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. |
17th November 2006, 08:33 | #4 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 207
|
Quoting from http://mewiki.project357.com/wiki/MeGUI_FAQ
Quote:
|
|
17th November 2006, 09:04 | #5 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
Some amendments must be made to that :
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
5th January 2007, 20:35 | #7 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
The principle of CRF XX.X is : if it's a "complicated" scene, the quantizer will be over XX.X, if it's a "simple" scene, the quantizer will be under XX.X.
In your case, CRF 20 gives a smaller size than QP 20, so it means your video was "complicated".
__________________
|
6th January 2007, 10:17 | #8 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 160
|
Quote:
If my video were complicated, -crf would've bumped the bitarte all the way. But now I got a smaller filesize? |
|
6th January 2007, 10:27 | #9 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
What doesn't make sense ? With what part of my post are you disagreeing ? The principle of CRF ? Or the reasoning "CRF 20 smaller than QP 20 --> average quantizer for CRF 20 > QP 20 --> the video was complicated" ?
__________________
|
6th January 2007, 11:09 | #10 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 160
|
Doesn't quantizer mean that the higher the value the more compression a video gets?
So this: Quote:
Why would CRF higher the quantizer value when a scene gets complicated? |
|
6th January 2007, 12:29 | #11 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
Here is why :
- The more complicated the scene, the more bitrate it takes - at the same quantizer - relatively to a more simple scene. - Bitrate saving when raising the quantizer from Q to Q+1 is (in average) 12% of the bitrate at quantizer Q. - So when you raise the quantizer by one on a complicated scene, you save more bitrate than if it was on a simple scene. - And when you lower the quantizer on a simple scene, it costs less bitrate than if you were lowering it on a complicated scene. So lets say you have a simple scene followed by a more complicated scene that takes twice the same amount of bitrate at the same quantizer. Both scenes last as long ( duration of a scene : T ). You start at a quantizer Q for both scene. It gives you a size S = T * B (simple scene) + T * 2 * B (complicated scene, twice the bitrate, same duration) = 3 * T * B. Now, you raise the quantizer by 1 for the complicated scene. That lowers its bitrate by 12% ( of 2 * B ), so now the size is 2.76 * T * B. You saved 0.24 * T * B, which you can put in the simple scene, raising its bitrate by 24%. 24% increase bitrate amounts almost to lowering the quantizer by 2. So, you end up with a simple scene with Q-2, and a complicated scene with Q+1. The average quantizer is lower ( Q - 1/2 ), though that doesn't necessarily mean it's better.
__________________
|
6th January 2007, 14:08 | #12 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 160
|
Didn't knew that x264 CRF mode will actually yield less bits to/lower the quality of a complicated scene.
And give more bits to a less complex scene. Wich mode drops the bitrate for a les complicated part and raises the bitrate for a complicated part of the video? Sounds so illogical. |
6th January 2007, 14:16 | #13 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
It doesn't give complicated scenes less bits ( than simple scenes ). Taking again my example, the complicated scene, though encoded with a higher quantizer, gets a bitrate of 1.76B, while the simple scene has a bitrate of 1.24B. With constant quantizer it would have been 2B and 1B.
Furthermore, from a psychovisual point of view, artifacts on complicated scene are more easily hidden by the complexity of the scene itself. For example, a lack of details in high motion scene doesn't matter that much.
__________________
|
6th January 2007, 14:25 | #14 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 160
|
OK. i'll re-read it all see if I can grasp it.
BTW. When you have lots of smoke/when something explodes and theres lots of dust falling. This could also be seen as a high-action scene right? Bit giving this scene less detail will result in artifacts being clearly visible (?) I run into that roblem right now. And I dont know if I should bump the bitrate or use some deblocking before encoding of some sort. |
6th January 2007, 16:50 | #15 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 352
|
THanks for the primer - glad I read this:
So CRF seems like a good tradeoff for 1-pass encodes if you don't really care about filesize. The "profiles" in MEGUI for CRF are only for ASP. Has anyone made a profilefor CRF/AVC to play with the settings? |
6th January 2007, 17:10 | #16 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: France
Posts: 2,856
|
CRF exists only in x264. So I guess you're mistaken between ASP/AVC and the profile's denomination.
__________________
|
6th January 2007, 17:16 | #17 | Link |
Angel of Night
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tangled in the silks
Posts: 9,559
|
ASP doesn't have CRF, you might be confusing it with the "equivalent of ASP's q2" profile. Any of the profiles can be switched from 2 pass to CRF, quite simply. Under 20 it should be transparent, over 30 it's ugly, and between those are your trade-off range.
|
26th March 2007, 10:36 | #18 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 1,197
|
My standard approach to MPEG-4 encoding of deinterlaced/denoised DV has always been to run a compression test (10-20% depending on the source) in CQ mode (typically DivX 6 (Insane; I like to watch paint dry) at Q2.67 without B-frames for 25p and XviD at Q2.35 - 2.5 with B-frames (usually 1, sometimes 2) for 50p encodes), note the bitrate and then encode in 2-pass mode at that bitrate or thereabouts.
Applying the same principle to x264 encoding, from a theoretical standpoint, is it preferable to perform a compression test in Constant Quant or 'Constant Quality'(crf) mode? I'm assuming from the above discussion, that the consensus would be the latter? Cheers. Last edited by WorBry; 26th March 2007 at 10:49. |
|
|