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. |
10th February 2005, 00:18 | #1 | Link |
MSU G&M Lab
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MSU G&M Lab
Posts: 318
|
MSU MPEG-4 AVC/ H.264 codec comparison test
MSU MPEG-4 AVC/ H.264 codec comparison test released!
Main features: * 6 H.264 codecs was compared with last DivX. * 3 codecs was recieved from codec developers directly for test. (We would like to thank Moonlight Cordless LTD, Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits IIS and Ateme for kindly providing us their codecs for this test.) * We measure the most used PSNR, Bitrate handling and visual comparison. This comparison was first is series. In next version (will be in 2 month): * New codecs will be added * We plan to add new measures * 2 presets, recieved from codec developers will be measured: "tuned" - maximum quality, "fast" - maximum (optimum) speed * Rules for uniformal comparison will be more formal. http://compression.ru/video/codec_co...c_h264_en.html Enjoy!
__________________
With regards Dmitriy Vatolin www.compression.ru/video/ (Last updates: MSU Video Quality Metric 10.1 - faster&more useful) |
10th February 2005, 00:59 | #2 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,392
|
Errors:
Last edited by akupenguin; 10th February 2005 at 01:01. |
10th February 2005, 16:07 | #3 | Link |
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,227
|
I reckon this thread should be moved over to the "New A/V Formats - Codecs" section...
Cheers
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
|
10th February 2005, 17:07 | #4 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
|
DmitriyV2 i hope in the second round you'll compare with XviD too
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :) It is about Time Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late ! http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004 |
10th February 2005, 21:14 | #5 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 152
|
A minor quibble: "Ateme" should probably be changed to "Nero", unless you got this version of the codec directly from Ateme. My assumption (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Nero paid for this codec to be developed and for the right to distribute it under their name. As far as I know, there is no "Ateme" codec that can purchased or evaluated by the regular consumers reading your test.
|
10th February 2005, 21:16 | #6 | Link |
Mr. Sandman
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
|
He tested the commandline encoder from Ateme and i suppose (but i cant really tell) he tested the high profile.
__________________
MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! |
10th February 2005, 21:18 | #7 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
There are some strange things :
* foreman is 30 fps, not 15 * the black square helps codecs with a logo, and the bigger the logo, the bigger the help (!) * there's no way for divx's psnr curve to be higher than ateme's, even at high bitrates, and certainly not on foreman ( and since you give per frame psnr for high bitrate on foreman, you can check that something is wrong ). |
10th February 2005, 21:22 | #8 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 152
|
Quote:
lazyn00b |
|
10th February 2005, 22:17 | #11 | Link | |
MSU G&M Lab
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MSU G&M Lab
Posts: 318
|
Quote:
Please see screenshot at the beginning of comparison! (We began to make screenshots after the same discuaaion with our previous test).
__________________
With regards Dmitriy Vatolin www.compression.ru/video/ (Last updates: MSU Video Quality Metric 10.1 - faster&more useful) |
|
10th February 2005, 22:18 | #12 | Link | |
MSU G&M Lab
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MSU G&M Lab
Posts: 318
|
Quote:
__________________
With regards Dmitriy Vatolin www.compression.ru/video/ (Last updates: MSU Video Quality Metric 10.1 - faster&more useful) |
|
10th February 2005, 22:28 | #13 | Link | |
MSU G&M Lab
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MSU G&M Lab
Posts: 318
|
Quote:
x264 will be added to next comparison, so you have about 2 month to tune rate control. Hope you will improve it fundamentally!
__________________
With regards Dmitriy Vatolin www.compression.ru/video/ (Last updates: MSU Video Quality Metric 10.1 - faster&more useful) |
|
10th February 2005, 22:31 | #14 | Link | |
MSU G&M Lab
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MSU G&M Lab
Posts: 318
|
Quote:
We plan MPEG-4 codecs comparison with all version of DivX (from early to modern) and with XviD of cource!
__________________
With regards Dmitriy Vatolin www.compression.ru/video/ (Last updates: MSU Video Quality Metric 10.1 - faster&more useful) |
|
10th February 2005, 22:45 | #15 | Link | |||
MSU G&M Lab
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: MSU G&M Lab
Posts: 318
|
Quote:
Quote:
We console oneself only that bigger logo _essentially_ decrease number of codec users! So this damage, I think, is more serious. And do not worry - our main course - work with codec developers directly, so we hope to clear away comparison from such codecs. Quote:
Really we found more such observations about codecs optimization.
__________________
With regards Dmitriy Vatolin www.compression.ru/video/ (Last updates: MSU Video Quality Metric 10.1 - faster&more useful) |
|||
11th February 2005, 00:50 | #16 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 4,926
|
Maybe you missunderstood me i meant that
Main features: * 6 H.264 codecs was compared with last DivX. why did you compared vs DivX instead of XviD im not sure that this is really fair ?
__________________
all my compares are riddles so please try to decipher them yourselves :) It is about Time Join the Revolution NOW before it is to Late ! http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=168004 |
11th February 2005, 07:58 | #17 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tomsk, Russia
Posts: 366
|
Quote:
If you try to play back yours foreman with 30 fps you will see that in this case it is more closely to reality than playing it with 15 fps |
|
11th February 2005, 08:37 | #18 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Silly Valley
Posts: 261
|
Quote:
|
|
11th February 2005, 11:25 | #19 | Link |
gone
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,706
|
DivX wasnt used as DivX as such, but as a MPEG4 ASP codec to compare with some H264 codecs, to see an improvement of H264 over MPEG4 ASP. DivX would suffice for that. It's not directly related to fairness.
If I interpret the conclusions of the test correctly, DivX ended up 2nd after Ateme so I doubt if using XviD would have really changed the results. Also, I hope that the possible difference between a H264 codec and a MPEG4 ASP codec is bigger than the difference between XviD and DivX right now, otherwise you could throw the whole standard in the trashcan right now IMO. |
13th February 2005, 11:10 | #20 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 170
|
They said, that H.264 codecs are comparable to a DivX 2.0-status (when looking at 5.2.1) and must be improved by the years, they're not exhausted. But how's the ASP-standard exhausted? Is it realy full-featured like the reference-code or are there even tons of features to be implemented?
|
|
|