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 17th July 2010, 10:02   #1  |  Link
nibus
Telewhining
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 275
--tune grain on BluRay sources

I've noticed that most BluRay movies are mastered with a lot of grain. I've always used --tune film on my encodes but am wondering if the grain setting may help with BluRays and prevent banding/blocking.

Does anyone here use mostly --tune grain and if so, does it usually require a higher bitrate, and do fast action scenes suffer due to bandwidth allocation when compared to --tune film?
nibus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2010, 05:49   #2  |  Link
nibus
Telewhining
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 275
Okay so I've run some tests on --tune grain vs --tune film with some BluRay sources.

Tune grain definitely helps keep a little more detail, and more grain (imagine that?) As a result, a higher bitrate is required, and with CRF so far it has required about 25% more bitrate to keep the same quality.

High motion scenes look fine so far. So I guess it comes out to whether you want all the details and bits of grain preserved along with slightly larger file sizes.

Here is a comparison of film vs grain screenshots:

film:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5637223/Iron...2.33.58%5D.png

grain:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5637223/Iron...2.33.26%5D.png

It's a small difference, but when expanded to 1080p it becomes a little more apparent.
nibus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2010, 07:54   #3  |  Link
dansrfe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,212
yea I've always wondered whether to use --tune grain or --tune film on BluRay sources. What's a good crf value to use on BluRay sources anyway?
dansrfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2010, 08:41   #4  |  Link
obieobieobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 182
Look at the eye lid of the soldier. That's where I see the biggest difference.
obieobieobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2010, 08:42   #5  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,689
Comparing quality at different bitrates is pointless.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2010, 10:54   #6  |  Link
nibus
Telewhining
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by dansrfe View Post
yea I've always wondered whether to use --tune grain or --tune film on BluRay sources. What's a good crf value to use on BluRay sources anyway?
I use CRF 16, but that's only after a 3 way denoising chain -

Code:
TTempsmooth(maxr=7, fp=true, strength=1, lthresh=3, cthresh=4)
SMDegrain(tr=1, thSAD=100,blksize=8,overlap=4)
dfttest(dither=3,sigma=3,sigma2=3,tbsize=3)
LSFMod(defaults="slow",strength=50)
If you were to go that low without any denoising the file would be quite large. With these light denoisers a 2 hour movie usually lands right around 4000kbps at 720p, rounding out to about 4gb total.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Comparing quality at different bitrates is pointless.
Well part of the point was not necessarily quality but how much more bitrate --grain takes in comparison. I will run a 2 pass at a specific bitrate with both tunings and post that as well, because obviously the --tune grain image is using more bitrate (about 500kbps).
nibus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2010, 14:34   #7  |  Link
laserfan
Aging Video Hobbyist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Off the Map
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by nibus View Post
Tune grain definitely helps keep a little more detail, and more grain (imagine that?) As a result, a higher bitrate is required
I've done no tests, but was of the impression that using "grain" over "film" was the selection-of-choice for those movies that are designed with a noticeable amount of grain in them (examples "300", Saving Private Ryan, the TV series "Damages"). And perhaps for older movies where they were shot with a grainier grade of film stock.

So I use --tune film most of the time and don't otherwise think about it.

Ironman is a newer film with very fine grain so I wouldn't use --tune grain with it.
laserfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2010, 22:01   #8  |  Link
nibus
Telewhining
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 275
Well part of the reason I was considering using it is because I use Dfttest's dithering, which adds little bits of grain to avoid banding and blocking.
nibus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th July 2010, 22:15   #9  |  Link
Keiyakusha
契約者
 
Keiyakusha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,576
You can't save that DFFTest's dither. This dither is just not good enough. It's unbelievably small like 1px dots and gets killed even by resize so even if you'll manage to keep it - it can be lost on playback :Р

Last edited by Keiyakusha; 20th July 2010 at 22:28.
Keiyakusha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2010, 09:22   #10  |  Link
nibus
Telewhining
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keiyakusha View Post
You can't save that DFFTest's dither. This dither is just not good enough. It's unbelievably small like 1px dots and gets killed even by resize so even if you'll manage to keep it - it can be lost on playback :Р
Huh... in my experience it's been extremely effective. But I've only used it on BD film sources, no animation.
nibus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st July 2010, 15:27   #11  |  Link
Keiyakusha
契約者
 
Keiyakusha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,576
Well of course if you using something like dither=3, it won't be killed entirely, but I can't imagine where such settings is not overkill since even on totally flat animation dither=2 is enough to fill all gradients. Normally you shouldn't use more than dither=1. For BD film sources I haven't found much use of this dither at all. Such films already contain enough amount of grain to look good so dfftest just replacing bigger grain (which is easier to compress and which is meant to be there) with smaller grain (which is harder to compress and which is not meant to be there).
Keiyakusha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd July 2010, 00:55   #12  |  Link
nibus
Telewhining
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 275
My whole issue with BD grain is that it is too big and ugly. That's why i replace it with Dfttest's dither, which looks much better especially on 720p encodes. IMO / YMMV of course.
nibus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
--tune grain, grain

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 14:01.


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