Simple x264/x265 Launcher v3.02 (2022-06-16)

[VideoFanatic]

I was wondering, you said CRF and 2 pass gives the same quality. Is there any reason not to use ABR mode in the same bitrate as I would in a 2 pass?

[Asmodian]

Yes, the quality would be significantly worse. ABR is not the same as CRF. To hit a specific size with optimal quality two passes are needed.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

I was wondering, you said CRF and 2 pass gives the same quality. Is there any reason not to use ABR mode in the same bitrate as I would in a 2 pass?

2-Pass mode can predict the size of future frames, since it has information from the first pass. ABR mode, on the other hand, can only extrapolate from what has been encoded thus far, because it has no info on future frames.

If, for example, there happens to be a very complex section near the end of the movie, then 2-Pass mode "knows" about this beforehand. So it can reduce the bitrate, to some degree, at the beginning of the movie, in order to "save" enough bits for the end of the movie, where those bits will be more than helpful. ABR mode obviously can not do this. When it reaches the complex section at the end of the movie, it has to get along with the number of bits that are still left at this point.

CRF mode also has no info on future frames. But it doesn't need to. Since CRF doesn't need to hit a specific file size (average bitrate), it can simply use as many bits as it deems appropriate...

[hello_hello]

Originally Posted by holygamer

OK I tried 2 pass and entered a bitrate of 7500 but MediaInfo says the bitrate is 7908 variable bitrate. I want the max variable bitrate to not go above 7500. How can I do that?

Try checking with Bitrate Viewer. As far as I'm aware it's accurate.

[szabi]

Hi

I use latest build (884), which came x264v2453.
I see newer x264v2479 is out.
Can x264 be replaced in toolset directory? Without any issue?

bye
szabi

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by szabi

Can x264 be replaced in toolset directory?

Yes.

Originally Posted by szabi

Without any issue?

Usually there should be no problem, if you replace it with a newer version.

There can be problems if you apply non-standard patches...

[VideoFanatic]

Can I request a small feature please. At the moment when you modify a profile it gives you the option to select a profile to overwrite. But I can't always remember the name of the profile I was editing and want to overwrite because it has a long name.

Could you instead do this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...HAMulxGhc/edit

When you change a setting of a saved profile it will add "<Modified>" to the Template Name. Could you add a Save button so it will overwrite the profile name (the "<Modified>" text will not be a part of the save name) without asking what profile to save as.

[VideoFanatic]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

What do I expect? I expect that, if I neither use "--profile" nor "--level", then x264 will set the "correct" Profile and Level for me. That is: the lowest possible Profile that my stream complies to as well as the lowest possible Level that my stream complies - given the current input file and the current encoder settings. Consequently, manually enforcing an even higher Profile or an even higher Level would make no sense. Enforcing a lower Profile can make sense, e.g. if I need to stick within "Main" Profile, because my playback device can only do "Main" Profile but not "High" Profile. Enforcing a lower Level, on the other hand, is almost always a very bad idea, as explained and demonstrated in the previous post.



You can't modify Profiles, because they are predefined by the H.264 standard. All H.264 Profiles that x264 recognizes should be selectable from the "Profile" combobox.

Sorry I was referring to Templates. Would it be possible to add what I asked please?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

Sorry I was referring to Templates. Would it be possible to add what I asked please?

What about this: When you click the "Save as..." button, it the initial name will be that of the last profile you have loaded?

[VideoFanatic]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

What about this: When you click the "Save as..." button, it the initial name will be that of the last profile you have loaded?

That would be fine. Thanks

[szabi]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

Yes.

Usually there should be no problem, if you replace it with a newer version.

There can be problems if you apply non-standard patches...

Thnx, it worked.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

That would be fine. Thanks

Try with this version please:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/muld...1.exe/download

[VideoFanatic]

I don't want to install it, do you have a portable version please like what's on VideoHelp.com?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

I don't want to install it, do you have a portable version please like what's on VideoHelp.com?

The installer contains the exactly same files as the ZIP package does. And it doesn't do much more than extracting those files to the target directory. There is no such thing as a separate "portable" version.

I don't have time to upload a ZIP package now. If you don't "trust" my installer for whatever reason, use 7-Zip/UniversalExtract to unzip the files. Or simply use a tool like Sandboxie

[VideoFanatic]

Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR

The installer contains the exactly same files as the ZIP package does. And it doesn't do much more than extracting those files to the target directory. There is no such thing as a separate "portable" version.

I don't have time to upload a ZIP package now. If you don't "trust" my installer for whatever reason, use 7-Zip/UniversalExtract to unzip the files. Or simply use a tool like Sandboxie

Thanks, I used the installer and the saving feature works.

There's a portable version here: http://www.videohelp.com/tools/Simple-x264-Launcher

I unzip it and it works, it's got all the template and preferences file in the same directory. Can I make a suggestion please. Why not only provide the portable version since it's less hassle. I don't see the point in using an installer when I can just unzip the portable version and it's ready to use.

I think you've told me before that the installer just extracts files but every time a see an installer I always think it installs something! It's not that I don't trust your installer, it's just that I don't want registry entries, etc written to windows when I can just use a portable version.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by holygamer

There's a portable version here: http://www.videohelp.com/tools/Simple-x264-Launcher

As said before, there is no such thing as a separate "portable" version.

Apparently, Videohelp.com is just mirroring my files. Still, the files contained in the installer and in the ZIP package are one and the same! Calling the ZIP package a "portable version" is misleading here

If you would have a look at the REAMDE file, it explains very well how to enable "portable" mode. And that's completely regardless of how you obtained the files...

Originally Posted by holygamer

Why not only provide the portable version since it's less hassle.

All binaries that I provide (installer and ZIP package) support the "portable" mode. There's no separate "portable" version. Again I advise you to have a look at the README file

Originally Posted by holygamer

I don't see the point in using an installer when I can just unzip the portable version and it's ready to use.

Actually, a lot of people want the software to be "installed" locally - with shortcuts, a proper uninstaller and everything. So if only a ZIP package was provided, these people would not be happy and ask "Why only a ZIP file that I have to extract manually, when the installer is much more convenient?" Furthermore, the installer is much less error prone than the ZIP package! The installer makes sure that all files are extracted and that the correct directory structure will be preserved. It will also clean-up leftovers from a previous install. If the ZIP package is extracted manually, we can only hope that the user will extract all files. And we can only hope that whatever "unzip" tool he is using was setup to retain the directory structure...

Originally Posted by holygamer

I think you've told me before that the installer just extracts files but every time a see an installer I always think it installs something!

Well, I hope the installer does install something. Would be a rather nonsensical installer, if it didn't install anything

Though, in the case of Simple x264 Launcher, the installation process pretty much consists of extracting the program files, creating the shortcuts and registering the uninstaller.

(Yes, creating registry entries to make the system "recognize" the uninstaller is unavoidable. Those entries will be removed by the uninstaller)

Originally Posted by holygamer

It's not that I don't trust your installer, it's just that I don't want registry entries, etc written to windows when I can just use a portable version.

I think you should be using a tool like Sandboxie then. It probably makes your day

[THEAST]

I started using Simple x264 Launcher instead of MeGUI since it offers the options to "pause" the encode. Yesterday I started an encode that was supposed to take nearly 6 hours to finish, paused the encode at 30% and hibernated my machine and today I started my machine and resumed the encode without issues but currently, the average fps and the eta are incorrect because it seems the time since the start of the encode is taken into account when calculating the average fps, instead of the time the encode has been active and hence, the eta is also incorrect. If possible, I'd really appreciate it if this issue is addressed in the upcoming versions.
Also I was wondering if there are any known issues with pausing the encode and hibernating the machine while it is paused.

Edit: I just noticed that Simple x264 Launcher's report is based on what x264 itself is reporting and the issue happens because x264 doesn't know it is being paused; is there a way to get around this?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by THEAST

I started using Simple x264 Launcher instead of MeGUI since it offers the options to "pause" the encode. Yesterday I started an encode that was supposed to take nearly 6 hours to finish, paused the encode at 30% and hibernated my machine and today I started my machine and resumed the encode without issues but currently, the average fps and the eta are incorrect because it seems the time since the start of the encode is taken into account when calculating the average fps, instead of the time the encode has been active and hence, the eta is also incorrect. If possible, I'd really appreciate it if this issue is addressed in the upcoming versions.
Also I was wondering if there are any known issues with pausing the encode and hibernating the machine while it is paused.

This has been discussed several times before: The "FPS" value displayed by x264 is simply the total number of frames that have been encoded thus far divided through the total time that has elapsed since the encoding process was
started. Consequently, if you suspend the encoding process, time continues to go by, but no frames are encoded. Thus you will see the "FPS" value go down

Originally Posted by THEAST

Edit: I just noticed that Simple x264 Launcher's report is based on what x264 itself is reporting and the issue happens because x264 doesn't know it is being paused; is there a way to get around this?

Yes, change the x264 code to compute the "FPS" in a different way. For example, on each progress update, they could take the number of frames that have been encoded since the last progress update and divide that through the time that has elapsed since the last progress update. Of course that would result in much more "unsteady" FPS. Maye some gradual update function like "FPS[i+1] = (α × FPS[i]) + ((1-α) × FPS_current)" could be used to compensate.

[THEAST]

Well, modifying x264 code isn't really something I'm capable of; I thought correcting the issue would be easier on Simple x264 Launcher since it is aware of when the process is paused and when it is working but it's most probably not on your list of priorities. I can live with it though, it's not really that big of an issue. :)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by THEAST

Well, modifying x264 code isn't really something I'm capable of; I thought correcting the issue would be easier on Simple x264 Launcher since it is aware of when the process is paused and when it is working but it's most probably not on your list of priorities. I can live with it though, it's not really that big of an issue.

Nope. FPS is computed by x264 itself and the GUI simply displays that value. I theory, the GUI could implement its own FPS computation, but I hate to implement redundant functions

I'd rather suggest you bother the x264 guys with your request...