High Quality - Insane (yes, it IS)

[PuzZLeR]

Greetings folks, FIRST post, so please be gentle. I'm hoping some of the fine expertise located here in this famous forum can help me out.

I've been using Nero Recode and x264(AutoMKV/MeGUI) to do my AVC encoding, and so far so good, until...

Just recently I've discovered the "HighQuality - Insane" Profile on x264 and the quality is UNBELIEVABLE. I was always impressed with H.264, but even MORE so now. I can't believe how a 720x480 DVD source file can look this good, even at 900kbps!

However, at 1.4 fps, it can take a LOOOOOOOOONG time to encode (and I have D-Core).

Yes, it's a question asking for help with speed. You guessed it. And yes, I've seen similar topics about it, but they are old, and have not been useful.

Is there anything I can do to increase the speed here, with today's wares? The first pass is quick enough, it's the second pass that crawls.

Any filters, profile settings, thread inputs, etc.?

Thanks so much!

[kurt]

maybe try hq slowest profile and compare it to insane. I did that before and for my eyes the difference is neglectable.

btw: the hq slowest profile gives me 4,5 fps for standard source (704*432) on my core duo 2,0 ghz Laptop....

[Raere]

Well, the latest build of x264 supposidly increases speed by 0.3%. That'll save you...a couple of minutes maybe? :helpful:

[Audionut]

Well, the latest build of x264 supposidly increases speed by 0.3%. That'll save you...a couple of minutes maybe? :helpful:
Make that 2.3%

[PuzZLeR]

Thank you friends for your replies.

Well with a whopping 0.3-3% increase, I just may go up to a super-fast 1.45 fps! Can I say wow?

I'm currently using the latest AutoMKV 0.80 as of this writing, so I assume it's equipped with the latest x264.exe. Is it?

(Great app by the way, thanks buzzqw!)

Kurt, I gave the "High Quality - Slowest" a spin. Yes, you're right, there is no difference in quality (at least with my eyes too) and the speed is faster. But I'm only up to about 2.5 to 3 fps. Still slow, but better. Thanks though. I'll still experiment with it.

Any other ideas folks?

(It's becoming apparent more and more. The slower the encode, the better the quality. Nevertheles, this codec sure needs some hardware support, that's for sure.)

[Sagittaire]

Any other ideas folks?


Yes ... use fast preset ...

Don't forget that speed and quality are not linear values: 50% speed increasing doesn't mean 50% quality loss.

[fields_g]

Are you using 2-pass mode? I too have a pair of C2D's sitting around just wanting something to do, so I feed them the Sharktooth Insane profile, but change it to use Constant Quality with a value of 18. If needed, I also add a noise filter.

CQ allows for 1 pass and the file size to vary depending on need. This can be done with all the presets though, so go "less insane" if still not fast enough.

[PuzZLeR]

Appreciate the input. I at least have something to tinker with and hopefully I can report back with some better results.

I find what slows down encoding in the Insane profile is the NBRefFrames, which uses the maximum allowable value of 16 (I'm assuming it means multiple reference frames).

I'm finding out that even Sharktooth, the profile writer, admitted overkill and and akupenguin, an x264 author, mentioned some compatibility issues with mixed frames.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=118158

Sagittaire:

Yes, the rate of increase in speed is not as fast as the rate of decline in quality, which is great news. I will experiment to find a "sweet spot". When you mention "fast preset" I'm assuming you meant adjust the Turbo to "true" in the profile? (Sorry for my newbie-itus.)

fields_g:
Yes, I adore using two pass, and the one pass quality modes won't really help much since my first pass is usually at decent speed anyway. It's the second pass that is insanely slow.

However, I have been experimenting with it though. I find 18 is too low. I know that file size is unpredictable, but can anyone recommend a quantizer that tends to flirt closer to the 900-1000kbps range than most?

And I think you meant less insane by lowering the multiple ref frames value. It looks like that will be necessary.

Thanks alot my friends.

[DarkZell666]

However, I have been experimenting with it though. I find 18 is too low. I know that file size is unpredictable, but can anyone recommend a quantizer that tends to flirt closer to the 900-1000kbps range than most?
That sentence doesn't make too much sense because it depends on your source. But still, try the derivated average bitrate (DABR) "technique" discussed here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=116773

tyee's latest GUI doesn't work for me, and I deleted the last working one I had inavertedly, so unless someone has kept a working version, you'll have to use DDog's spreadsheets :)

[PuzZLeR]

That sentence doesn't make too much sense because it depends on your source.

Oh, I knew well enough when I typed it that it was not going to be a clear cut question. LOL. I was hoping for maybe an approximation.

Yes, I saw that link. Very brilliant and well done. Reminds me of graduate school. But you got me to examine it with a new purpose now.

Thanks.

[Sagittaire]

Yes, the rate of increase in speed is not as fast as the rate of decline in quality, which is great news. I will experiment to find a "sweet spot". When you mention "fast preset" I'm assuming you meant adjust the Turbo to "true" in the profile? (Sorry for my newbie-itus.)


No, find and use your best quality/speed "profil" ...

Here good quality/speed profil for DVD resolution.

x264.exe --bframe 3 --b-pyramid --bime --weightb --ref 1 --mixed-refs --direct auto --deblock -1:-1 --bitrate 896 --pass 1 --stats "x264_stat.log" --qcomp 0.75 --keyint 250 --ipratio 1.25 --pbratio 1.30 --partitions "all" --8x8dct --me "hex" --subme 5 --progress -o NUL Encodage.avs
x264.exe --bframe 3 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --ref 5 --mixed-refs --direct auto --deblock -1:-1 --bitrate 896 --pass 2 --stats "x264_stat.log" --qcomp 0.75 --keyint 250 --ipratio 1.25 --pbratio 1.30 --partitions "all" --8x8dct --me "hex" --subme 6 --trellis 1 --progress -o x264HP-900.mp4 Encodage.avs

[delacroixp]

Oh, I knew well enough when I typed it that it was not going to be a clear cut question. LOL. I was hoping for maybe an approximation.

I guess that's the joy of CQ-CRF... it automatically adjusts for movies with different resolutions and detail (eg cartoons)... if Q18 is too low... try Q20...

Then compare the same filesize to an equivalent 2-pass or possibly, even an 'Insane' encode and see if you can spot the difference... if not, you're wasting your time and even your computer-time could be spent more productively. Alternatively, you'll have to attend 'Movie Appreciation 101'... it's a bit like trying to appreciate a really good wine... or possibly, caviar... not everyone's a natural.

If you're still set on 2-pass or even 'Insane'... try one of the new quad-core... or multi quad-core systems...
Actually, even a spot of extra cooling and overclocking can go a long way...


:):D:eek:
Pascal


BTW
There is another alternative... If you still want Q18 quality, downsize.
640 x ??? is quite acceptable and nicely scalable on a 1280x1024 19-20 inch computer monitor.
512 x ??? probably works fine on a 1024x768 or 15 inch monitor... while
320 x ??? is pretty standard on cellphones and mini movie players so it's probably got a lot to do with your distance-to-screensize ratio or even your distance-to-dpi (dots per inch) ratio...

I try to avoid downsizing on Mpeg-2 or anamorphic material and the MKV container will mux anamorphic movies even after wierd-cropping so that the DAR remains the same... For eg, you can encode a 720x576 (16:9 DAR) movie at this resolution and then playback at 1024x576 display resolution...
Even if you crop it downto 704x576, MKV will still display the movie correctly without any resizing before encoding... and so save on filesize and bitrate.