MeGUI Custom x264/AVC video profiles.

[arrirc]

Hello

I have encoded same source twice, once using HQ Slowest profile and setting the bit rate to about 2100 kbps, and other time using CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf) using 18 (the default value) as quality factor/ CRF value.

I hardly could find any difference in quality. Though the time taken was less for CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf), but the file size was about 300MB larger as the bit rate resulted in about 2300 kbps.

Now, I tried this CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf) profile on another source with all settings at default (CRF value 18 as usual); but this time the file size was huge...4.3 GB (the source is of duration 2:36:56). What I found that in this case the same quality factor resulted in a much higher bit rate for the resultant file size- 3523 kbps.

My questions are:


Why the same CRF value resulted in a higher bit rate for one source than the other?

I would like to use CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf), but it does not give me any option to set the bit rate in Auto Encode window (the window that appears after pressing the "Auto Encode" button in MeGUI). So is there any way to determine or understand how the resultant bit rate will change with change in CRF Value? For example for my second case, CRF Value 18 resulted in 3523 kbps bit rate, but I had no way (or is there any!) to understand that before the encoding finishes. I would like to know whether there is any way to understand this beforehand or is it possible to predefine the resultant bit rate in CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf) profile?

[buzzqw]

Why the same CRF value resulted in a higher bit rate for one source than the other?

since you want a fixed "quality" (18 in that case), every movie got this quality at different bitrate.
High quality for a film like Gladiator, water scenes of Save Private Ryan or flashing explosion use a bitrate different then "panic room" film, or a romantic slow film

I would like to use CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf), but it does not give me any option to set the bit rate in Auto Encode window (the window that appears after pressing the "Auto Encode" button in MeGUI)

quality is Quality! or you encode and aim for a target quality or aim for bitrate, you cannot encode in crf BUT using a bitrate... (at max you can use the VBVMaxBitrate for cap the bitrate...)

I would like to know whether there is any way to understand this beforehand or is it possible to predefine the resultant bit rate in CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf) profile?

DDogg has made a very documented xls ... http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=11677

BHH

[SpAwN_gUy]

okay, my turn.. ;)
I hardly could find any difference in quality.but you did ... ;) ..

Why the same CRF value resulted in a higher bit rate for one source than the other?this is due to COMPLEXITY of the Picture. try googling about this word..
yeah, like it was said abouve - pure black picture.. has no complexity... it's just black :) ..
but if you add some circle in there - .. you'll have to discribe.. it's black.. and it has circle.. so the description is MORe complex..
and in terms of motion pictures.. it deals also with motion..

I would like to use CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf), but it does not give me any option to set the bit rate in Auto Encode window (the window that appears after pressing the "Auto Encode" button in MeGUI). So is there any way to determine or understand how the resultant bit rate will change with change in CRF Value? For example for my second case, CRF Value 18 resulted in 3523 kbps bit rate, but I had no way (or is there any!) to understand that before the encoding finishes. I would like to know whether there is any way to understand this beforehand or is it possible to predefine the resultant bit rate in CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf) profile?
[/list]well.. some peaple did actually tried to ask for implementation of "test pass" (like in GKnot .... "don't ask" (c)..) to meGUI.. to encode a part of the movie (i.e. 5% .. or more) to determine the aproximite bitrate (i.e. complexity) so the would need to "tune" the picture, or the resulting file size(bitrate)..

but.. you can read more about that here.. and try to do that manually..

okay.. and.. at first try to figure out on your own.. and then.. start asking questions... 'cause now , iguess, we are trying to teach you the basics.. and you only read and don't want to think...

i'm.. like.. here for 5 years.. and i have.. just 230 posts..

[arrirc]

Thank you very much buzzqw :)

What I was thinking (Yes, I do think, and this is the first thing I do even though some may assume otherwise, not you buzzqw ;) ) whether there is any analytical relationship between Quality factor (CRF Value) and Bit rate, as you have for file size, duration and bit rate.

okay.. and.. at first try to figure out on your own.. and then.. start asking questions... 'cause now , iguess, we are trying to teach you the basics.. and you only read and don't want to think...

i'm.. like.. here for 5 years.. and i have.. just 230 posts..

If one does not think, one can not ask questions. I found your comments rather unfortunate. I believe that 'thinking' is good as long as it does not lead to 'assumptions' as you did, like I post here to increase my post count and I do not think. I am not really sure how you became a judge of my abilities without at all knowing me, doesn't it show your poor thinking capability? Sad, very sad..indeed.

Thanks for nothing....

[buzzqw]

don't take parsonally arrirc!

encoding/ripping/scripting is a long process.. and sometimes the better answer is the one you get by yourself by searching and searching... (expecially if answer is from a "normal" user as me!)

scratching head along monitors is a common action for video gurus ;)

everyone was a newby! just take your time, read and search, and FOR ANY DOUBT ASK!

and.. even if late .. Welcome to the "best" video Forum around!

BHH

[Atak_Snajpera]

Welcome to the "best" video Forum around! The best forum does not like word "best" :)

scratching head along monitors is a common action for video gurus
I was newbie too but I've learnt a lot during developing RipBot264

[arrirc]

Thanks buzzqw :)

Well as I said, I really felt bad...but let bygones be bygone. :)

May be the friendly indulgences here makes me little lazy seldom and I do not search. But believe me, I do mostly, and only when searched answers do not satisfy me I ask here.

[SpAwN_gUy]

expecially if answer is from a "normal" user as me! i'm not abnormal :) as "some" may've thougth :) ... i'm just sometimes Evil .. bwahahahaha

whether there is any analytical relationship between Quality factor (CRF Value) and Bit rate, as you have for file size, duration and bit rate.yes, there is :) ....

like I post here to increase my post count and I do not think.that was not the main idea of the post... the main idea (about complexity) is in the middle.

you want "filesize" - stick to bitrate.
you want "quality" - stick to CRF.
you want "quality" and "filesize" - tune either crf value (loose in quality(depends)),
or tune Picture with filters (well, it depends... you may loose or may not loose in quality),
or do a "test pass" () --> measure final ilesize and back to tuning the pic and crf. and then to "test pass".
# COMPRESSIBILITY CHECK
SelectRangeEvery(280,14)

I am not really sure how you became a judge of my abilities without at all knowing me, doesn't it show your poor thinking capability?well, you don't know me either ;)

[arrirc]

Hello SpAwN_gUy

Thanks for clarifying...:)

I'll keep these things surely in mind

[SpAwN_gUy]

Hello SpAwN_gUy
Thanks for clarifying...:)
I'll keep these things surely in mind
you're welcome..
try using "old" guides on www.doom9.org .... they are somtemies "a bit" outdated, but the show the basics..

[tetsuo55]

I've seen some posts about 'standalone compatibility', but this is still not very clear to me. I plan to buy in a near future a SA that seems to be popular, the Popcorn Hour A-100. The specs say it supports HP L4.1. If I use for example the current HQ-Slowest profile and change the AVC level from Unrestricted to Level 4.1, would that be enough to ensure SA compatibility?

I've seen there are also some DXVA profiles, have Standalones the same features/restrictions as DXVA graphic cards? Thanks.

no. you have to use a special profile for your standalone depending on the supported features (including VBV limits)

Sharktooth, The DXVA settings are supposed to be compatible with all in spec hardware decoders, videocards, game consoles or standalones, it shouldn't matter. Basically 1 setting for all hardware players.

Can you tell me what limitations you have found with regards to DXVA profile not working on other players besides videocards?

[nhope]

Thanks to the devs for their hard work.

Now that Flash supports AVC/AAC, how about a profile (or some profiles) for embedding in the Flash 9 Player for web playback? So that the video should play smoothly on "most" computers (as long as the viewer has sufficient bandwidth of course).

I'm thinking for the typical range of 480px wide vids at 500kbps up to 960px wide at 1200-2000kbps.

I would do them myself but I don't know what I'm doing, but I'd be very happy to test some profiles. I'm currently experimenting with CE-Mainprofile and CE-QuickTime for this application, depending on whether I provide a download link or not (i.e. whether the video will end up getting played in Quicktime or just the Flash Player).

[Atak_Snajpera]

Flash supports all profiles so I see no reason to create another profile.

[nhope]

Oh OK, I thought older/slower computers might choke on the HQ profiles for example, particularly at higher bitrates. Maybe I'm missing the point.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Bit-rate is more important than codec settings in this case

[nhope]

So, disregarding bandwidth, from a playability point of view do you think it would be OK to serve up an HQ-Slowest x264 for example at 960x540 1500kbps online in a Flash Player? Or is it safer to stick to something like CE-Mainprofile?

[Atak_Snajpera]

If you have time use HQ-Slowest. Personally I would use PS3 profile (3 refs). I see no difference between HQ-any and ps3 (ref3)

[Sharktooth]

hint: If you're unsure, stick with DXVA profiles ;)

[nhope]

Thanks. I'd quite like to provide a download link in the Flash Player, which means inevitably people are going to try and play them in Quicktime (either the browser plugin or offline player).

At 960x540 1500 kbps, DXVA-SD-HQ hangs Quicktime on my system but PD-PS3-Xbox360 plays OK (as do CE-Quicktime encodes). Perhaps if I want to cater for Quicktime then I've just got to use the Quicktime profile or is there another profile that should give higher quality and can still be played by Quicktime on most systems?

Also I've still got my change in luminance (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=136786) issue.

[Atak_Snajpera]

PS3 profile gives almost the highest quality. Do you have to use QuickShit ? :)

[Sharktooth]

Thanks. I'd quite like to provide a download link in the Flash Player, which means inevitably people are going to try and play them in Quicktime (either the browser plugin or offline player).

At 960x540 1500 kbps, DXVA-SD-HQ hangs Quicktime on my system but PD-PS3-Xbox360 plays OK (as do CE-Quicktime encodes). Perhaps if I want to cater for Quicktime then I've just got to use the Quicktime profile or is there another profile that should give higher quality and can still be played by Quicktime on most systems?

Also I've still got my change in luminance (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=136786) issue.
try disabling b-pyramid in the DXVA profile and see if it works.
if it does i will merge the PS3/XBOX 360 profiles with the DXVA profiles in the next update.

[nhope]

I don't want to use Quicktime at all but I like to provide a download link to the original file in my Flash players if possible (so the viewer can keep and play the videos offline) and then a lot of viewer's machines will end up playing it in Quicktime whether I like it or not because sadly if it's installed it hijacks both online and offline playback of mp4.

[nhope]

Sharktooth, the file now plays OK in Quicktime if I disable b-pyramid in the DXVA-SD-HQ. There are other differences though from the PS3/XBOX 360 profiles so not sure how you will merge them.

Would you use the PS3/XBOX 360 profile or the DXVA-SD-HQ without b-pyramid for 960x540 @ 1500kbps predominantly for Flash playback but also Quicktime? Or something else?

[Sharktooth]

they're both valid. once i remove b-pyramid, since the differences are really small, i will blend the remaining settings with the PS3 profile to ensure it will work for both DXVA and PS3/X360.

[Atak_Snajpera]

they're both valid. once i remove b-pyramid, since the differences are really small, i will blend the remaining settings with the PS3 profile to ensure it will work for both DXVA and PS3/X360.

Good idea :)

[tetsuo55]

they're both valid. once i remove b-pyramid, since the differences are really small, i will blend the remaining settings with the PS3 profile to ensure it will work for both DXVA and PS3/X360.


From all the test results i have seen b-pyramid works perfectly on PS3/X360

[nurbs]

At least up to 720p and in mp4 container I don't have any problems with b-pyramid on the ps3 either.

[Sharktooth]

but it does make problems with quicktime.
so, to merge all those profiles i need to kill b-pyramid (not a big loss at all).

[tetsuo55]

What kind of problems have you experienced with quicktime?

b-pyramids should have quite some impact with regards to compressability.

there where bugs with it but they should all be fixed in svn

[Sharktooth]

no. b-pyramids does not have a significative impact in compressibility.
however it's not a x264 problem... it's Craptime(tm) not supporting b-pyramid at all.

[nhope]

Sharktooth, ahead of your next release are you clear in your mind what settings the merged profile will have? I'm churning out 384x288 200 kbps videos for the net at the moment and want to ensure I'm encoding the highest quality that both Flash Player and Quicktime will play.

[tetsuo55]

Strange, peng said it would increase compressability.

anyway i have some idea's, i hope you'll want to take a look at them, i will post about it later, then please tell me what you think.

[Sharktooth]

Strange, peng said it would increase compressability.

anyway i have some idea's, i hope you'll want to take a look at them, i will post about it later, then please tell me what you think.
yes, it will increase a bit with a large number of b-frames.
but since we're restricted by the limits of dxva hardware i cant see b-pyramids as a big hit.

Sharktooth, ahead of your next release are you clear in your mind what settings the merged profile will have? I'm churning out 384x288 200 kbps videos for the net at the moment and want to ensure I'm encoding the highest quality that both Flash Player and Quicktime will play.
yes. it will be basically the same as DXVA profiles, without b-pyramid, with the VBV settings for PS3-X360 and with the lowest common number of b and ref frames.

[nhope]

yes. it will be basically the same as DXVA profiles, without b-pyramid, with the VBV settings for PS3-X360 and with the lowest common number of b and ref frames.
Here's an encode at 960x540 at 1500kbps using Sharktooth's proposed hybrid profile (http://www.bubblevision.com/underwater-video/x264-1500kbps-hybrid.htm).

Plays nicely and buffers correctly in Flash (bufferlenth: 10 secs). Quicktime on my system plays it OK too.

What do you folk with trained eyes think? Is it a little too sharp and a little low on bitrate?

[Sharktooth]

bitrate could be highened a bit to help some hard to compress scenes though. the overall compressibility should be really low with that kind of stuff.
however it looks good to me for a 1500kbps encode, but i watched it on a CRT. ill watch it on a good LCD as soon as i get home.

[nhope]

Cheers.

The text link to download the original file was wrong until just now. It was pointing to an old 2000kbps file.

[nhope]

Here's one encoded at 720x540 (exactly half HDV) and stretched in playback to 960x540 by the Flash player (http://www.bubblevision.com/underwater-video/x264-1500kbps-stretch.htm). Possibly a better way of doing it.

Edit: But wrong aspect ratio on full screen :(

[jmartinr]

@ nhope

See http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=131095 for a possible solution for the aspect ratio in flash player.

I use this to set the dimensions of the MP4 and after that remux it with MP4Box (not necessary but I just like MP4Box more). See http://members.home.nl/jmartinr/ (my test page) for a sample of it working.

[nhope]

Thanks jmartinr but if you just want to stretch a video to fit the Flash Player then why not just use the flashvar

overstretch: "fit"

as I did in that example?

[jmartinr]

if you just want to stretch a video to fit the Flash Player then why not just use the flashvar as I did in that example?

Because in full screen it doesn't work. If your video is not anamorphic there's no problem.

If you have anamorphic video, I found this trick to be needed. I you find another way for correct full screen display of anamorphic video in flash player please let me now.

[halsboss]

Mmm, is there any chance of someone posting the full X264 commandlines arising from "PD-iPod 5.5G: Profile for the new iPod 5.5G" ? (haven't megui and just wanting to try out the X264 commandline for now).

[Schrade]

Mmm, is there any chance of someone posting the full X264 commandlines arising from "PD-iPod 5.5G: Profile for the new iPod 5.5G" ? (haven't megui and just wanting to try out the X264 commandline for now).

Quick cut and paste from meGUI:

--pass 2 --bitrate 1000 --stats ".stats" --level 3 --nf --no-cabac --subme 6 --partitions none --qpmin 16 --vbv-bufsize 1000 --vbv-maxrate 1500 --me umh --merange 12 --threads auto --thread-input --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim --output "output" "input"

[halsboss]

Thanks ! With --pass 2 does that mean this is the 2nd pass's commandline. Presumably the 1st is the same except --pass 2 :)

[tetsuo55]

finally had some time to write this so here goes:

What we should be aiming for imho is a basic hardware compatible setting sorted by level(resolution)

One basic level 4.1 profile (HD) (1920x1080, 1280x720)
One basic level 3.1 profile (SD) (720x480, 720x576)
One basic level 2.1 profile (Portable) (320x240)

Each level should be fully compatible with all hardware solutions for their respective level, lower levels should be fully hardware compatible with any player in a higher level.

So level 4.1 does not have to work on a level 2.1 device, but the 2.1 stream should work on the level 4.1 device.

-------

Once the basic settings for all 3 profiles have been defined and are known te be working on all devices in their class (these tests should not include devices that to not conform to the h264 standard) the basic profiles can be extended.


HQ in 5 flavors
CE in all possible flavors
1p in all possible flavors
cq in all possible flavors
AE in all possible flavors

These would be duplicated for all 3 basic profiles.

so the end result would be something like this:

level 4.1 profile (HD) (1920x1080, 1280x720)

4.1-HQ-Fast
4.1-HQ-Slow
4.1-HQ-Slower
4.1-HQ-Slowest
4.1-HQ-Insane

4.1-CE-Fast
4.1-CE-Slow
4.1-CE-Slower
4.1-CE-Slowest
4.1-CE-Insane

4.1-1P-Fast
4.1-1P-Slow
4.1-1P-Slower
4.1-1P-Slowest
4.1-1P-Insane

4.1-CQ-Fast
4.1-CQ-Slow
4.1-CQ-Slower
4.1-CQ-Slowest
4.1-CQ-Insane

4.1-AE-Fast
4.1-AE-Slow
4.1-AE-Slower
4.1-AE-Slowest
4.1-AE-Insane

level 3.1 profile (SD) (720x480, 720x576)

3.1-HQ-Fast
3.1-HQ-Slow
3.1-HQ-Slower
3.1-HQ-Slowest
3.1-HQ-Insane

3.1-CE-Fast
3.1-CE-Slow
3.1-CE-Slower
3.1-CE-Slowest
3.1-CE-Insane

3.1-1P-Fast
3.1-1P-Slow
3.1-1P-Slower
3.1-1P-Slowest
3.1-1P-Insane

3.1-CQ-Fast
3.1-CQ-Slow
3.1-CQ-Slower
3.1-CQ-Slowest
3.1-CQ-Insane

3.1-AE-Fast
3.1-AE-Slow
3.1-AE-Slower
3.1-AE-Slowest
3.1-AE-Insane

level 2.1 profile (Portable) (320x240)

2.1-HQ-Fast
2.1-HQ-Slow
2.1-HQ-Slower
2.1-HQ-Slowest
2.1-HQ-Insane

2.1-CE-Fast
2.1-CE-Slow
2.1-CE-Slower
2.1-CE-Slowest
2.1-CE-Insane

2.1-1P-Fast
2.1-1P-Slow
2.1-1P-Slower
2.1-1P-Slowest
2.1-1P-Insane

2.1-CQ-Fast
2.1-CQ-Slow
2.1-CQ-Slower
2.1-CQ-Slowest
2.1-CQ-Insane

2.1-AE-Fast
2.1-AE-Slow
2.1-AE-Slower
2.1-AE-Slowest
2.1-AE-Insane


now there will always be some hardware or sofware based target devices that need a slightly different encode setting to get the most out of the hardware.

In that case the level the device is at should be taken as the basic settings, and those should be weakend to meet the requirements of that particular device (this way the stream would still be same level and upward compatible)

-----------

As you can see the main point of my idea is to get all profiles compatible with all players that support that level. This way people will never have to worry about "will this work on hard- or softwareplayer X"

Please tell me what you think or if you need more info

[Sharktooth]

dont worry. the next sets of profiles will be completely different from the actual ones.

[shon3i]

@tetsuo55, did you mean level 4.1? not 5.1, AFAIK 5.1 can't reach compactibilty with standalone or DXVA?

[nhope]

Now I'm confused. For compatibility with software players on a computer (WMP, Quicktime, VLC etc.), which of those profile "families" is in theory the one to use? DXVA? And if it is DXVA, at what resolution is it recommended to use the HD instead of SD profiles?

[jmartinr]

Now I'm confused. For compatibility with software players on a computer (WMP, Quicktime, VLC etc.), which of those profile "families" is in theory the one to use? DXVA? And if it is DXVA, at what resolution is it recommended to use the HD instead of SD profiles?

Summing up my experiences

WMP: if coreavc or ffdshow is installed about anything goes, if not, you don't know. Out of the box it doesn't do h264
VLC: about anything goes (except for the little quirk we found introduced by mp4creator-QTF)
Flash Player: about anything goes, AR is a pain in the ass though
QuickTime: limited, also here AR is quirky

So QuickTime is your bottleneck (I guess you're right that many people wil try to play your files in QuickTime). I have no experience encoding for QuickTime, that's why I'm interested in your results. ;)

Concerning your Vegas issue, I think you'll have to find out more about the background of the problem.

[tetsuo55]

@tetsuo55, did you mean level 4.1? not 5.1, AFAIK 5.1 can't reach compactibilty with standalone or DXVA?

thanks i made a typo there, i corrected my post

[mpiper]

Can anyone explain why the official development page for MeGUI has 0.2.6.1046 while other threads and sites list a version 0.3.0.0?

Which one is really the correct/most current one?