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 10th April 2010, 00:54   #21  |  Link
dstln
Person
 
dstln's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 58
Encoding times certainly do matter but wow :P

I personally think it would make much more sense to have the "normal" requirement as realtime and then adjust "high speed" and "high quality" semi arbitrarily from there as you see fit. Either way it's too late now since the rules are already set and process in place, but yeah. Maybe next year.
dstln is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th April 2010, 15:14   #22  |  Link
Dyomich
Codec Analysis Expert
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Moscow
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstln View Post
Encoding times certainly do matter but wow :P

I personally think it would make much more sense to have the "normal" requirement as realtime and then adjust "high speed" and "high quality" semi arbitrarily from there as you see fit. Either way it's too late now since the rules are already set and process in place, but yeah. Maybe next year.
Real-time requirements differ too much for different PC configurations. It is main problem of this requirement. During previous comaprisons some developers told us that our PCs too slow or too fast for some requirements.
Dyomich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2010, 07:37   #23  |  Link
Biggiesized
Registered User
 
Biggiesized's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit View Post
Indeed. I consider ~12fps (half realtime for 24p) to be quite usable for most scenarios.
12 FPS is twice realtime. 48 FPS would be half real-time. (This is measured in terms of length of encoding. If you encoded 24p content at 12 FPS, it would take twice as long as if you encoded it at 24 FPS, which is realtime.)

Personally, I think 5 times real-time should be the minimum threshold. (That's roughly 5 FPS).
Biggiesized is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2010, 13:52   #24  |  Link
AnonCrow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 61.45° , 23.86°
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggiesized View Post
12 FPS is twice realtime. 48 FPS would be half real-time. (This is measured in terms of length of encoding.
<nitpick> FPS is a unit of speed , not a unit of time. </>
AnonCrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th April 2010, 14:26   #25  |  Link
G_M_C
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob0r View Post
Dyomich, i have prepared this graph for you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emulgator View Post
The flat parts are amazing, feeling calm.
I lol'ed

An explination on what the graph represents might be usefull. But hey, people seem to love their graphs

Last edited by G_M_C; 17th April 2010 at 14:28.
G_M_C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2010, 12:13   #26  |  Link
Dyomich
Codec Analysis Expert
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Moscow
Posts: 30
Dear codec professionals!
We have finished H.264 Video Codecs Comparison report prepearing.
We have tested:
  • DivX H.264
  • Elecard H.264
  • Intel® MediaSDK AVC/H.264
  • MainConcept H.264
  • Microsoft Expression Encoder
  • Theora
  • x264
  • XviD (MPEG-4 ASP codec)
You can read it here http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/
Dyomich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2010, 12:26   #27  |  Link
julius666
Registered User
 
julius666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hungary
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyomich View Post
Dear codec professionals!
We have finished H.264 Video Codecs Comparison report prepearing.
We have tested:
  • DivX H.264
  • Elecard H.264
  • Intel® MediaSDK AVC/H.264
  • MainConcept H.264
  • Microsoft Expression Encoder
  • Theora
  • x264
  • XviD (MPEG-4 ASP codec)
You can read it here http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/
On the Speed/Quality tradeoff charts, normal preset's chart is missing for me.
julius666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2010, 12:37   #28  |  Link
Dyomich
Codec Analysis Expert
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Moscow
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by julius666 View Post
On the Speed/Quality tradeoff charts, normal preset's chart is missing for me.
Thank you for remark!
Try to refresh your browser window.
Dyomich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2010, 12:51   #29  |  Link
julius666
Registered User
 
julius666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hungary
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyomich View Post
Thank you for remark!
Try to refresh your browser window.
Thx, it works now.
Of course x264 is winner in those cases too
julius666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2010, 18:20   #30  |  Link
creamyhorror
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 118
Good to see this comprehensive codec evaluation again. I see MainConcept narrowly beat x264 on HDTV Normal preset. I wonder why? A particular type of material that MainConcept performs better on?
creamyhorror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th May 2010, 18:22   #31  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by creamyhorror View Post
Good to see this comprehensive codec evaluation again. I see MainConcept narrowly beat x264 on HDTV Normal preset. I wonder why? A particular type of material that MainConcept performs better on?
Make sure to check the individual tests; it's quite possible for a single test to shift all the results in one direction if the results are dramatic enough.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th February 2011, 05:15   #32  |  Link
Bordo32
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 31
Blue_MiSfit, just curious if you have done a few codecs comparison as you have mentioned earlier:

"I'll be doing my own comparison soon, between Rhozet Carbon Coder (Mainconcept) and x264 at 50mbps 1080p for mezzanine file purposes."
Bordo32 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 15:50.


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