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 2nd April 2010, 12:19   #1  |  Link
Dyomich
Codec Analysis Expert
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Moscow
Posts: 30
MSU H.264 Codec Testing and DivX H.264

Dear doom9 community,

Moscow State University performs annual H.264 codec comparison as usual. And this year we have extended number of participants.

When we add codec in comparison we work with its developers to find optimal parameters and presets for encoding. Due to many user requests we have added DivX H.264 codec (DivX plus), but WE CAN NOT CONTACT ITS DEVELOPERS. We have written to support of DivX and other contacts, but do not have any answers.

We perform comparison and want to provide feedback about it to DivX, Inc.

Could you help us get contact with DivX H.264 developers?

Thank you!

P.S. You can find more information about our comparison here:
http://www.compression.ru/video/code...codecs_10.html
http://www.compression.ru/video/code...4_2009_en.html
http://www.compression.ru/video/code.../index_en.html

Best regards,
Dr. Dmitriy Kulikov,
Head of Video Codec Testing team,
Graphics&Media Lab,
Moscow State University
Dyomich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 15:02   #2  |  Link
poisondeathray
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,870
I think "DigitAl56K" works for DivX , perhaps you could PM him or use instant messaging. Contact info is in his profile

http://forum.doom9.org/member.php?u=21264

Last edited by poisondeathray; 2nd April 2010 at 15:05.
poisondeathray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 17:01   #3  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,033
Quote:
Minimum 40 fps for "High Quality" preset
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.


LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 17:26   #4  |  Link
ChronoCross
Does it really matter?
 
ChronoCross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
Does that really surprise you? Their test has pretty much always been a joke IMO.
ChronoCross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 18:02   #5  |  Link
Dyomich
Codec Analysis Expert
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Moscow
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoRd_MuldeR View Post
For the test machine: this requirement is easily met by 2-pass x264 with preset "slow". So by our opinion it is quite normal requirement.
Dyomich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 18:04   #6  |  Link
Dyomich
Codec Analysis Expert
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Moscow
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoCross View Post
Does that really surprise you? Their test has pretty much always been a joke IMO.
Could you explain or argue your statement? What do you think is incorrect in MSU video codec comparisons?
Dyomich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 18:05   #7  |  Link
Dyomich
Codec Analysis Expert
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Moscow
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
I think "DigitAl56K" works for DivX , perhaps you could PM him or use instant messaging. Contact info is in his profile

http://forum.doom9.org/member.php?u=21264
Thank you - I will try to contact him as long report draft will be ready.
Dyomich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 18:36   #8  |  Link
ChronoCross
Does it really matter?
 
ChronoCross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyomich View Post
Could you explain or argue your statement? What do you think is incorrect in MSU video codec comparisons?
Measuring quality in relation to speed of the codec isn't a very good qualitative measure and is completely dependent on the the power of the machine your using, the optimization of the code, etc. because if x264 can use 16 reference frames and get 40fps but DivX can only use 2 reference frames and still get 40fps then the quality will be skewed in the direction of x264.

Speed can be used in a test to chart the exact tradeoff of quality/speed rather than comparing it for absolute quality which is what your test is supposedly meant to measure.
ChronoCross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 18:45   #9  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyomich View Post
For the test machine: this requirement is easily met by 2-pass x264 with preset "slow". So by our opinion it is quite normal requirement.
If that's true (for both passes, not only for the fast first pass), then I'm surprised by the performance of those Core-i7's! And it's "only" the 920 you are using.

I get ~12-15 fps (less than the half speed) for 4CIF content with "slow" preset. That's on my Core2 Quad, which is running only very slightly slower (2,44 GHz -vs- 2,67 GHz)
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.


LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 18:56   #10  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,308
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 19:12   #11  |  Link
poisondeathray
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,870
IgorC - perhaps adding background information to that graph would help .e.g source dimensions , encoding settings etc... otherwise the graph alone is less useful
poisondeathray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 19:46   #12  |  Link
RunningSkittle
Skittle
 
RunningSkittle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyomich View Post
Could you explain or argue your statement? What do you think is incorrect in MSU video codec comparisons?
High Quality encodes should not be dependent on speed?! Of course its interesting to see the speed, but to make such a high requirement kills the performance of x264. for example: No veryslow preset.
Making a floor fps requirement might be good though, 1fps is not very useful in most applications! Perhaps make it something more reasonable like 5-10fps.
it would also be interesting to see the speed/vs quality on fastest settings.

Last edited by RunningSkittle; 2nd April 2010 at 19:53.
RunningSkittle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 19:54   #13  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Oh come on, it's not unreasonable to require a speed threshold for each comparison.

I do agree that they overcompensated this year; the previous year had ridiculously low speed thresholds, so this year they made them an order of magnitude higher.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 20:21   #14  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,518
Indeed. I consider ~12fps (half realtime for 24p) to be quite usable for most scenarios.

High volume transcoding really does need high speeds though. 48 to 72fps is not unreasonable.

x264 can probably slaughter the competition at this threshold, but I'm always interested to see updated codec comparisons. I'll be doing my own comparison soon, between Rhozet Carbon Coder (Mainconcept) and x264 at 50mbps 1080p for mezzanine file purposes.

~MiSfit
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd April 2010, 20:28   #15  |  Link
IgorC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,308
Or just add one preset more. Fast, Normal, High, Highest.
IgorC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd April 2010, 01:39   #16  |  Link
DigitAl56K
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 936
Hi Dmitriy,

By "DivX H.264 encoder" I assume you are referring to the beta released at DivX Labs last year. This was a sample application based on an older version of the SDK designed specifically to provide a DivX Plus HD-compliant reference in terms of bitstream constraints, HRD model and so forth. Although it serves as a fully functional and free encoder it is a feature constrained for-purpose application and doesn't represent the capabilities of the latest MainConcept encoder. Sorry if this hasn't been clearly communicated to you previously.

I had heard that you were in touch with our MainConcept team regarding their encoder. If I can help you further or if you need help contacting the MainConcept group you can write me directly at amayo (at) divxcorp [dotcom].

Last edited by DigitAl56K; 3rd April 2010 at 01:41.
DigitAl56K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th April 2010, 18:09   #17  |  Link
Dyomich
Codec Analysis Expert
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Moscow
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitAl56K View Post
Hi Dmitriy,

By "DivX H.264 encoder" I assume you are referring to the beta released at DivX Labs last year. This was a sample application based on an older version of the SDK designed specifically to provide a DivX Plus HD-compliant reference in terms of bitstream constraints, HRD model and so forth. Although it serves as a fully functional and free encoder it is a feature constrained for-purpose application and doesn't represent the capabilities of the latest MainConcept encoder. Sorry if this hasn't been clearly communicated to you previously.

I had heard that you were in touch with our MainConcept team regarding their encoder. If I can help you further or if you need help contacting the MainConcept group you can write me directly at amayo (at) divxcorp [dotcom].
Hello!
Thank you for answer!

Yes, we are using beta from DivX Labs.
About MainConcept - we have a contact with developers and testing newest MainConcept encoder.
And due to the fact that DivX H.264 encoder is present as separate encoder comparing to MainConcept we test it too.

Next year we plan to make a new use-case - only for encoders with РВК model. So we look forward to include your encoder (DivX Plus) in next comparison.

Also I have a question - what e-mail address can we use to contact DivX developers this time and next year? Yours?
Dyomich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th April 2010, 00:35   #18  |  Link
DigitAl56K
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 936
Dmitriy,

Send me an e-mail so that I have your address and we can talk further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyomich View Post
Also I have a question - what e-mail address can we use to contact DivX developers this time and next year? Yours?
I hope so!
DigitAl56K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2010, 18:34   #19  |  Link
bob0r
Pain and suffering
 
bob0r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,337
Dyomich, i have prepared this graph for you:
bob0r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th April 2010, 15:01   #20  |  Link
Emulgator
Big Bit Savings Now !
 
Emulgator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: close to the wall
Posts: 726
The flat parts are amazing, feeling calm.
__________________
"To bypass shortcuts and find suffering...is called QUALity" (Die toten Augen von Friedrichshain)
"Data reduction ? Yep, Sir. We're working on that issue. Synce invntoin uf lingöage..."
Emulgator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
codec testing, divx, h.264, msu

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 09:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.