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 12th December 2006, 20:19   #41  |  Link
Koti
Always trying
 
Koti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The O.C.
Posts: 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Romario View Post
I don't know why Intel want money for this.

If this package become freeware, then devs can optimize their programs and codecs for Intel Core 2 architecture MUCH EASIER.
you could always buy the libraries for x264 dev's
Koti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2006, 20:38   #42  |  Link
Romario
Registered User
 
Romario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Qetchua mountains in Peru, and Klingon battlecruiser D'Mar
Posts: 393
Yes, but I can't.
__________________
Live long and prosperLive long and prosperLive long and prosper
Romario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2006, 20:44   #43  |  Link
KoD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 567
Because Intel is not making money only from selling Core2 Duo processors. They are actually producing more hardware and software than just cpus for personal computers.

Last edited by KoD; 12th December 2006 at 20:46.
KoD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2006, 21:51   #44  |  Link
Romario
Registered User
 
Romario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Qetchua mountains in Peru, and Klingon battlecruiser D'Mar
Posts: 393
Certainly, but...

If someone decide to make pressure on Intel software division, who knows what can happen?
__________________
Live long and prosperLive long and prosperLive long and prosper
Romario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2006, 03:18   #45  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
It's like asking M$ to make Windows OpenSource...
and however x264 has ASM optimizations that maybe are even faster than intel libs...

Last edited by Sharktooth; 13th December 2006 at 03:21.
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2006, 03:30   #46  |  Link
Adub
Fighting spam with a fish
 
Adub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,699
faster, really? is that because they are done by hand? But I thought that x264 hadn't been all the way optimized yet.
__________________
FAQs:Bond's AVC/H.264 FAQ
Site:Adubvideo
Adub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2006, 04:27   #47  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
Hand optimizations are always better than third party libs (that work well only on certain scenarios), also qualitywise x264 is as fast if not faster than commercial h.264 encoders... so how can you say it's not optimized?
Maybe there could be further speed optimizations but it's already quite fast.
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2006, 04:41   #48  |  Link
Adub
Fighting spam with a fish
 
Adub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,699
I thought that Ateme blew it out of the water, maybe not in terms of quality, but speed wise. Maybe I am just hearing voices again.

Also, I ask about hand optimizations because I am interesting in learning to program and speed is a fetish. Ha!
__________________
FAQs:Bond's AVC/H.264 FAQ
Site:Adubvideo
Adub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2006, 10:17   #49  |  Link
imcold
pencil artist
 
imcold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 201
so, learn about programming. It's fun and it doesn't hurt - allright, debugging can be very frustrating, but the bigger will be your joy after you finnaly manage to make the code behave the way you want.
Large programs are broken into smaller parts: functions. When you want to make your program run faster, you search for the functions that are most computationally intensive and then you find a better (faster) algorithm for it, you rewrite it in assembly, or very often both. Compiler may not generate the best assembly code for your function -it's just a program, not thinking being- in contrast with creator of the code, who is perfectly aware of what the function is supposed to do. Optimalizations (most of the time?) take advantage of SIMD (single instruction - multiple data) instructions: MMX, 3DNow!, SSE1/2/3 aso. They are kind of... parallel processing instructions, they provide huge speedup if properly used. X264 has plenty of optimized functions. It's kind of complicated for compiler to rewrite your function into SIMD instructions. So is for humans... but humans are intelligent, thinking beings, and creative too. You can find out an algorithm, that would work much better in SIMD. Compiler sort of... can't. That's why I believe humans will always (or for a very long time) be better for optimizing.

Also, about optimizing for some CPU - under this I understand using instructions that suit the CPU is best at: be it 3DNow for (old?) amds, SSE2 for core2, 64-bit instructions for 64bit processors on 64-bit OS etc. So in my eyes x264 is pretty much optimized for core2. Also I admire the programmers that take part in developing our beloved oss encoders and find them very skilled and inteligent (and I am most thankful for their work); I doubt that Intel's optimized code would be significantly faster - IF it would be faster at all.

sorry if this was kind of boring reading (also corrections welcomed). I also think that x264 is very fast taking it's complexicity (that makes me dizzy) into consideration (hey, it got faster by >30% during 2006 according to my tests). Big thankyou for the devs.
imcold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2006, 13:48   #50  |  Link
pgb
Friendly Coder
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 18
Hear, hear, imcold!

Anyone wanting to learn more about real programming and squeezing the most out of those clock cycles could do worse than read Don Knuth's magnum opus:

http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/taocp.html

And I'd like to add my thanks to the X264 developers too.

Happy holidays, everyone!
pgb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2006, 15:17   #51  |  Link
Adub
Fighting spam with a fish
 
Adub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,699
Thanks guys! I will give them a read when I have the time.
__________________
FAQs:Bond's AVC/H.264 FAQ
Site:Adubvideo
Adub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2006, 16:56   #52  |  Link
dancho
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 106
if you wanna learn more check this links:

Software optimization resources :http://www.agner.org/optimize/

Assembly Optimization Tips : http://www.mark.masmcode.com/
dancho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2006, 15:10   #53  |  Link
Inventive Software
Turkey Machine
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lowestoft, UK (but visit lots of places with bribes [beer])
Posts: 1,953
Got a suggestion. Bear with me.

The progress indicator only updates every (total frames / 1000), thus for a 100000 frame movie, it updates every 100 frames. This is a little slow with some resolutions, so why not have it update the progress every frame and not by percentage? The current percentage could then go down to 2dp or 3dp instead of 1dp to accomodate the longer encodes, and be calculated each frame.
__________________
On Discworld it is clearly recognized that million-to-one chances happen 9 times out of 10. If the hero did not overcome huge odds, what would be the point? Terry Pratchett - The Science Of Discworld
Inventive Software is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st December 2006, 23:10   #54  |  Link
check
phjbdpcrjlj2sb3h
 
check's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,691
You can get something like that if you enable verbose mode.
check is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th December 2006, 18:30   #55  |  Link
chadamir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 92
Sorry if this crosses over into feature request territory, but in the advanced dvd authoring forum we've been discussing codecs that are hd-dvd compliant. X264 is not. Some minor header changes need to be made to conform to spec. Is this being worked on? Fantastic work otherwise, certainly my choice for pc backups.

Heres the thread: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=119392&page=4
chadamir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 02:49   #56  |  Link
akupenguin
x264 developer
 
akupenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,392
No. I am not interested in HD-DVD or any other application that adds requirements beyond the H.264 standard for no good reason.
akupenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 04:16   #57  |  Link
chadamir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 92
But aren't the two data structures in the reference encoder?
chadamir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 09:07   #58  |  Link
akupenguin
x264 developer
 
akupenguin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,392
You tell me. Can you make an HD-DVD compliant stream using JM? Does anyone even know what the constraints are?
akupenguin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 10:05   #59  |  Link
chadamir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 92
I guess the people on the forum who have the specs know. I do know JM supports those data structures which were said to be needed by those who have the specs. I thought JM only outputs avi and I have a feeling demuxing would ruin it.
chadamir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2006, 10:32   #60  |  Link
Manao
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
Quote:
I guess the people on the forum who have the specs know
No. They have only a vague idea of what some of the constraints may be. Those who effectively have the specs are most probably under NDA and can't disclose them ( CF : http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...932#post882932 )
__________________
Manao is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
coding, development, x264 dev

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 12:12.


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