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. |
17th June 2008, 04:49 | #141 | Link |
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 ). |
17th June 2008, 05:29 | #142 | Link |
Registered User
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. |
17th June 2008, 09:38 | #143 | Link |
21 years and counting...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 716
|
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!
|
17th June 2008, 21:03 | #145 | Link |
Registered User
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
|
19th June 2008, 03:11 | #147 | Link |
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.
|
19th June 2008, 05:16 | #148 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
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. |
|
24th June 2008, 20:50 | #149 | Link |
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 |
24th June 2008, 20:58 | #150 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
That's exactly the opposite of what VAQ does--unless you mean that it reduces blocking. Yes, its called retaining detail. As an Xvid user, perhaps you've never seen such detail before? |
|
24th June 2008, 21:08 | #151 | Link |
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 :/ |
24th June 2008, 21:39 | #153 | Link |
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. |
25th June 2008, 00:56 | #154 | Link |
(schein)heilig
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! |
26th June 2008, 02:13 | #155 | Link |
Registered User
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. |
Tags |
xvid aq, xvid vaq |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|