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 ASP

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 20th September 2005, 14:42   #1  |  Link
Jeffster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Land of the Long White Cloud
Posts: 183
Problem with the latest CVS build?

Hi,

I've just installed the latest CVS build from celtic_druid and there appears to be a problem with it, at least on my system anyway. (actually builds from both the 15/09 and 16/09)

Maybe it is already known, but I haven't seen any reports here so I thought I'd mention it. The video produced it is barely watchable, and I've never seen that happen before.

I've temporarily uploaded two samples to my homepage server for anyone who wishes to see what I mean.

The first sample from 08/02 build is normal, as expected. By contrast, the second sample from 09/16 build clearly demonstrates the problem. Both were encoded at Q3 and the rest of the settings were the defaults. Interestingly the filesize is different too.

FWIW - my cpu is Intel (celeron)

Jeff

Last edited by Jeffster; 23rd September 2005 at 14:17. Reason: removed samples - screenshot in later post instead
Jeffster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2005, 15:06   #2  |  Link
celtic_druid
Registered User
 
celtic_druid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,173
Downloaded both, compressed the good one myself with Q3 + defaults and it looks fine.
My other limited tests also came out fine.

On the 15th I released gcc, ICL7 and ICL9 builds. Are they all effected? The one on the 16th was patched ICL9. Only the genuine intel check was removed though so it shouldn't make any difference.

Some one else want to test since I don't appear to be able to replicate the problem.
celtic_druid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2005, 15:57   #3  |  Link
Jeffster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Land of the Long White Cloud
Posts: 183
After seeing the result with 16th I went back and grabbed one from the 15th packed in 7z "xvid.cvs.head.2005.09.15.7z"...

I'm not sure which compile it is sorry, except it wouldn't be the ICL9 one since that is named as such.

I just checked another mirror and it has 3 files dated the 15th and I guess they are different compiles?
XviD.cvs.head-20050915.exe
XviD.cvs.head-20050915_2.exe
XviD.cvs.head-ICL9-20050915.exe

I've tried all 3 now and get the exact same (weird) result.

Last edited by Jeffster; 20th September 2005 at 15:59. Reason: edit
Jeffster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2005, 16:17   #4  |  Link
celtic_druid
Registered User
 
celtic_druid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,173
XviD.cvs.head-20050915.exe & XviD.cvs.head-20050915_2.exe I think are basically the same. I added a userdata field with the build date and updated the installer.

I can't reproduce the problem at all though and I don't have any Intel CPU's to test with, let alone a celeron.
celtic_druid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2005, 20:17   #5  |  Link
boombastic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ascoli Piceno-Italy
Posts: 280
just to know because i am a newbie of compiling stuff:

which is better between the ICL9,ICL8 and GCC compiles for an Athlon XP 3000+?
Besides this, i tried the compile of the 15th and got a fine result.
boombastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2005, 21:42   #6  |  Link
Episode
n00b
 
Episode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 122
ICL9 should still be faster than the others, even on AMD processors.
Episode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2005, 01:51   #7  |  Link
celtic_druid
Registered User
 
celtic_druid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,173
Since I removed the genuine intel checks from the ICL9 compile it should definatly be faster on AMD's. With the checks in place ICL7 I would think would be faster.

How gcc fares I don't know. People always wanted gcc compiles though, so I still do them occasionally.
celtic_druid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 10:59   #8  |  Link
Jeffster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Land of the Long White Cloud
Posts: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by celtic_druid
Some one else want to test since I don't appear to be able to replicate the problem.
[...]
I can't reproduce the problem at all though and I don't have any Intel CPU's to test with, let alone a celeron.
I hope someone else is able to test this and reproduce the problem too. I'm beginning to wonder if it may somehow be cpu related.

I'm gonna try attaching a screenshot showing what I mean for those unable to check out the sample clip. This time I also enabled 'Print debug info', not that it is very helpful since it's unreadable.
(bare in mind this was encoded at Q2 this time!)



Jeffster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 13:25   #9  |  Link
celtic_druid
Registered User
 
celtic_druid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,173
Surely there must be someone else here able to test? I tested on one AMD 64 and a thunderbird. Both were fine.

I'll put up a plain MSVC build for you to test.
http://mirror05.x264.nl/celtic_druid..../xvid_msvc.7z

Last edited by celtic_druid; 22nd September 2005 at 13:45.
celtic_druid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 13:59   #10  |  Link
Jeffster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Land of the Long White Cloud
Posts: 183
Thanks celtic_druid.
I tried with the plain build but unfortunately the results were still the same for me.
Jeffster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 14:26   #11  |  Link
celtic_druid
Registered User
 
celtic_druid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,173
Ok, so it probably isn't a compiler issue.
celtic_druid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 17:11   #12  |  Link
Koti
Always trying
 
Koti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The O.C. ;)
Posts: 221
I can confirm and reproduce this 100% ( intel celeron mobile 1333mhz )
with that build posted above - Vob > VDubMod > Xvid (Q2 defaults) = Disaster just as Jeffster has show in post above

edit - no problems on P4 3.2 Prescott or AMD2100+

edit 2 - performance optimizations - xvid on celeron detects and uses MMX , Integer SSE , SSE
When MMX is disabled the output is fine.
(I hope that can narrow down where to look for the bug )

Last edited by Koti; 22nd September 2005 at 23:12.
Koti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 20:29   #13  |  Link
kesako
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3
i've got a problem too.
i've downloaded XviD.cvs.head.MTK__20050921.exe.i've tested the MTK PAL profile with these settings :
2 pass
quantizer type : MPEG
adaptive quantization
1000 kbps
motion search precision: ultra high
VHQ mode : wide search
use VHQ for b-frames too.
use chroma motion
max i frame interval : 250

other settings by default
result is very bad.
Attached Images
 
kesako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2005, 23:54   #14  |  Link
suxen_drol
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 24
confirmed. to reproduce the problem, force the use of MMX optimised functions only in advanced->debug window.

this suggests a bug within one or more of the mmx-only optimised functions. the equivalent sse2/3dnow function(s) are working correctly, and as most users have p4/athlon/modern-celeron cpus, this explains why few people have detected the fault.

-- pete
suxen_drol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2005, 02:05   #15  |  Link
celtic_druid
Registered User
 
celtic_druid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,173
So it looks like one of the new ASM functions added recently is responsible.

Someone really should post this on the mailing list.
celtic_druid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2005, 06:01   #16  |  Link
Jeffster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Land of the Long White Cloud
Posts: 183
Thanks everyone.
I'm glad the bug has been confirmed and narrowed down at least.
Jeffster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2005, 06:03   #17  |  Link
ChronoCross
Does it really matter?
 
ChronoCross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,542
it happened to me using megui. Pentium 3 so it's most definitely one of the MMX functions. Happened it 2 pass mode for every single frame no matter the quant.
ChronoCross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2005, 09:20   #18  |  Link
squid_80
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, AU
Posts: 1,963
Looks like the AC coefficients are missing. Could the new cbp_mmx function be responsible? (I'm only looking at the cvs log, haven't checked the code...)

EDIT: Yep, looks like calc_cbp_mmx is doing something it shouldn't.

EDIT2: The packssdw/pcmpgtw instructions are buggy. I can explain in greater detail if required.

Last edited by squid_80; 23rd September 2005 at 12:03.
squid_80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2005, 16:26   #19  |  Link
sysKin
Registered User
 
sysKin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by squid_80
Could the new cbp_mmx function be responsible?
It's funny how cbp calculations, were optimized over and over again, while they have no impact on the speed at all
__________________
Visit #xvid or #x264 at irc.freenode.net
sysKin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2005, 18:30   #20  |  Link
Sharktooth
Mr. Sandman
 
Sharktooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
Well, but now it's optimized...
Sharktooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:12.


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