Xvid 1.2 cvs

IgorC · 24th November 2005, 01:23

http://celticdruid.no-ip.com/xvid/

cleanings in code spotted by sparse (ed dot gomez at free dot fr>
update cvs-head to reflect xvid-1.2 development status:
set build string to "xvid-1.2.0-dev"
set XVID_VERSION to 1.2.-127
set XVID_BS_VERSION to 40
set XVID_UNSTABLE

What's new?

sysKin · 24th November 2005, 03:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by IgorC

What's new?

Nothing *yet*

ChronoCross · 24th November 2005, 04:05

so...we can expect 1.1 final soon right? since dev on 1.2 is started obviously heh

DeathTheSheep · 24th November 2005, 18:17

XviD 1.2 started. A fresh new XviD coming up. This is nice...

(*mumbles under breath*insanemodeinsanemodeinsanemode*)

Good luck to the dev.s!

ChronoCross · 24th November 2005, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathTheSheep

XviD 1.2 started. A fresh new XviD coming up. This is nice...

(*mumbles under breath*insanemodeinsanemodeinsanemode*)

Good luck to the dev.s!

what do you mean by insane mode? you mean that lame attempt by divx to increase quality by dropping the speed 400% and then do nothing? If so then I will have to say no to that lol. but a new Adapt. Quant would be sweet.

Sharktooth · 24th November 2005, 20:18

well... it's not divx network fault if USERS asked for an "insane mode" some time ago...

DeathTheSheep · 24th November 2005, 22:08

Ah, whatever do you mean, gentlemen?

(*COUGHcheckthisoutCOUGH*)

DeathTheSheep · 24th November 2005, 22:19

No, nothing like that at all.
The so-called "Ultra" motion search precision preset doesn't even enable Advanced Diamond 8/16, EXTSEARCH8, etc.
As far as I can tell (and that's not very far, believe me

), a bit more can definately be milked out of it even before we go exhaustive...

DeathTheSheep · 24th November 2005, 22:20

PS: In my second post in this thread, I gave a link to some Insane mode stuff... and here are my results:

Quote:

Given these results, it's actually more than a 16% quality increase with Helium [insane mode over balanced mode]. So, a 16% filesize decrease and a 0.1db PSNR increase is absolutely worth it, and such a mode would help XviD tremendously.

Nice thesis, eh?

IgorC · 24th November 2005, 22:52

Speed of Xvid 1.1 is already lower than of 1.0. But there was a big impovements since then.
However something has happened with Xvid 1.1 beta 1 -> beta 2. Speed has gone down.
Developers said that there was quality improvement for very low bitrate, but for low (middle low >500 kbps) and high bitrates there wasn´t any quality change. SSIM and OPNSR are almost identical for beta 1 and beta 2.
Maybe it can be fixed or reworked.

Implementing of very slow settings shouldn´t be a problem, while they aren´t enabled by default.

DeathTheSheep · 24th November 2005, 23:02

I think there were a few quality increases for the higher bitrates, too. VHQ for B-frames is the most noticeable, I believe. But you're absolutely right--that's the development path, I suppose. Figure out your priorities then implement them, steadily improving everything else on the way. As development progresses, quality goes up steadily. But in the mean time:

Quote:

Implementing of very slow settings shouldn´t be a problem, while they aren´t enabled by default.

My thoughts exactly

IgorC · 24th November 2005, 23:07

VHQ for B-frames was already impelemnted in alpsha cvs builds.
I was talking about speed down on beta1 -> beta 2 without any impovements for bitrates >500 kbps .

DeathTheSheep · 24th November 2005, 23:15

Oh, woopsies

I thought you were talkin' 'bout XviD 1 to XviD 1.1. hehe
Yeah, yer absolutely right then.

Yeah, y'all know me, I'm obsessed with low bitrates. I think XviD did something along the lines of logarithmic quantization adjustments for high quants back in beta 2, yeah.

Good stuff. Can we all look forward to any more quality bolsterings in the low-bitrate area or have priorities shifted more to the higher rates?

sysKin · 25th November 2005, 04:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by IgorC

VHQ for B-frames was already impelemnted in alpsha cvs builds.
I was talking about speed down on beta1 -> beta 2 without any impovements for bitrates >500 kbps .

There was defnitely NO code change from beta1 to beta2 that would affect speed.

ChronoCross · 25th November 2005, 06:10

I never saw a slowdown between the two. I'd like to see improvements to speed through HT/multithreading. the quality is already better than any of the other asp encoders out there.

<Here's where my rant on how I think an INSANE mode is a waste of time was supposed to go>

All I'll say about it is that PSNR isn't a end all be all of measurement for how something looks. Things with lower PSNR values have many many times looked better than things with a higher one. This is back to the arguement that quality is subjective.

IgorC · 25th November 2005, 12:46

I remember some people said that speed of beta 2 was lower. I also notice it.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...ight=beta+slow

And there was hot dicussion about improvements beta 1 -> beta 2.
There was RD changes since beta 1.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...ight=beta+slow

I´m agree PSNR isn´t ideal metrics. But SSIM and OPNSR together are good tests. Visually I also can´t see difference between beta 1 and beta 2.

sysKin · 25th November 2005, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by IgorC

I remember some people said that speed of beta 2 was lower. I also notice it.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...ight=beta+slow

OK this is weird, and probably worth checking. However, I was telling the truth - no algorithms changed that would explain this.

I remember a thread about XviD beta2 (I think) not detecting CPU features correcly. If you can reproduce the slowdown, could you check that? Just compare beta2 with auto and manual CPU features.

Quote:

And there was hot dicussion about improvements beta 1 -> beta 2.
There was RD changes since beta 1.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...ight=beta+slow

I´m agree PSNR isn´t ideal metrics. But SSIM and OPNSR together are good tests. Visually I also can´t see difference between beta 1 and beta 2.

Yes but these changes were strictly in RD constants (lambda). Just differrent values in the same equations, they can't change speed.

sysKin · 25th November 2005, 15:17

OK I'm disappointed with you guys.

One, yes, beta2 is 5% slower at defaults than beta1.
Two, but who cares about it if quality has gone down the drain???

You actually did not catch such a huge regression? :/

Didée · 25th November 2005, 15:23

He-heheh, at home still using a celtic's build from "before beta2"

What did go wrong with beta2 ?

(edit: Frankly, I can't pretend to actually have spotted a difference, but always had the impression that there was, well, ~something~ about beta2. Guess I'd have gotten tared and feathered when asking about that ...
Poke in the blue: perhaps something with AQ thresholding?)

IgorC · 25th November 2005, 15:26

Sorry , Syskin. I´m preparing for exams now. Later I will run some video for Beta 1, Bet2 with different cpu flags with diferent setings.

So for what bitrate there is quality change between Beta 2 and Beta 1?

maybe for extreme settings there is no change?
weird

24th November 2005, 01:23	#1 \| Link
IgorC Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,025	Xvid 1.2 cvs http://celticdruid.no-ip.com/xvid/ cleanings in code spotted by sparse (ed dot gomez at free dot fr> update cvs-head to reflect xvid-1.2 development status: set build string to "xvid-1.2.0-dev" set XVID_VERSION to 1.2.-127 set XVID_BS_VERSION to 40 set XVID_UNSTABLE What's new?

24th November 2005, 18:17	#4 \| Link
DeathTheSheep <The VFW Sheep of Death> Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Deathly pasture of VFW Posts: 1,124	XviD 1.2 started. A fresh new XviD coming up. This is nice... (mumbles under breathinsanemodeinsanemodeinsanemode) Good luck to the dev.s! __________________ New VfW builds. High quality AVC Guide. Check out DeathTheSheep United* today!

24th November 2005, 20:18	#6 \| Link
Sharktooth Mr. Sandman Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Haddonfield, IL Posts: 10,818	well... it's not divx network fault if USERS asked for an "insane mode" some time ago... __________________ MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!!

24th November 2005, 22:08	#7 \| Link
DeathTheSheep <The VFW Sheep of Death> Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Deathly pasture of VFW Posts: 1,124	Ah, whatever do you mean, gentlemen? (COUGHcheckthisoutCOUGH) __________________ New VfW builds. High quality AVC Guide. Check out DeathTheSheep United today!

24th November 2005, 22:19	#8 \| Link
DeathTheSheep <The VFW Sheep of Death> Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Deathly pasture of VFW Posts: 1,124	No, nothing like that at all. The so-called "Ultra" motion search precision preset doesn't even enable Advanced Diamond 8/16, EXTSEARCH8, etc. As far as I can tell (and that's not very far, believe me ), a bit more can definately be milked out of it even before we go exhaustive... __________________ New VfW builds. High quality AVC Guide. Check out DeathTheSheep United today!

24th November 2005, 04:05	#3 \| Link
ChronoCross Does it really matter? Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,472	so...we can expect 1.1 final soon right? since dev on 1.2 is started obviously heh

24th November 2005, 22:52	#10 \| Link
IgorC Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,025	Speed of Xvid 1.1 is already lower than of 1.0. But there was a big impovements since then. However something has happened with Xvid 1.1 beta 1 -> beta 2. Speed has gone down. Developers said that there was quality improvement for very low bitrate, but for low (middle low >500 kbps) and high bitrates there wasn´t any quality change. SSIM and OPNSR are almost identical for beta 1 and beta 2. Maybe it can be fixed or reworked. Implementing of very slow settings shouldn´t be a problem, while they aren´t enabled by default. Last edited by IgorC; 24th November 2005 at 22:55.

24th November 2005, 23:07	#12 \| Link
IgorC Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,025	VHQ for B-frames was already impelemnted in alpsha cvs builds. I was talking about speed down on beta1 -> beta 2 without any impovements for bitrates >500 kbps .

24th November 2005, 23:15	#13 \| Link
DeathTheSheep <The VFW Sheep of Death> Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Deathly pasture of VFW Posts: 1,124	Oh, woopsies I thought you were talkin' 'bout XviD 1 to XviD 1.1. hehe Yeah, yer absolutely right then. Yeah, y'all know me, I'm obsessed with low bitrates. I think XviD did something along the lines of logarithmic quantization adjustments for high quants back in beta 2, yeah. Good stuff. Can we all look forward to any more quality bolsterings in the low-bitrate area or have priorities shifted more to the higher rates? __________________ New VfW builds. High quality AVC Guide. Check out DeathTheSheep United today!

25th November 2005, 06:10	#15 \| Link
ChronoCross Does it really matter? Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 1,472	I never saw a slowdown between the two. I'd like to see improvements to speed through HT/multithreading. the quality is already better than any of the other asp encoders out there. <Here's where my rant on how I think an INSANE mode is a waste of time was supposed to go> All I'll say about it is that PSNR isn't a end all be all of measurement for how something looks. Things with lower PSNR values have many many times looked better than things with a higher one. This is back to the arguement that quality is subjective. Last edited by ChronoCross; 25th November 2005 at 06:21.

25th November 2005, 12:46	#16 \| Link
IgorC Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,025	I remember some people said that speed of beta 2 was lower. I also notice it. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...ight=beta+slow And there was hot dicussion about improvements beta 1 -> beta 2. There was RD changes since beta 1. http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...ight=beta+slow I´m agree PSNR isn´t ideal metrics. But SSIM and OPNSR together are good tests. Visually I also can´t see difference between beta 1 and beta 2.

25th November 2005, 15:17	#18 \| Link
sysKin Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 1,166	OK I'm disappointed with you guys. One, yes, beta2 is 5% slower at defaults than beta1. Two, but who cares about it if quality has gone down the drain??? You actually did not catch such a huge regression? :/ __________________ Visit #xvid or #x264 at irc.freenode.net Last edited by sysKin; 25th November 2005 at 15:27.

25th November 2005, 15:23	#19 \| Link
Didée Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 3,515	He-heheh, at home still using a celtic's build from "before beta2" What did go wrong with beta2 ? (edit: Frankly, I can't pretend to actually have spotted a difference, but always had the impression that there was, well, ~something~ about beta2. Guess I'd have gotten tared and feathered when asking about that ... Poke in the blue: perhaps something with AQ thresholding?) __________________ We´re at the beginning of the end of mankind´s childhood Last edited by Didée; 25th November 2005 at 15:40.

25th November 2005, 15:26	#20 \| Link
IgorC Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,025	Sorry , Syskin. I´m preparing for exams now. Later I will run some video for Beta 1, Bet2 with different cpu flags with diferent setings. So for what bitrate there is quality change between Beta 2 and Beta 1? maybe for extreme settings there is no change? weird Last edited by IgorC; 25th November 2005 at 16:42.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode