Very good quality at 10000+ kbps [Archive]

Djago

14th June 2006, 05:48

Hi

I'm interested in a codec that can give me very good quality at very high bitrates. I'm talking of 10000+kbps or so. The big idea is to put 1 hour of video on a DVD (disregard audio). A rough estimate gives 10201kbps. (Using variable bitrate can give much higher bitrates for maximum; I suppose we can consider constant bitrate compression too).

I guess that at very high bitrates all codecs will be almost indistinguishable, so other factors like ability to use the file for editing purposes or encode speed will become relevant.

Thanks for your knowledge,
Djago

foxyshadis

14th June 2006, 06:45

MPEG2? You can make a real video DVD that way, with 10200 actually being the maximum bitrate. If you don't care about making it a video dvd, xvid ought to do fine with a high matrix, and fast settings. You're right that practically any decent lossy codec would work, although that's still well under the range of general D1 lossless.

If editing is needed, you'll probably want a very small key-interval, perhaps even key-only, and you may wish to use DV or MJPEG for that. (But bitrates would be higher or the loss greater than xvid with a very short keyint and no b-frames).

zambelli

14th June 2006, 09:10

What about video resolution? Chroma sampling?

Djago

14th June 2006, 17:34

xvid ought to do fine with a high matrix, and fast settings
Example?

If editing is needed, you'll probably want a very small key-interval, perhaps even key-only, and you may wish to use DV or MJPEG for that. (But bitrates would be higher or the loss greater than xvid with a very short keyint and no b-frames).
What bitrate can give MJPEG at good quality? I know that DV is 30mpbs, but I've never used MJPEG...

What about video resolution? Chroma sampling?
720x576x24bits, 25fps, interlaced... a standard broadcast PAL footage.
Speaking about that, can I use xvid and maintain interlace footage? How?

mpgxsvcd

14th June 2006, 18:29

720x576x24bits, 25fps, interlaced... a standard broadcast PAL footage.
Speaking about that, can I use xvid and maintain interlace footage? How?

Sounds like a good candidate for WMV9 Advanced profile. You don't need 10+ mb/sec though. 6-8 mb/sec is plenty.

Sharktooth

14th June 2006, 18:49

h264 sounds even better... :p
why using inferior codecs when you have something that's free, more supported, non-proprietary (implementation) and clearly better?

mpgxsvcd

14th June 2006, 18:55

Hmm, sounds like a challenge to me? Maybe we should get him to post the sample and then we can see how well both codecs deal with interlacing. To my knowledge no-one has ever publicly compared the new WMV9 advanced up against H.264 with an interlaced file. So how can you say either one is clearly better? Up for the task?

mpgxsvcd

14th June 2006, 18:58

Oh yea VC1 is free, supported by Microsoft(zambelli is always here to help), and the proprietary thing is up for debate. So how is H.264 better then?

Sharktooth

14th June 2006, 19:02

It simply gives better quality coz it's more advanced than VC-1.
Mantaining interlacing could be a problem for x264 but not for other commercial solutions (mainconcept, ateme, nero, etc) but a MBAFF patch is coming...
Also if you want perfect quality h.264 can be even lossless while VC-1 can't...

EDIT: VC-1 is not free actually. you need the Windows OS to encode with it... and it costs $$$:p

mpgxsvcd

14th June 2006, 19:34

Correct me if I am wrong but I read somewhere that if you set a Quality VBR encode to %100 then it would be lossless. It was a long time ago that I read that so it might have changed. I tried it and I switched from the input to the output as it was encoding. The images looked identical. You can also select full frames uncompressed in WME9. However, it won't do any compression then.

zambelli

14th June 2006, 19:37

VC-1 is not free actually. you need the Windows OS to encode with it... and it costs $$$:p
x264 is not free either, actually. You need a computer, preferably a PC, and it costs $$$.

Nice try. Are you posting this from a Linux box, BTW?

mpgxsvcd

14th June 2006, 19:45

x264 is not free either, actually. You need a computer, preferably a PC, and it costs $$$.

Nice try. Are you posting this from a Linux box, BTW?

Zambelli can you help me out on the 100% thing? Is that actually lossless?

zambelli

14th June 2006, 19:45

I'll second Foxy's recommendation in this particular scenario: MPEG-2 sounds like the way to go when you're dealing with PAL 576i video and have 10Mbps to spare. You can even make a compliant DVD out of it and not worry at all about playback compatibility.
The only drawback: editing. If editing is a big concern, stick with AVI container and try MJPEG codec.

zambelli

14th June 2006, 19:48

Zambelli can you help me out on the 100% thing? Is that actually lossless?
No, it's not lossless in the literal definition (like HuffYUV or Lagarith). But it does fix the picture quantizer to 1 (or was it 2?), which is as good as any codec can do.
WMV9 AP is an option, but it sounds like MPEG-2 or MJPEG might fit his bill better.

foxyshadis

14th June 2006, 20:08

MJPEG is literally just a stream of JPEGs (sort of like an animated gif), so the same way you choose quality/size in jpegs is how you get it in mjpeg, so good quality also depends on your source. Some codecs have one option (quality or bitrate) and some have both.

xvid with EHR, 6of9, or UHR matrix (though EHR is probably too much for 10m) would be a better choice from a quality standpoint, but it's somewhat slower and many editing apps don't like xvid, even with packed bitstream and rgb output. It'd be interesting to find out what xvid in key-only mode can do, it may even be worse than mjpeg, but I've never tried it. Always at least a 10 or 12-frame adaptive gop for me.

And yes, xvid has a checkbox for interlaced encoding.

Sharktooth

14th June 2006, 21:15

x264 is not free either, actually. You need a computer, preferably a PC, and it costs $$$.

Nice try. Are you posting this from a Linux box, BTW?
I dont thinks so. It's free expecially when using linux...
Obviously commercial use is limited but we aren't speaking of commercial uses.
However i was on a windows box (with Opera) when i posted that, but i could have done it from a linux box as well.

Nice try :p

mpgxsvcd

14th June 2006, 21:57

No, it's not lossless in the literal definition (like HuffYUV or Lagarith). But it does fix the picture quantizer to 1 (or was it 2?), which is as good as any codec can do.
WMV9 AP is an option, but it sounds like MPEG-2 or MJPEG might fit his bill better.
:D
Why would MPEG-2 fit his bill better? I thought the max bit rate for compliant DVDs was 8 mb/sec? Won’t 10 mb/sec break that compliance? Then he might as well burn a WMV DVD because the MPG2 one won’t necessarily play in every DVD player.

Here is a 640x480 wmv9 advanced profile I did. This is at 2 mb/sec. Honestly, I think it is quite outstanding. Don’t you wish Standard Definition TV was this good? By the way this came out of my Canon digital still camera. Not too shabby for something that takes 6 megapixel stills, with a 12X optical zoom, and optical image stabilization? This video was also taken at full 12X zoom(we were sitting more than 200 ft away).

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=3F61E1C024363048

Sharktooth

14th June 2006, 22:40

Quality is not that good. It shows ringing artifacts and there are very few details (everything is smoothed out but quite noisy).
What about this 1mbps (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/480p%20sample.mp4) re-encode from your already encoded WMV sample? (a small quality drop is to be expected due to the re-encoding from an already encoded source... but x264 did the job at half the bitrate of WMV9 AP...)

imcold

14th June 2006, 23:00

don't forget ;) :
so other factors like ability to use the file for editing purposes or encode speed will become relevant.

Sharktooth

14th June 2006, 23:12

well... x264 is not that slow (when properly set), and if you need editing you can go lossless.
However if VC-1 is able reach THIS (http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/x264HP_HPIV_720p_1250.mp4) quality (encoded by Sagittaire at 1250kbps) at the same bitrate i will admit it maybe can be a valid alternative to h.264... but that will never happen :D

BigDid

14th June 2006, 23:31

xvid ought to do fine with a high matrix, and fast settings Example?
For xvid high bitrate, this post from the "new quantization matrices thread" : http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=743830#post743830
and the link to near-lossless tests for the EHR cqm: http://www.anti-logic.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=699

Also the Preset synopsis from Teegedeck, specially "the fast, 'near lossless' preset" or the "DVD-R perfect preset": http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=796900#post796900

Did

Sharktooth

14th June 2006, 23:55

Yeah xvid is a good candidate for those bitrates... maybe even better (faster, sharper and free) than VC-1/WMV9-AP.

foxyshadis

15th June 2006, 00:29

A reasonably difficult to compress source using EHR with very short gops will probably block up a bit at 10m. That's why I suggested 6of9 or UHR. But it's entirely possible it still won't be noticeable, especially compared to mpeg-2.

Why has a thread about 10mbit temporary/archival encodes turned into a flamewar over which codec is best at 1mbit on its slowest and least friendly to editing settings?

zambelli

15th June 2006, 00:41

I dont thinks so. It's free expecially when using linux...
Your computer was free? I don't know where you got it, but I'd like one too! ;)

Sharktooth

15th June 2006, 00:47

Why has a thread about 10mbit temporary/archival encodes turned into a flamewar over which codec is best at 1mbit on its slowest and least friendly to editing settings?
A simple yet misunderstood concept is an encoder is made to COMPRESS data.
The more it compresses without loosing significant data the better is the encoder.
So, judging how much an encoder can compress retaining an acceptable quality will make it clear who's better than who...

Your computer was free? I don't know where you got it, but I'd like one too! ;)
Another reason to not spend big $$$ on software...
MS Windows XP PRO Retail costs as much as a low budget computer (400€) ... I know that well since i was a MS software reseller... :P
So instead of spending 400€ on software i can buy an 400*2 -> 800€ PC with a dual core CPU and encode with linux and x264 at twice the speed and wont care about the CPU speed for decoding anymore...

BigDid

15th June 2006, 01:07

...Why has a thread about 10mbit temporary/archival encodes turned into a flamewar over which codec is best at 1mbit on its slowest and least friendly to editing settings?
What is the police doing?

Related to full moon? :D

The 1st link I gave is related to 10mb (and that's why I posted) cause I remembered it was the bitrate the tester (Meat_PoPsiclez) had choosen. :)

Did

mpgxsvcd

15th June 2006, 04:10

Let's settle this once and for all. Here is a very difficult 1440x1080 interlaced video. It is very difficult because it has a lot of moving water in it. Just download the file and encode it with whatever codec you like. Here are the resolutions and bit rates that we can compare it at. Just pick the ones you like and encode it.

1080i (1920x1080) interlaced 30 FPS 3 mb/sec, 5 mb/sec, 8 mb/sec
1080i (1440x1080) interlaced 30 FPS 3 mb/sec, 5 mb/sec, 8 mb/sec
720p (1280x720) progressive 30 FPS 2.2 mb/sec, 3 mb/sec, 5 mb/sec
720p (1280x720) preogressive 60 FPS 3 mb/sec, 5 mb/sec, 8 mb/sec
540p (960x540) progressive 30 FPS 1.8 mb/sec, 2.5 mb/sec, 3.5 mb/sec

http://frelowvideos.com/Videos/SourceShort.mpg

mpgxsvcd

15th June 2006, 04:24

Djago

15th June 2006, 07:59

Thanks to everybody for the fast reply! I'll try to harvest the usefull information (weeds grown everywhere these days ;) ), then process it and do some tests with it.

In the meantime I propose that the comparative between formats at lower bitrates be moved to another thread to be usefull to whoever need it (there are lots of people, but incidentally this is not my case right now :D ). I don't care how xvid, wmv, mpeg2 or animated gif are at 1mbps. You can have a perfect encoder at low bitrate that compress very bad at high bitrate, so, let's focus on high bitrate, can we? :sly:

With respect to the proposes so far, a later edition of the material is desirable, so I'll try the "every frame is a key" approach.

zambelli: Why do you say that editing is preferable in avi than mpeg2? AFAIK mpeg4 codecs are much unsopported in editing programs as one could NOT desire (I don't know about mjpeg though). And with respect to doing a compliant DVD, it's ruled out because of the higher bitrates possible in putting 10mpbs as an average (that's too high for the DVD's mpeg2 compilant stream as mpeg.org page says: Maximum bitrate 9.8 Mbit/sec). Anyway, I can try mpeg2 at higher bitrates and store the files "as is", if I can encode them (some encoders don't allow higher bitrates because they're programmed for DVD compilant mpeg2 only).

sharktooth: you posted somewhere else about this respect:
Originally Posted by Sharktooth
Description:
This is an EXTREMELY HIGH BITRATE matrix designed for constant quality encodings ONLY. Compressibility is "ridiculus" in comparison with other high-bitrate matrices but there is a reason...
It's application is pretty obvious: it's for backing up original material or HD material without using lossless codecs.
Two questions: what is "EXTREMELY HIGH BITRATE" in numbers? and why do you propose in "constant quality encodings ONLY"? What's the advantage of a constant versus variable for a backup scenario? (...thinking of it, I guess that "every frame is a key" is some sort of "variable quality" killer... isn't it?)

BigDid: the EHR cqm setting you mention seems a very good suggestion. I'll try later!

foxyshadis: your advice is 6of9 or UHR? or should I try both? :o

Again, thanks to all of you. I'll ask some more later :p

MrTroy

15th June 2006, 08:13

And with respect to doing a compliant DVD, it's ruled out because of the higher bitrates possible in putting 10mpbs as an average (that's too high for the DVD's mpeg2 compilant stream as mpeg.org page says: Maximum bitrate 9.8 Mbit/sec).That's incorrect, actually. The MPEG2 stream of a DVD can have a maximum bitrate of 10080 kbps. The 9.8 mbps is for video, but I presume you'll want audio on that disc too. (10080 - 9800 = 280 kbps for audio + subpictures). Some restrictive encoders may not let you encode at such a high bitrate, but most free encoders like FreeEnc will.

It seems to me like you really want that 10mbps. Why? It's not like you're going to see the difference between 9.8mbps and 10mbps, not at that resolution.

zambelli

15th June 2006, 08:24

zambelli: Why do you say that editing is preferable in avi than mpeg2?
Because most non-linear editors like Vegas, Ulead Studio and Premiere are AVI based.
AFAIK mpeg4 codecs are much unsopported in editing programs as one could NOT desire (I don't know about mjpeg though).
If you're working with something like Premiere, the codec doesn't really matter as long as the NLE can decode from it and encode to it. As long as you don't use B frames with AVI (because their implementation is highly dodgy), you ought to be fine with any codec - HuffYUV, DivX, DV, whatever. The choice of container format is way more important. Most Windows NLEs today edit either AVI or MPEG-TS natively, and even the latter is pretty rare. If you're on a Mac, you're probably stuck with QuickTime (MOV/MP4).

And with respect to doing a compliant DVD, it's ruled out because of the higher bitrates possible in putting 10mpbs as an average (that's too high for the DVD's mpeg2 compilant stream as mpeg.org page says: Maximum bitrate 9.8 Mbit/sec). Anyway, I can try mpeg2 at higher bitrates and store the files "as is", if I can encode them (some encoders don't allow higher bitrates because they're programmed for DVD compilant mpeg2 only).
Honestly, I don't think you're going to gain anything with bitrates above 9.8 Mbps, even at CBR. For SD content, especially progressive, 9.8 Mbps is enough and plenty.

Sagittaire

15th June 2006, 08:50

720x576x24bits, 25fps, interlaced... a standard broadcast PAL footage.
Speaking about that, can I use xvid and maintain interlace footage? How?

Use simply MPEG2 ... it's actually and by far the best and more simple way. You can make a superbit DVD at 9 Mbps and quality will be in practice lossless.

MrTroy

15th June 2006, 08:55

You can make a superbit DVD at 9 Mbps and quality will be in practice lossless.SuperBit is a brand name of Sony, and in practice it uses bitrates around 7mbps, nowhere near 9mbps. It's kind of a marketing ploy. In fact, independent tests revealed that sometimes the 'regular' DVD has a bitrate of only 500kbps less than the SuperBit version.

Sagittaire

15th June 2006, 09:13

SuperBit is a brand name of Sony, and in practice it uses bitrates around 7mbps, nowhere near 9mbps. It's kind of a marketing ploy. In fact, independent tests revealed that sometimes the 'regular' DVD has a bitrate of only 500kbps less than the SuperBit version.

Well average bitrate is not really the probleme here. With these "high bitrate" you must use special RC because vbv gestion is really hard. with higher average bitrate and without special vbv tweaking, buffer could be always empty and paradoxically quality in high motion scene worse. SuperBit DVD is not only DVD with higher bitrate but must be DVD with very particular RC

Sharktooth

15th June 2006, 11:40

quake74

15th June 2006, 11:48

your source is a 22 secs completely black mpeg2 file...

I just downloaded fine here. It is a 1080i short video of a wedding (I guess). I am trying a couple of sharktooth's profiles on the 540p stuff. I will let you know.

foxyshadis

15th June 2006, 11:52

That's incorrect, actually. The MPEG2 stream of a DVD can have a maximum bitrate of 10080 kbps. The 9.8 mbps is for video, but I presume you'll want audio on that disc too. (10080 - 9800 = 280 kbps for audio + subpictures). Some restrictive encoders may not let you encode at such a high bitrate, but most free encoders like FreeEnc will.

It seems to me like you really want that 10mbps. Why? It's not like you're going to see the difference between 9.8mbps and 10mbps, not at that resolution.
Pushing that is a bad idea, unless you can control the distribution. Anything over 9mbit and you start breaking more and more players; at 9.8, you probably prevent 15% of the market from playing it without stuttering or artifacts. Just ask Mug Funky. =p
A simple yet misunderstood concept is an encoder is made to COMPRESS data.
The more it compresses without loosing significant data the better is the encoder.
So, judging how much an encoder can compress retaining an acceptable quality will make it clear who's better than who...
So? If it's for playback, at 10mbit SD, the only thing that matters is speed and compatibility. You'll never notice artifacts even in mpeg-2 without stepping through frames, and any more advanced codec is indistiguishable. x264 and vc-1 ap both fail the "plays fine on any old systems" test, and even xvid requires installing codecs.

If it's for editing/re-encoding, container and compatibility is probably more important than absolute quality as long as quality is high enough, and of the free codecs specially configured xvid in avi fits (lossless is more 20mbit range), or low bitrate DV/mjpeg but quality will be noticeably worse. Having never used wmv mp or x264 for editing, I have no idea how well they work, although if configured correctly results would probably be identical to xvid.

Sharktooth

15th June 2006, 12:29

I just downloaded fine here. It is a 1080i short video of a wedding (I guess). I am trying a couple of sharktooth's profiles on the 540p stuff. I will let you know.
weird... mplayer, vlc and ffdshow were showing black frames.
i donwngraded mplayer and it played fine.
there should be something broken in the recent libavcodec.

EDIT: Something weird is going on here... i'll investigate a bit on the problem...

MrTroy

15th June 2006, 12:43

Anything over 9mbit and you start breaking more and more players; at 9.8, you probably prevent 15% of the market from playing it without stuttering or artifacts. Just ask Mug Funky. =pIt also depends on how constant the bitrate really is. If you use an encoder that generates a lot of bitrate peaks even at CBR (such as TMPGEnc), there will be a lot of stuttering because your bitrate can shoot up to as high as 13000kbps, even if your avg. br. is only 9000kbps.

Sharktooth

15th June 2006, 12:55

However here are some uncompressed test samples:
ftp://ftp.ldv.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de/dist/test_sequences/1080i/

quake74

15th June 2006, 13:09

Here are my samples for 540p encoded using hq-slower profile at 1800 2500 and 35000 kbps.

http://rapidshare.de/files/23114777/540p.zip.html

As suggested by megui, I used the following avs to deinterlace/resize

DGDecode_mpeg2source("D:\SourceShort.mpg.d2v",info=3)
ColorMatrix(hints=true)
edeintted = last.AssumeTFF().SeparateFields().SelectEven().EEDI2(field=-1)
TDeint(order=1,edeint=edeintted)
#crop
LanczosResize(960,540) # Lanczos (Sharp)
#denoise

mpgxsvcd

15th June 2006, 13:54

Microsoft guys,

540p wmv sample
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=CCD87C177DB3FC4D

OK I have 1 question. Why do the colors on this sample video look so muted. Everything looks washed out when compared to the second sample which is .MP4. I played both files on the same monitor with VLC. If the wmv file had the same blacks and color that the .MP4 has then they would be pretty close. This is my biggest compliant about wmv. You never end up with true black. Now maybe it is just that the .mp4 files are doing a conversion to RGB or something and that is why they have better blacks on an RGB monitor. However, everyone has claimed that the .mp4 files are not doing the conversion. Which is it? Is the wmv file right or is the .mp4 file right? The source was a sony HDV camcorder so it should be encoded with YV12 right?

quake74, is there anything special you did in encoding these files. Are they encoded with YV12?

540p mp4 sample
http://rapidshare.de/files/23114777/540p.zip.html

Sharktooth

15th June 2006, 13:56

pretty close to what? it's full of artifacts (expecially water), edges are smoothed and details are washed.
colors are, as you say, "muted"... AVC looks much better and BY FAR!
also i can't see the 1800kbps WMV encode...
btw, what are you talking about??!?! What RGB??? x264 accepts only yv12 and MeGUI doesnt convert anything to RGB (that's completely useless and lowers the quality), it's just WMV/VC-1 that looks like... ehrr...

quake74

15th June 2006, 14:12

quake74, is there anything special you did in encoding these files. Are they encoded with YV12?

I don't know what to answer so I will just explain what I did: downloaded the file, opened in dgindex to create the d2v file, opened that in megui and generated the avs above, used megui to compress the avs file in the different formats. That's it.

Sharktooth

15th June 2006, 14:45

Even xvid looks better than WMV/VC-1... : http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/960x540_xvid.avi

so there is really NO reason to choose the MS codec coz you can obtain better results even with the past generation codecs (MPEG-4 ASP).
VC-1 and WMV-AP are all hype and no facts (as with everything related to MS...).

sharktooth: you posted somewhere else about this respect:

Two questions: what is "EXTREMELY HIGH BITRATE" in numbers? and why do you propose in "constant quality encodings ONLY"? What's the advantage of a constant versus variable for a backup scenario? (...thinking of it, I guess that "every frame is a key" is some sort of "variable quality" killer... isn't it?)
Sorry, i missed your question. With extremely high bitrate i mean something in between the high bitrates and the lossless bitrates.
I should also replace the word "quality" with "quant"... i suggest using that mode coz predicting a filesize is almost useless at those bitrates.

foxyshadis

15th June 2006, 19:23

Did you guys ever try using levels 16,1,255 on the wmv? Wouldn't it occur to you guys, being such experts, to check the histogram? "Washed out" is always a decoder error, not encoder.

Can you at least keep the anti-wmv and anti-MS crusade to the WMP11 threads?

Didée

15th June 2006, 19:42

Yes, please. Though I agree with that "hype" thing ;) , WMV or VC-1 really isn't a bad codec. It's just not superior in any way either.

(And a big :D for teasing the "experts" ...)

On topic ... in this thread there were numerous mentionings of "but +10000 kbps isn't DVD compliant!".
Well sure. But that's not the point here. The question was "which codec is suited". Now, if the answer is "codec XYZ", and XYZ is not Mpeg-2, then the solution is not DVD compliant anyways ...
Ergo: if DVD incompliancy is allowed from the start, then so is Mpeg-2 with +10k bitrates.

Sharktooth

15th June 2006, 20:31

Mine is not an anti-MS crusade. I only said WMV9-AP/VC-1 is not good and pushing it when it's clearly not the right choice is not correct, dont you think?
You can read my first post on this thread where in response to:
Sounds like a good candidate for WMV9 Advanced profile. You don't need 10+ mb/sec though. 6-8 mb/sec is plenty.
i said:
h264 sounds even better... :p
why using inferior codecs when you have something that's free, more supported, non-proprietary (implementation) and clearly better?
It's clear i suggested a better choice and given the reasons (for the proofs look few posts above).

Djago

15th June 2006, 20:52

MrTroy:
10080kbps=9,8mbps :D
Also, the problem is that if you put as an average the maximum allowed, then it won't be the average ;), but that's beside the point, as Didée says (more on this below)

zambelli:
Ok, so AVI will be... but I'll do some testing with mpeg also just to see the differences ;). Anyway, it won't be bitrate-limited, so I think it won't be DVD compliant (I don't care :p)

Another question: at that bitrate, are all the encoders very different in terms of quality? I'm asking because I know that there is a lot of difference in speed and there shouldn't be much differences in picture quality...

Sharktooth

16th June 2006, 01:45

MrTroy:
Another question: at that bitrate, are all the encoders very different in terms of quality? I'm asking because I know that there is a lot of difference in speed and there shouldn't be much differences in picture quality...
it depends on the compressibility of the source.
however, in regards of modern codecs, that bitrate is pretty high for an "average" movie and could be well over the transparency threshold.
So, yes, in that case differences would be very small.

zambelli

16th June 2006, 02:56

Analyzing the video with the MSU Quality tool and comparing the SSIM index numbers should probably give some insight into the differences between the various codecs at such high bitrates.

Valeron

16th June 2006, 05:19

here you guys blame VC-1 too much just because it's from MS....

technically speaking, can anyone confirm WMV AP is a good enough implementation to show the protential of VC-1?

so, no comparison should never come to a conclusion that VC-1 doesn't stand a chance when face the modern codecs.

simply take a glance at WMV AP, they don't even have adaptive B frames encoder implementation....(which is a very basic feature for mature modern encoder)

how can you consider such an implementation as equivalent to VC-1?

quake74

16th June 2006, 07:32

Even xvid looks better than WMV/VC-1...

Are we sure that the wmv above is VC-1? For one, mplayer can play it, and the fourcc is wmv3 and not wvc1 or whatever it should be.

Sharktooth

16th June 2006, 12:33

@Valeron: The stickies are there for a reason...
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=111275

WMV9-AP is the MS implementation of VC-1.
Can we move on now?

Thanks.

Valeron

16th June 2006, 15:23

@Sharktooth:
imho, they don't have a good VC-1 implementation, VC-1 is not bad

that's my conclusion, i don't want to argue anymore.

bye

Sharktooth

16th June 2006, 15:33

@Valeron: I have been always quite specific in this regard. I call WMV/VC-1 or WMV9/VC-1 or WMV9-AP/VC-1 the MS implementation just to make it clear i was referring to it and not to the VC-1 standard.
So i always criticized the MS VC-1 implementation not the VC-1 standard (apart a single post where i said VC-1 and WMV9-AP are all hype and no facts... but that is ACTUALLY the truth).
You can verify that in everything i posted in this thread.
Next time please read carefully (and maybe 2 or more times).

mpgxsvcd

16th June 2006, 17:43

All right this thread has really digressed so I will attempt to bring it back on topic. The original poster just wanted to come as close to lossless as possible while coming as close to 10 mb/sec as possible. The question is what codecs are capable of this. The fact is that most new codecs can do this easily. Heck even MPG2 can get some outstanding SD results at 10 mb/sec.

Now I digress also.
As bit rates start dropping that is where the codecs start faltering. Now everyone knows that I have been a huge supporter of the wmv9 format. I have tested it every way possible and it is a good codec. However, I am starting to come to the same conclusion as “Sharktooth”. I can’t believe I just said that! Now I think I have tested the codec much more than “Sharktooth” but I think he is right when he said “However if VC-1 is able reach THIS quality (encoded by Sagittaire at 1250kbps) at the same bitrate i will admit it maybe can be a valid alternative to h.264... but that will never happen”. I have tried everything including some settings that seriously alter the video in an attempt to get the codec to look as good as that sample. I just could not get close to that quality at those bit rates. I could probably do something like 1.5 times those bit rates but 1250 kbps for 720p is just stupid. I still wonder if that file is reporting its correct size but it looks legit enough to me. I really wanted WMV9 to be competitive but I just have not been able to do it. Now this doesn’t mean that I have given up on it or that I will switch to one of the H.264 variants. Yes they provide better compression. However, wmv has some huge benefits to me. Namely the fact that you can stream it to almost every PC in the world with a simple AUTOMATIC download and it doesn’t require a super computer to decode it. However, as far as quality at a given bit rate, I think it is just not there yet. I think this advanced profile should have been released about 2 years ago. Then it would have been more in line with the other codecs at the time. Microsoft better step the codec up if they really expect people to use it. I have given it my best effort. Please let me know if you find some miracle setting that makes this codec competitive. If any of the Microsoft guys can provide a superior sample or show me what I am doing wrong then please do.

Sharktooth

16th June 2006, 18:22

What i tried to make everyone understand (even the original poster) is he can use every codec (from mpeg-2 on) to obtain the results he wants.
What i was trying to prove is he doesnt need that bitrate to obtain the results he wants coz there are codecs capable of doing it at much lower bitrates (including WMV9/VC-1, xvid, divx, x264/h.264, vp6, vp7, etc) but the best choice at this time would be h.264 due to its high efficiency and quality.

imcold

16th June 2006, 19:02

mpgxsvcd, you don't need a super pc to decode h264/avc ;) in fact, it's not much slower than mpeg4 asp decoding (10-20% ?) - and faster if you enable full post-processing (luma deblock, chroma deblock, dering) f.e. in xvid's decoder (and h264 is already deblocked too, unless in-loop filter was disabled in encoder). My old athlon 1800+ was more than good when decoding AVC clips in DVD resolution.

zambelli

16th June 2006, 23:15

Honestly, I don't think WMV9/VC-1 has actually been hyped very much, at least not on Doom9. Most of the "VC-1 vs H.264" debates were battled out over at AVSForum in the context of HD-DVD and BluRay encoding. The points generally brought up were:

1) H.264 is a more complex codec than VC-1 and can potentially achieve better compression ratios with advanced features such as CABAC.
2) Consequently, VC-1 is easier to decode than H.264 and is therefore cheaper to implement in hardware
3) Both codecs achieve similar quality (depending on implementation) at high bitrates and can achieve transparency for HD content in HD-DVD and BluRay.

Personally, I'm not "married" to either codec. I would always choose the one that's best suited for the content and delivery method. Naturally I'm better acquainted with WMV9 because I work on it every day, but I do try to use that knowledge to provide support here and not to try to sell one codec or the other.

The OP has very specific requirements in his case. I think both H.264 and VC-1 are overkill for SD content at 10 Mbps when they could both probably achieve transparency at half that bitrate. If there's plenty bitrate to spare, one might as well go with a lighter codec that's AVI friendly (for editing) and won't require a 2.0GHz machine to decode.

Djago

17th June 2006, 00:05

ok, so we are getting back to the idea that, if most codecs are similar at that bitrate, it's better to look at other benefits... If a codec like xxx needs more power to decode than yyy (at same quality), then yyy is better... If xxx is free and yyy is not, xxx is better. A good workflow is important too (I mean, some codecs can be used with some programs, that are more difficult to use, for example, try to do a multipass xvid with canopus). And so on...

Sharktooth

17th June 2006, 03:14

MPEG-2 is your friend then. It's lighter than newer codecs, more supported in editing applications and being such an "old" codec, implementations are quite good.
If you look at lower bitrates then h.264 is the choice.

Sagittaire

17th June 2006, 10:14

Isochroma

17th June 2006, 21:33

Well, I use DivX 6.2.2 with quantizer=1, insane quality, pq=9999, no gmc, no qpel, no b-frames. Right now I'm storing my latest encode: The Phatom of the Opera. Scaled it from 1280x1080 anamorphic to 1360x768 (to fit an LCD). Using above settings, the 2:21 long video uses 19.881 GB in MKV (native mode) with AC3 audio! Original MPEG-2 TS was 11.78 GB. No noise reduction or other processing besides telecide().

I used to be a big believer in Noise Reduction, but now I think noise is cool! DVD+Rs are so dirt cheap now that it is economical to keep everything. NR smears the vague parts of the image too much. Hopefully better NR algorithms will be created in the near future; particularly inspiring are recent efforts in this area such as NLmeans, frfun, and the benchmark fft3d.

Similar results could probably be achieved with x264, but it would be slower encoding and have much higher CPU usage on decoding due to the extreme bitrate.

foxyshadis

17th June 2006, 22:02

x264 wouldn't be slower than divx's insane, heh, unless you used the hardcore settings that are pointless that high, nor would decoding be slower without 8x8 and cabac. Insane is an odd setting though, since you probably double your encoding time just to save a half a gig or so; insane, like xvid's vhq, is made to work best on denoised sources. *shrug* Whatever works.

Isochroma

17th June 2006, 22:11

You're probably correct for the encoding part. However, decoding is an entirely different matter. H.264 at more than 10mbps average bitrate (not peak) would probably bring most machines to their knees. There's no point in using AVC for such high bitrates unless you're an HD broadcaster trying to cram lots of channels into a small bandwidth.

foxyshadis

18th June 2006, 04:00

Heh, ever tested? In 264, I turned off 8x8dct, deblocking, and cabac, motion search hex/4, keyint to 100; xvid keyint to 100, motion search 5/1, EHR matrix. Both are ABR 10000kbps.

x264 reference

x264.exe --bitrate 10000 --level 4.1 --keyint 100 --min-keyint 18 --ref 3 --mixed-refs --nf --no-cabac --subme 4 --analyse p8x8,b8x8,i4x4 --qpmin 15 --qpmax 40 --vbv-maxrate 25000 --threads 2 --thread-input --progress --no-dct-decimate --no-psnr --output "x264-10000k-test.mkv" "final.avs"

avisynth script

#source is 832x468 detailed animation, so end is 1664x936
addgrainc(8,1)
lanczosresize(width*2,height*2)
addgrainc(8,1)
trim(5255,5505)+trim(5855,6055)+trim(6305,6555)+ \
trim(6955,7055)+trim(7155,7305)

xvid encodes in neglegible time (avs to null ran at the same speed - 5fps - as using xvid on average) while x264 ran at 3.5fps.

My results with a null renderer:
xvid ff ~ User: 17s, kernel: 0s, total: 17s, real: 17s, fps: 55.8, dfps: 54.8
x264 ff ~ User: 21s, kernel: 0s, total: 21s, real: 21s, fps: 44.3, dfps: 43.7
x264 core ~ User: 1s, kernel: 0s, total: 1s, real: 10s, fps: 505.1, dfps: 92.9
When you add VMR9 dfps drops to 50,40,and 60 respectively.

Turning inloop on kills avc playback, as does cabac, as suspected. Surprisingly, turning on --8x8dct and i8x8 makes zero playback difference.

They look pretty much identical, though xvid might be said to hide the grain a little less... but it's hard to tell without resorting to screenshots.

I'd upload but they're 50M each and that's a lot to prove a point when it's not hard to make your own, plus I'm not sure if I'm allowed. ^^;

Didée

18th June 2006, 11:17

One question hasn't been asked yet. And since I started barking here (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=841860#post841860), we should put it:

The "Why" question.

Up to now, we now of Djago's encoding scenario:

- maximum quality at 10k bitrate (fit ~100min onto a DVD)
- "720x576x24bits, 25fps, interlaced... a standard broadcast PAL footage"

What I'm asking myself is, are you doing any more editing and/or filtering to the source, or none at all? Because,

- IF any filtering is done, then optimization in this part probably is way, WAY more important than the question of which codec to use at such high bitrates.

- If NO filtering or editing more complicated than simple cutting&splicing is done, then the answer is simple:
Then you should not use *any* codec, and should not do any rceompression, but just keep the original stream. In this case, any reencoding will only degrade quality, and the original stream already has "the best possible" quality.

Djago

21st June 2006, 03:21

The "Why" question.

Up to now, we now of Djago's encoding scenario:

- maximum quality at 10k bitrate (fit ~100min onto a DVD)

Shouln't be ~60'? :confused:

- "720x576x24bits, 25fps, interlaced... a standard broadcast PAL footage"

What I'm asking myself is, are you doing any more editing and/or filtering to the source, or none at all? Because,

- IF any filtering is done, then optimization in this part probably is way, WAY more important than the question of which codec to use at such high bitrates.

Maybe I will, maybe not. I don't know a priori. What do you mean by "optimization in this part"?

- If NO filtering or editing more complicated than simple cutting&splicing is done, then the answer is simple:
Then you should not use *any* codec, and should not do any rceompression, but just keep the original stream. In this case, any reencoding will only degrade quality, and the original stream already has "the best possible" quality.

With respect to reencoding/recompression, the point is that the premise of the topic is to fit 1 hour in a DVD-R, so compression is a MUST in this topic.
I won't debate as it's done elsewhere about the price/convenience of DV tapes (or any other media for storing). I read LOTS of places where the thread goes to hell/flame wars/off topic/so on because opinions respect to those kind of things (we can see here some examples of this). So, I prefer to sacrifice some details for the sake of results. As details are needed (really needed in order to advance) they can be stated, but this is done only when the premises aren't violated

Didée

21st June 2006, 10:31

Ooops, you were indeed talking about 60min to DVD-R, not 100min ... sorry.

But then, even more: a one-hour PAL broadcast (SD) should already fit on a DVD-R ... with lots of empty space at the end.With respect to reencoding/recompression, the point is that the premise of the topic is to fit 1 hour in a DVD-R, so compression is a MUST in this topic.
I strongly doubt your recorded broadcast is beyond 10mbps. Those SD PAL streams I grab from satellite usually are 1.5GB~2GB per hour. Currently, the SD PAL broadcast of the FIFA world cup is transmitted at 4GB per 90min.
(You surely don't want to take a 2GB broadcast and recompress it to 4.3 GB, just for fun and just to fill-up the DVD. This still will lose quality, there's nothing to gain by doing so.)

So it seems that, in contrary, compression is a NO-NO in this topic. Unless you give evidence that it should.

What do you mean by "optimization in this part"?
We already concluded that regarding visual quality, the codec hardly matters at these bitrates.
However if you decide that the source could benefit from some filtering (noise reduction, removal of compression artefacts, whatever), then it's the question how exactly to do this filtering. It surely makes no sense to perform a two-weeks encoding with the toppest-notch encoder at its insanest and slowest settings, if the encoder is fed with the output of a cheap+fast+crappy filter.

If, however, filtering is NOT needed, you could have put the darn file already 1000 times on some DVDs ...

I won't debate as [...] I read LOTS of places where the thread goes to hell/flame wars/off topic/so on because opinions respect to those kind of things
To ease you: I'm a helper, not a flamer. :)

So, I prefer to sacrifice some details for the sake of results.
Purely theoretical discussions always endanger that the discussion will run in the wrong direction. Concentrating on some isolated aspects is not good, if other aspects - perhaps being more important even - are disregarded.

What counts in the end is the result that you're getting, and how satisfied you are with it.
... And that was all of my point: I had the impression that this discussion was running away from, or at least not pointing directly to, the most important point: the maximum of quality that you, Djago, will get in the end. Simply because reaching of this goal also depends on many conditions that you did not mention so far.

foxyshadis

21st June 2006, 11:45

Yes, but I thought all this got sorted out on the first page. (Mpeg2 (dvd conformant or not), mjpeg, mpeg4 asp if adventurous.) Since then it's all been hashing out details or way off topic. I'd presume it's common sense that there's no point in re-encoding (larger!) if the filtering is going to be fast and sloppy.

If you want to find out how badly mpeg2 mangles your video, just run a normal encode through hc or quenc, with whatever settings you'd use (one pass, moderate speed, cbr 9500?). Then import it back into the avisynth, use stackhorizontal or interleave on a particularly action-y scene, and check it out. Chances are you'll end up with quite mild artifacting that won't be visible in any way on playback, so you'll have the best of both worlds: A playable, editable, and archivable video.