MeGUI Custom x264/AVC video profiles. [Archive] - Page 20

View Full Version : MeGUI Custom x264/AVC video profiles.

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21

SpAwN_gUy

24th April 2008, 09:43

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?
0.3 - is THE developement one (with some fancy things, that can be not working ones)
0.2.6 - is THE most recent stable (i assume so..)

Cooldeep

24th April 2008, 13:52

Thanks sharktooth...nice share

pelle412

6th May 2008, 02:48

Weltall

6th May 2008, 06:07

Well guys, I dont know if this was already asked, but I'm wondering why b-frame number increased to max in HQ-Slowest and AE-Maxquality. Why???? This seems to make the result worst, I can be wrong. Before was 3, now is 16! What about M.E. Range, if I raise from 16 to 32, would I have better compressibility that could justify the speed reduction? Reference frames number above 5 is also justified? The same thing I ask for trellis. Pls answer me guys. :confused: :thanks:

Sharktooth

6th May 2008, 13:19

In the PS3 profile I'm curious about the rationale behind some of the settings:

vbv-bufsize = 9000, vbv-maxrate = 25000

Is this the max a PS3 can handle? What can happen if I increase these values? I don't have a PS3 myself to try it out, but I'm considering it.

ipratio/pbratio = 1.1

Is this for grain retention? Can't come up with any other reason. Normalizing the quality across frame types?

merange = 12

Speedup? Default seems to be 16.

qcomp = 0.5

What's wrong with the default 0.6?
your guesses are right but i dont remember why i lowered the qcomp. there is definatly a reason... but i just cant remember right now.

Well guys, I dont know if this was already asked, but I'm wondering why b-frame number increased to max in HQ-Slowest and AE-Maxquality. Why???? This seems to make the result worst, I can be wrong. Before was 3, now is 16! What about M.E. Range, if I raise from 16 to 32, would I have better compressibility that could justify the speed reduction? Reference frames number above 5 is also justified? The same thing I ask for trellis. Pls answer me guys. :confused: :thanks:
x264 is not xvid. more b-frames = more compression = more quality. also, b-fremes are dynamically placed, so it's not always 16 in a row. to tell the truth, it's hard the encoder chooses to put 16 consecutive b-frames... so, yes, you're wrong.
ME Range 32 is almost always an overkill. While a higher number of ref-frames on anime/cartoon material may improve the compression significanlty. The AE (Anime Encoding) profile has a higher number of refs on purpouse.

Weltall

6th May 2008, 20:51

Hehehe, its good to be wrong :)
That was killing me, since I couldnt understand why it suddenly changed from 3 to 16 in both profiles I use (AE for anime and HQ-Slowest for movie/tv show content). Then I dont need to use more than 5 ref frames for movie, but for anime I can use 16 without worrying :)

Anyway, one more question, HQ-Slowest shows much difference compared to HQ-Slower? Is it justified? What about trellis quantization, shoud I use it only for macroblocks or there are time that option 2 would be acceptable, even with high increase of encoding time?

That's all, thank you in advance.

Sharktooth

7th May 2008, 01:59

There is definatly an improvement in compression switching from HQ-Slower to HW-Slowest but the encoding time will rise.
Trellis 2 tends to "smooth" the picture a bit but will also help compression (a bit).
So it's a matter of taste.
I would not suggest to use trellis 2 on grainy/noisy sources (at least if you want to keep the grainy look).

Weltall

7th May 2008, 17:01

:thanks: You've enlighted me.

yesgrey

7th May 2008, 17:56

Hi,
I want to backup some MPEG2 blu-rays to H264 using x264.
In the thread comparing both encoders it appears the H264 have the same quality as MPEG2 with half the size. Should I target half the original file size or can I go a bit lower?
For example:
I have a MPEG2 file of 11GB, should I target 5.5 GB or could I go to a DVD5 size of 4.2 GB. I want to keep the original res. 1920x1080.
I am considering using the DXVA-HD-HQ profile, so I could use DXVA for playing. If I use the HQ-Insane or HQ-Slower will I get a significant better quality?

I know I could try all modes and see which is better, but each encode takes a lot of time...

Best Regards

Atak_Snajpera

7th May 2008, 18:08

If I use the HQ-Insane or HQ-Slower will I get a significant better quality?
No.
In my opinion above profiles should removed because they are not compatible with anything except software decoders like FFDShow and CoreAVC.

I have a MPEG2 file of 11GB, should I target 5.5 GB or could I go to a DVD5 size of 4.2 GB. I want to keep the original res. 1920x1080.
I would definitely resize to 1280x720. You will retain more details.

Sharktooth

8th May 2008, 21:11

most of them will be trashed in the next megui version.
the new profiles will be hardware-oriented and with clearer names. HQ-Insane will still be around (with a new name)... and it will be REALLY INSANE (a torture test for your CPU and your patience!)... and obviously not compatble with HW devices (it will be stated in the profile name).

Seraphic-

8th May 2008, 22:10

Sharktooth

9th May 2008, 13:50

actually, not too far. i and the other devs just need some time to code.

Seraphic-

9th May 2008, 19:40

actually, not too far. i and the other devs just need some time to code.

Hi Sharktooth,

Alright, I'll wait for the next version before I start full production on my videos. Sounds like it offers some improvements.

Why is it that 4:2:2 is not supported with x264? I guess it is how the codec was designed, but it unfortunate to have sacrifice 1/6 of the raw color levels. I mean, you can see a good bit of color difference in these two samples. Is there anyway to retain the true color levels?

Also, what inloop filter setting would you suggest for 480p/720p console game-play (3d rendered graphics - fast motion)? I'm using HQ-Slowest as a base (would HQ-Insane be worth the extra encode time?).

Last, can you ever use too high of a bit-rate? Is 7,500 for 480p/720p too much or is more always better if you can deal with the extra file size?

Demo 720p Capture - 100MB (http://www.temp.seraphicgate.com/DemoCapture.rar)

Thanks

Here is a another console game demo using HQ-Slowest as a base but at 10,000 bit rate.

137MB Download (http://www.temp.seraphicgate.com/DemoCapture2.rar)

pelle412

11th May 2008, 17:02

your guesses are right but i dont remember why i lowered the qcomp. there is definatly a reason... but i just cant remember right now.

Then why does the SA-Blu-Ray profile use vbv-bufsize 30000 and vbv-maxrate 38000?

11th May 2008, 22:35

Hi all. What do you think of this as a profile for video coaching dv archiving? I need it to be clear as possible and allow smooth frame stepping forwards and backwards preferably with smooth progress bar mouse dragging while paused.

Freel free to hack it up. I'm not an expert with x264 profiles.

Thanks in advance

Weltall

11th May 2008, 23:19

No.
In my opinion above profiles should removed because they are not compatible with anything except software decoders like FFDShow and CoreAVC.Really!? Which should I use, how can I know which settings I cant use, like number of b-frames or number of ref frames, m.e. range (I'm using 16), subpel ref. and everything? Could you help me pls? I want to run my files after conversion on hware. Thank you in advance, thx God I didnt delete the original files :D:D:D:D

Atak_Snajpera

12th May 2008, 00:52

HQ-DXVA profile

Weltall

12th May 2008, 18:53

Thank you! DXVA-SD-HQ has the exact same settings I used before! On this profile, b-frames number is 3 and subpel ref is 6. Can't these numbers be raised? Like 16 b-frames, subpel 7 or 16 ref frames (at least 10 for anime content)??? I presume 16 ref frames and subpel 7 are dumb then? But what about 16 b-frames? Cause Shark said is better :D

Btw, what about anime content? Should I use the same profile?

P.S.: At least my previous encodings will play, I was worried :cool:

Edit.: What about fast p-skip, can it be disabled, or shouldn't I disable this at all?

Atak_Snajpera

13th May 2008, 00:40

Don't touch ref frames! Unless you want to break compatibility with DXVA! subpel 7 is very slow so it is up to you.

Sharktooth

13th May 2008, 02:49

b-frames and ref-frames influence the hardware compatibility. so if you care about it, dont touch them.

Ittipol02

13th May 2008, 07:32

Can I use DXVA-SD-HQ profile with constant quality mode?

I have a lot short-vob files like music video, (idol)event tour, .. So I don't want to specific file size. CQ-ASP_Q2_eq(crf) is great but I need more compatibility.

Thanks

Dark Shikari

13th May 2008, 07:43

Hi Sharktooth,

Alright, I'll wait for the next version before I start full production on my videos. Sounds like it offers some improvements.

Why is it that 4:2:2 is not supported with x264? I guess it is how the codec was designed, but it unfortunate to have sacrifice 1/6 of the raw color levels. I mean, you can see a good bit of color difference in these two samples. Is there anyway to retain the true color levels?Color subsampling does not affect what colors can be accurately represented, only blurring on the edges of sharp objects/etc as is normally caused by color subsampling. If the colors aren't accurately represented, there's a problem in your color conversion.

x264 doesn't support other color spaces because it would take a lot of code to do so and ffmpeg (AFAIK) doesn't support it either.

Weltall

13th May 2008, 09:54

Ok, then I'll stick with 3 b-frames and 8 ref frames for both movie/tv show and anime content.

What about fast p-skip, shoud it be always enabled? Not using it would give me hw incompatibility?

:thanks::thanks::thanks:

Dark Shikari

13th May 2008, 09:57

saint-francis

13th May 2008, 14:26

most of them will be trashed in the next megui version.
the new profiles will be hardware-oriented and with clearer names.

Why the stress on the hardware compatibility? While this is nice for people with old computers, I tend to think that many of them don't have graphics cards that can support DXVA. And most of the people who do have an ATI 3870 or an 8600 GTS will probably have the processing power to make the need for DXVA trivial. And probably anyone who has the processing power to back up their movies with x264 has the processing power to play them back with FFDShow (unless we get into the realm of piracy where anyone can download a 1080p x264 video and may not have the hardware to have encoded it). Personally I have tested a 30 MB/s 1080p movie encoded with HQ Insane and my cpu usage only went to about 16%. Granted I do have a Q6600, but these days even that is becoming a little old. Soon processors will be much faster and much more affordable. So I think that many of the profiles which don't afford hardware compatibility should be left in the list. Personally there are so many restrictions in using DXVA that I will never use it. It is a cool idea though isn't it? Maybe for encoding; every last bit of help you can get there is great. But I (and and probably most of the other people who have a CPU powerful enough to actually use x264) don't need hardware acceleration. Support for stand alone players is a good thing to have for those who don't use some kind of HTPC though.

Fast P-skip is an analysis option; it doesn't affect the playability of the output stream.

How are ref frames not only an analysis option? Or maybe I should say, how do they have any bearing on playback? I thought that they were only for the encoder to seek backwards and forwards during encoding?

cweb

13th May 2008, 16:02

Why the stress on the hardware compatibility? While this is nice for people with old computers, I tend to think that many of them don't have graphics cards that can support DXVA.
Old computers? Aren't we talking devices, such as hand-helds, PDA's, mobiles here too?

saint-francis

13th May 2008, 17:07

Old computers? Aren't we talking devices, such as hand-helds, PDA's, mobiles here too?

Yes. And I address that at the end of the paragraph. But, several of the preceding posts were discussing DXVA in particular and since this topic has personal interest for me I chose to pontificate on it.

13th May 2008, 22:01

What would be a minimum gop size for the b-frame setting in the HQ insane profile?

tetsuo55

14th May 2008, 15:54

Why the stress on the hardware compatibility? While this is nice for people with old computers, I tend to think that many of them don't have graphics cards that can support DXVA. And most of the people who do have an ATI 3870 or an 8600 GTS will probably have the processing power to make the need for DXVA trivial. And probably anyone who has the processing power to back up their movies with x264 has the processing power to play them back with FFDShow (unless we get into the realm of piracy where anyone can download a 1080p x264 video and may not have the hardware to have encoded it). Personally I have tested a 30 MB/s 1080p movie encoded with HQ Insane and my cpu usage only went to about 16%. Granted I do have a Q6600, but these days even that is becoming a little old. Soon processors will be much faster and much more affordable. So I think that many of the profiles which don't afford hardware compatibility should be left in the list. Personally there are so many restrictions in using DXVA that I will never use it. It is a cool idea though isn't it? Maybe for encoding; every last bit of help you can get there is great. But I (and and probably most of the other people who have a CPU powerful enough to actually use x264) don't need hardware acceleration. Support for stand alone players is a good thing to have for those who don't use some kind of HTPC though.

How are ref frames not only an analysis option? Or maybe I should say, how do they have any bearing on playback? I thought that they were only for the encoder to seek backwards and forwards during encoding?

DXVA is being used a lot in posts, this does not mean the posts are only about pc-acceleration, the DXVA settings guarantee playback on all hardware based devices.

the fact that you can select out of spec settings for encoding a video does not mean you should, as software decoders become more and more true to the standards so does the need for videos encoded with a standard.

According to a lot of tests, going beyond the limits of hardware compatibibily have little to no effect on the percieved quality of the resulting file (with the exception of ref frames with animated low detail full hd content)

Now anyone that want's to use different setting can always manually do so, these profiles are not hardcoded into x264 with no way around them.

finally, even you're q6600 can have some minor frame-drops when it comes to high bitrate encodes that are on the edge of hardware compatibility (especially original blu-ray discs that add the overhead of decrypting), that said there are no discs out there yet that are unwatchable on a system like your's

personally i am one of those persons with a slow pc, and a dxva videocard, i eventually intend to buy a standalone player so personally i have 2 reasons to use DXVA compatible settings. As x264 is going to be the standard for a very long time there is a big chance that anyone with a fast enough pc will one day come eye to eye with a hardware decoder, it's for those moments that you'll be glad you encoded with DXVA settings.

yesgrey

16th May 2008, 09:59

I asked this:
"I have a MPEG2 file of 11GB, should I target 5.5 GB or could I go to a DVD5 size of 4.2 GB. I want to keep the original res. 1920x1080."

and you answered this:
I would definitely resize to 1280x720. You will retain more details.

One more question: Which size should I target if I want to keep the 1920x1080 resolution?

:thanks:

saint-francis

16th May 2008, 12:11

One more question: Which size should I target if I want to keep the 1920x1080 resolution?

If in doubt just use CRF 18 and see what size it gives you.

frank

16th May 2008, 15:59

crf18 is ok. Results are very good.

AND, not the file size - the bitrate of the file is important.

You should believe what Atak_Snajpera said.
You should resize to 1280x720!
Thats the only good option for quality and file size, when burning on dvd.
Most people don't own a screen with higher resolution.

stax76

16th May 2008, 16:44

In StaxRip beta you would:

Select a 2 pass x264 profile
Set the target filesize to 4479 MB
Set the target image size to 1920x1080
Perform a compressibility check

50%-60% compares to crf 22 which is decent, if it turns out less than 50% which is likely unless it's short, dark, boring movie, then it's indeed better to resize it to 1280x720.

yesgrey

17th May 2008, 00:10

I believe in what Atak_Snajpera said, for a dvd it should be the best, but since I am pointing this file to be viewed with a 1920x1080 front projector in a really big screen, I would like to keep it at 1920x1080. My original idea was a little more than half the size, as I explained before, due to the MPEG2 vs x264 comparison thread. I have two files like this, and I could put both in 3 dvds, instead of 3 dvds for each, as is now.
I will try crf18. I believe it's just a single pass, so it should not take a day for the encoding...:)

Thank you all for your answers.:thanks:

Atak_Snajpera

19th May 2008, 18:48

One more question: Which size should I target if I want to keep the 1920x1080 resolution?
DVD-DL

yesgrey

23rd May 2008, 00:13

I have tryed 1920x1080 with crf18 and got a size of 6.28 GB. So it seems I could put two movies in 3 dvd5.
I forgot to mention that the movie duration is 39m22s, I don't know if this changes the sizes you all have suggested... I have read in some places that the resolution we should use depends of the bitrate we will use... any truth in this?

:thanks:

stax76

23rd May 2008, 05:45

I have tryed 1920x1080 with crf18 and got a size of 6.28 GB. So it seems I could put two movies in 3 dvd5.

Pretty bad idea, seems you are totally ignoring my advice.

... I have read in some places that the resolution we should use depends of the bitrate we will use... any truth in this?

True but there is another factor called compressibility you want to take into account as well.

yesgrey

24th May 2008, 01:17

Pretty bad idea, seems you are totally ignoring my advice.

stax, I am not ignoring your advice. I have tryed it but must have made something wrong because your program suddenly shutdown. Since I have been out for a few days, I only referred the crf18 because it was the only successfull I had. Today I tryed your software again and it worked ok. Here are the compressibility test results:

x264 High Quality Slowest:
Quality: 71%; Compressibility: 0.46

x264 High Quality Fast:
Quality: 67%; Compressibility: 0.48

Can you enlight me about these results?

True but there is another factor called compressibility you want to take into account as well.
Can you give me some rules of thumb about the usage?

:thanks:

stax76

24th May 2008, 09:38

something wrong because your program suddenly shutdown

Please try the beta and make a bug report if it happens again.

Can you enlight me about these results?

100% is about crf 18 and is very good quality, crf 22 is about 50%-60% and is OK quality, you are somewhere beetween which is good.

Can you give me some rules of thumb about the usage?

Use quality values between 50%-70%.

skyDiver

24th May 2008, 10:36

Hey altough its not related to the discussion going on right now , but can somebody tell me how to get x.264 C source code . . ? :)

stax76

24th May 2008, 11:05

Just enter 'x264' in google, you probably want to enter 'C++' and 'h264' in google as well.

yesgrey

24th May 2008, 11:56

100% is about crf 18 and is very good quality, crf 22 is about 50%-60% and is OK quality, you are somewhere beetween which is good.

So, my previous post about using 3 dvds for 2 movies, with crf 18, it's a pretty bad idea because I am using more than needed, right? I thought you were considering it a low quality encoding...

You said that crf 18 is better quality than crf 22, but in one of your x264 help links (guide by DVDGuy, page 3) is written that the higher the crf number, the higher the quality of the encoding.

Who is correct?

stax76

24th May 2008, 13:29

yesgrey

24th May 2008, 16:14

stax,
That list would be a very helpfull reference for a starter in x264 encoding like me.

:thanks:

jwhyche

7th June 2008, 21:35

I would put it:

crf 18: extreme good quality (huge filesize!)
crf 20: very good quality
crf 22: good quality (only value I've ever used, it's also the default value in StaxRip and other applications)
crf 24: OK quality

Like comp. check it's only a raw idea, it really depends on the source, on the settings etc.

I've been running some experiments with setting at crf-22 and I have to say I'm impressed with the results. I would like to try the others but can't seem find where to change them at.

Nevermind that. I found it. It was in the x264 options. Just didnt' see it at first.

I've been using nothing but Two pass forever. Can someone point me to a guide to where I can find out more about Constant Quality?

ditche

16th June 2008, 18:43

Sharktooth

16th June 2008, 18:53

CRF doesnt depend on the resolution.
CRF 22 is CRF 22. Period.
sometimes, with HD video, is better rising the CRF to spare some disk space, but a higher value means lower quality... always...

P.J

6th July 2008, 12:35

What's the minimum bitrate for 1080p/720p ?
Does lower bitrate increase the noise in 1080p ?

Thanks.

Sharktooth

6th July 2008, 15:26

There's no minimum. it depends on the source.
Lowering the bitrate will INCREASE artifacts and LOWER the noise (since the deblocking will be triggered more often).
however this is the wrong thread for this stuff.
have a read at the guides and document yourself a bit on video encoding. those questions lead me to think you have NO experience in video encoding at all.