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. |
7th January 2004, 21:30 | #1 | Link |
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Proposed Hi-Def encoding 'Codec Shoot-Out' discussion
Ok I've started this thread as an extension to Doom9's most excellent latest 'Codec Shoot-Out' and this thread started by twist3d as a response to the afore mentioned 'Codec Shoot-Out'.
Well, for those members and visitors who followed twist3d's thread, I posted this observation (as well as others) and Doom9 posted this response (as well as others)! Anyway, I think it's fair to say we are both now interested in the next evolutionary step for the current codec manufacturers to aspire to, which is High-Definition encoding. So if anybody has any suggestions regarding the standardisation of such a test together with proposed methods, please post the information here. Cheers EDIT: Just put 'Proposed' at the beginning of the title - that's all!
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
Last edited by SeeMoreDigital; 13th January 2004 at 22:37. |
8th January 2004, 01:26 | #2 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5
|
One question, why?
The codec should scale with resolution. I encode HDTV to Xvid and it does wonderfully, I have also tried wme9 and it does good also, the main reasons I went with Xvid were AC3 compatibility, stability (wme9 crashed alot when I used it), and ease of use for the encoding tools. I do 42 minute tv shows in 700-1024 megs typically. And movies usually go for 4-6 gigs. |
8th January 2004, 09:20 | #3 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 16
|
In Australia we have some decent hdtv. I dont have that great reception but I have got a 1440x1088 mpeg2 clip that works out ~100mb/min. Thats way too high to store on a dvd so if i wanted to keep it at a high resolution I would need about a third of the bitrate to store a movie on a dvd-r.
Maybe the codecs can be stretched to a half hd dvd rip. I have done zero testing on this, I may do some tonight. |
8th January 2004, 10:35 | #4 | Link | |
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Quote:
So, you've ascertained that capturing with the WME9 encoder did not work reliably enough for you. But it might be interesting to find out why. And if others have had more success! What image pixel frame size are you using for your captures?
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
|
|
8th January 2004, 12:30 | #5 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 16
|
OK played around a bit with some codecs
Bitrates: 5000kbps and 2500kbps, this would equate to 1 or 2, two hour movies per dvd. My clip was much shorter. Resolution: 1440x704 (interlaced anamorphic mpeg2 source, cropped with avisyth 2.5) TomsMoComp and lanczos resize. Xvid, best out of the lot, comparable quality to a 2 cd dvd rip, (per pixel size that is) @ 5000kbps, still very good quality @ 2500 - some blocks. My guess is a lot more quality could be obtained I used the default settings. probably 2500 could be comparable to a 1cd rip. [a third slower than divx5] Divx5.1.1, second. Just a little worse, still very good. I did not use b frames, gmc or qpel. Also no psy. Standard speed. [Fastest encoding time] tie for third depending on how you like things: blurred; divx3, just tried this one for fun. turned out not so bad, bitrate did not affect quality that noticably. Plenty of blurring, smears and little edge atifacts. [almost as fast as divx5] blocky; wmv9, heaps(!) of macroblocks. I dont use wmv9 that much but used the highest quality (ie slowest settings) went out and had dinner because it was so slow. Very disappointing [Slowest by a factor of 10] I have never used rv9 and have only looked at vp6 for a few minutes so I didnt try these codecs. I think the hardest part about a codec shoot out would be some standardized sources. I have no idea where you could find some. Last edited by vio; 8th January 2004 at 12:33. |
8th January 2004, 14:21 | #6 | Link |
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Hi vio
Can I have a little more info about your source please? You mentioned that it's 1440x1088 which equates to an 4:3 image! Does your source contain any black mattes or is it all image? Is it a 4:3 image or is it 16:9 Before things get too confused I think it may be best to stick to the following 'full frame' image pixel frame sizes when encoding: - For 16:9 sources use either 1280x720p or 1920x1088i For 4:3 sources use either 960x720p or 1440x1088i Obviously some 16:9 sources may not be all image (ie they might also contain black mattes) and as such have aspect ratios of their own, such as 1.85:1, 2.35:1, 2.40:1 etc. In which case you could elect to crop away the mattes and use the following image pixel frame sizes: - For 720p sources at 1.85:1 you could crop to 1280x688 For 720p sources at 2.35:1 you could crop to 1280x544 For 720p sources at 2.40:1 you could crop to 1280x528 For 1080i sources at 1.85:1 you could crop to 1920xx1040 For 1080i sources at 2.35:1 you could crop to 1920xx 816 For 1080i sources at 2.40:1 you could crop to 1920xx 800 Cheers
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
|
8th January 2004, 19:10 | #7 | Link | |
encoder enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 115
|
Quote:
idea 2: maybe closer to the user interest would be anamorphic encodes at dvd-resolution or little lower? |
|
8th January 2004, 19:33 | #8 | Link | |
clueless n00b
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 10,579
|
Quote:
__________________
For the web's most comprehensive collection of DVD backup guides go to www.doom9.org |
|
8th January 2004, 19:44 | #9 | Link | ||
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Quote:
Quote:
That said, one of the problems we have with HDTV is the confusing amount of trasmission standards (around 20 or so I think). There is even a 864x480p standard ie a 'true 16:9 frame' version of NTSC. Another advantage of not encoding using anamorphic frames is that the images will always appear at the correct aspect ratio when viewed! Cheers
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
Last edited by SeeMoreDigital; 8th January 2004 at 19:47. |
||
8th January 2004, 19:58 | #10 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,364
|
Why would you encode 'uncompressed high def masters'?
What's wrong with the T2 1080p (1440x816) and the Corel Reef 1080p WMV9 encodings from the microsoft site? edit: sorry I didn't read SeeMoreDigital's post On this site: http://206.159.116.24/public.htm, hdtv captures (~15Mb, including 2.0 AC3) are posted regularly. Last edited by Wilbert; 8th January 2004 at 20:00. |
8th January 2004, 20:11 | #11 | Link | ||
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Quote:
Quote:
Cheers
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
|
||
8th January 2004, 20:30 | #12 | Link | ||
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 6,364
|
I guess you misunderstood my post.
Quote:
Quote:
I think it makes only sense, if you encode them using a lower resolution. |
||
8th January 2004, 20:43 | #13 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5
|
Quote:
I managed to fit toystory hdtv to 1.5 gigs and mission to mars down to 3 gigs, looking very good, but I think I am going to up the filesize a little for the next movies. The hardest compression was 2.5 hours of hdtv hockey that was 18 gigs mpeg2, I could only get it down to 6 gigs. |
|
8th January 2004, 21:03 | #14 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On The Beach
Posts: 714
|
I think that only the live transmissions can have the real quality of HDTV. The movies are DVD's at high bitrate and bigger resolutions.
So, for what we need more space for the same movie? Great quality? I don't think so, just wasting space. |
8th January 2004, 21:17 | #15 | Link | ||
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Quote:
Quote:
At 152mins, the WMV9 version of T2 Extreme would make a great test source. Shame it's encrypted.... bummer!
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
|
||
8th January 2004, 21:40 | #16 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 16
|
SeeMoreDigital, all the digital tv I get is 16:9.
Clip is 1440x1088, a bit of letter boxing so cropped down to 1440x1036. And Aspect Ratio is 2.025 so then resized to 1440x704, not perfect AR but closet mod16. I can get access to alot of 1080i tv, but I dont know whether its 576i upconverted or just a bad source. The TV guides dont say. The clip I tested is a true 1080i source but I have to move my antenna to get it. |
9th January 2004, 08:32 | #17 | Link | |
clueless n00b
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 10,579
|
Well.. having a WMV9 source sure would itch me.. I'd consider that an unfair beginning.. I'd expect the source to be available in a format that is not one of the codecs to be tested. A high bitrate MPEG-2 HDTV broadcast seems the most suitable source imho.
Quote:
__________________
For the web's most comprehensive collection of DVD backup guides go to www.doom9.org |
|
9th January 2004, 15:49 | #18 | Link | ||
Life's clearer in 4K UHD
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Notts, UK
Posts: 12,219
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, there's no denying that DVD has taken off faster than anybody in the industry could ever have hoped for. And as a result the new transfer equipment and techniques used to transfer the film image to DVD have improved too. I guess one of the main reasons why todays DVD images look so good is because the production of the DVD is planned at the same time as the film. Also having direct access to the original film (instead of the copies) is the biggest plus of all! Owners of the T2 Extreme DVD will get an insight of how 'film to digital' transfer techniques have changed after reading the sleeve notes. In fact the newly created digitised master (which at 24fps equals film speed) contains so much detail and resolution that only a very small percentage is carried over to the Mpeg2 DVD... To underline what I'm talking about, here's a direct quote from the sleeve notes.. "Because the video compression for DVD strips away nearly 98% of the original bits used on the uncompressed DVD master, THX reviews every shot to verify that the compression matches the source as closely as posible..." 98% eh, I don't think we'll be downloading this source master for our lossy tests then! Cheers
__________________
| I've been testing hardware media playback devices and software A/V encoders and decoders since 2001 | My Network Layout & A/V Gear |
|
||
9th January 2004, 17:02 | #19 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 9
|
I can only think of one source of uncompressed digital video off the top of my head - video games. Too bad they wouldn't be very comparable to live-action or animated content. Unless somebody has either a really nice digital camcorder, or somebody has access to a transfer device, I imagine it won't be easy getting higher-than-HDTV quality stuff to encode.
EDIT: That 98% figure is incredible. If we assume the maximum DVD bitrate is 9.8Mbps (That is correct, isn't it?), then the master would be 490 Mbps/61.25MBps. Last edited by sxd; 9th January 2004 at 17:07. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|