   #147  |  Link
henryho_hk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 889
XviD has its own strength over AVC in certain areas. Both are bad when used in the wrong way. e.g. our local TV programs have just been switching to HD (h.264) and now the ppls are looking like dolls and the leaves are looking like plastic flips.
henryho_hk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th June 2008, 05:16   #148  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryho_hk View Post
XviD has its own strength over AVC in certain areas. Both are bad when used in the wrong way. e.g. our local TV programs have just been switching to HD (h.264) and now the ppls are looking like dolls and the leaves are looking like plastic flips.
That's mainly because they cut the bitrate when making the switch--often far too much (IMO).

It's also because the encoders they use are often absolutely terrible; while x264 often retains detail much better than Xvid, the same can't be said of most other AVC encoders.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2008, 20:50   #149  |  Link
kandrey89
Qualitas Opus Operis
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 45
I thought VAQ was supposed to increase quality not decrease it?!

I'm comparing samples right now and I see that VAQ does the following:
increase DRF Average
smooths out the video
introduces abbrasions on flat surfaces (such as widely differential pixels on a flat piece of cloth)
bigger end file by 3.75%

End result, worse
kandrey89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2008, 20:58   #150  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by kandrey89 View Post
I'm comparing samples right now and I see that VAQ does the following:
increase DRF Average
DRF is not a measure of quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kandrey89 View Post
smooths out the video
That's exactly the opposite of what VAQ does--unless you mean that it reduces blocking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kandrey89 View Post
introduces abbrasions on flat surfaces (such as widely differential pixels on a flat piece of cloth)
Yes, its called retaining detail. As an Xvid user, perhaps you've never seen such detail before?
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2008, 21:08   #151  |  Link
kandrey89
Qualitas Opus Operis
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 45
I did find places where VAQ smoothed out the edges.
I just now found some blockiness removal

with VAQ and Without
Yes I do see the difference now, just that sometimes it looks like the quality in the edges is lost :/
kandrey89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2008, 21:18   #152  |  Link
elguaxo
Registered User
 
elguaxo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 260


that encode would probably benefit from more bitrate, but the VAQ version is definitively better.
elguaxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th June 2008, 21:39   #153  |  Link
kandrey89
Qualitas Opus Operis
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 45
that was in VHQ mode 4
I've just tried VHW mode 1, and it seems much better, what are your experiences with VHQ modes?

Edit: NVM, I'll stick with VHQ Mode 4, it's slower but better quality. even though I might not have saw it at that particular frame.

Last edited by kandrey89; 24th June 2008 at 23:19.
kandrey89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th June 2008, 00:56   #154  |  Link
Brother John
(schein)heilig
 
Brother John's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 512
My experience is that high VHQ (definitely 4, maybe 3 as well) can cause swimming textures in low quant encodes, especially CQ2. I’ve never thoroughly investigated but the problem never occured again after switching to VHQ 1 for speed resons (other settings unchanged), so VHQ seems to have caused the problem.
__________________
Brother John

When lost in BeSweet's options, have a look at the Commandline Reference.
DVD nach MPEG-4 klappt nicht? Verzweifelt? Auf zum Encodingwissen!
Brother John is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th June 2008, 02:13   #155  |  Link
Ranguvar
Registered User
 
Ranguvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ::1
Posts: 1,236
In my experience, Brother John, it's more that low VHQ keeps small artifacts that make the video appear to have retained more detail. I may be wrong, but this is what I've seen. If I had more time, I'd make a test, but I'm too busy right now... if anyone reads this who has some spare time, please do help

Last edited by Ranguvar; 25th July 2008 at 03:10.
Ranguvar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2008, 19:02   #156  |  Link
Gromozeka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 151
Dark Shikari
But you may add your VAQ to Hcencoder?
Gromozeka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2008, 19:04   #157  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gromozeka View Post
Dark Shikari
But you may add your VAQ to Hcencoder?
HCencoder--if you mean HCenc, doesn't that program already have it?

Either way, of course--it isn't like I've patented it or anything
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2008, 21:31   #158  |  Link
Gromozeka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 151
I do not know how to program - unfortunately.
Gromozeka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th July 2008, 21:41   #159  |  Link
rack04
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gromozeka View Post
I do not know how to program - unfortunately.
What he's saying is that HCenc has it's own form of VAQ.

Quote:
Changes from version v0.22:

Added adaptive quantization
Added panscan
BTW, this has nothing to do with Xvid.
rack04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th July 2008, 05:45   #160  |  Link
Gromozeka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 151
Yes, I read it. But I do not know anything about algorithm AQ of HCencoders.
VAQ from Shikari is already tested and probably best
Thanks - I have understood both
Gromozeka is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
xvid aq, xvid vaq

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 23:21.


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