x264 progress since 2005-05-03

[Audionut]

I got bored and thought i'd see what progress has been made.

2005-05-03


Basically the first build with configure

x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --progress

fps 11.51 bitrate 2999.6 psnr avg 45.21 psnr global 44.10


[code]x264 -p2 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --progress

fps 12.69 bitrate 3007.0 psnr avg 45.99 psnr global 45.59 size 39,209,448 bytes


From here I grabbed a build every 12 months and used a slightly different command line.
2005-09-20 Snapshot (http://git.videolan.org/?p=x264.git;a=snapshot;h=690a02b1c9132bfecc88068de757e6b0e5ef7b84;sf=tgz)



x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --8x8dct --threads 3 --progress

fps 15.49 bitrate 3087.1 psnr avg 45.96 psnr global 45.53


[code]x264 -p2 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --8x8dct --threads 3 --progress

fps 17.20 bitrate 3007.0 psnr avg 46.00 psnr global 45.70 size 39,264,011 bytes


2006-09-22 Snapshot (http://git.videolan.org/?p=x264.git;a=snapshot;h=7bfc7360d713aa651b71691a9fb85f34104573e4;sf=tgz)



x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --8x8dct --threads 3 --progress

fps 20.11 bitrate 3065.41 psnr avg 46.031 psnr global 45.604 ssim 0.9866237


[code]x264 -p2 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --8x8dct --threads 3 --progress

fps 22.50 bitrate 3005.40 psnr avg 46.086 psnr global 45.801 ssim 0.9868645 size 39,251,104 bytes

2007-09-21 Snapshot (http://git.videolan.org/?p=x264.git;a=snapshot;h=5c49545c0277a8da1c29809118a734c461116c54;sf=tgz)



[code]x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --8x8dct --threads 3 --progress

fps 30.62 bitrate 3062.99 psnr avg 46.067 psnr global 45.632 ssim 0.9867144


[code]x264 -p2 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --8x8dct --threads 3 --progress

fps 33.19 bitrate 3006.82 psnr avg 46.129 psnr global 45.849 ssim 0.9869905 size 39,244,564 bytes



2008-09-22 Snapshot (http://git.videolan.org/?p=x264.git;a=snapshot;h=24961b015bed5dcda178e683a9f46a4945dc4fe3;sf=tgz)



[code]x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --8x8dct --threads 3 --aq-mode 0 --progress

fps 39.82 bitrate 3057.87 psnr avg 46.068 psnr global 45.629 ssim 0.9866864


[code]x264 -p2 -B 3000 -b3 -m5 --ref 3 --weightb --8x8dct --threads 3 --aq-mode 0 --progress

fps 43.07 bitrate 3009.90 psnr avg 46.134 psnr global 45.854 ssim 0.9849855 size 39,284,796 bytes


Conclusion: Very nice. The last few years have brought an extra 10 fps each year with an increase in quality regarding metrics. I included files from the last two years as ssim has dropped a little this year.

I currently get about 10fps on my dual-core with my settings.
If I glaze through the looking glass at 12 months time, I see, a hardware upgrade, I've held off on quad-core for the core i7.

With that and the hopefully usual fps increase I should be hitting about 30fps. Woot.

[Audionut]

Then I thought I would try to enable all the fancy features as they became available.

2005-09-20

x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 --b-pyramid -r3 -A all -w --me esa -m6 -8 --threads 3 --frames 1000

fps 2.88 bitrate 3212.2 psnr avg 46.56 psnr global 46.17


2006-09-22

x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 --b-pyramid -r3 -A all --direct auto -w --b-rdo --me esa -m7 --mixed-refs --bime -8 -t2 --threads 3 --thread-input --frames 1000

fps 3.28 bitrate 3230.92 psnr avg 46.822 psnr global 46.455 ssim 0.9874579


2007-09-21

x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 --b-pyramid -r3 -A all --direct auto -w --b-rdo --me esa -m7 --mixed-refs --bime -8 -t2 --threads 3 --thread-input --frames 1000

fps 4.37 bitrate 3198.10 psnr avg 46.926 psnr global 46.541 ssim 0.9878487


2008-09-22

x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 --b-adapt 2 --b-pyramid -r3 -A all --direct auto -w --b-rdo --me tesa -m7 --psy-rd 1.0:1.0 --mixed-refs --bime -8 -t2 --threads 3 --thread-input --frames 1000

fps 5.52 bitrate 3020.05 psnr avg 44.977 psnr global 44.436 ssim 0.9841742

Conclusion: Slower settings yet more speed. I included this and last years files as with AQ and psy-rd you can't trust metrics.

[Audionut]

2005-09-20

x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 --b-pyramid -r3 -A all -w --me esa -m6 -8 --threads 3 --frames 1000

fps 2.88 bitrate 3212.2 psnr avg 46.56 psnr global 46.17


2008-09-22

x264 -p1 -B 3000 -b3 --b-pyramid -r3 -A all -w --me esa -m6 -8 --threads 3 --aq-mode 0 --psy-rd 0.0:0.0 --frames 1000

fps 14.89 bitrate 3189.88 psnr avg 46.657 psnr global 46.266

5.17 times faster. So in 12 months time that becomes 25.65fps. In three years that's 76.98fps.

[Inventive Software]

Development will slow exponentially though, so I reckon it's safe to assume a 2x increase. ;)

[Avenger007]

Maybe it's a good time to have another Doom9 codec shoot-out.
The last one was in 2005 http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-final-105-1.htm

[ZombiePimp]

Maybe it's a good time to have another Doom9 codec shoot-out.
The last one was in 2005 http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-final-105-1.htm

I agree!

[click2]

Maybe it's a good time to have another Doom9 codec shoot-out.
The last one was in 2005 http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/codecs-final-105-1.htm

There's Dark_Shikari's codec comparison from July 08 (http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare.html) which was conducted once psyRDO was implemented(?). It compares x264, Elecard HD, and Nero Recode for H.264, as well as the same source with Xvid, DivX, VC-1, VP7, and HCEnc.

[Dark Shikari]

There's Dark_Shikari's codec comparison from July 08 (http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare.html) which was conducted once psyRDO was implemented(?). It compares x264, Elecard HD, and Nero Recode for H.264, as well as the same source with Xvid, DivX, VC-1, VP7, and HCEnc.Things have improved considerably since then, so I really should redo the test. And this time, I'd add a few others, like Ateme.

[Avenger007]

There's Dark_Shikari's codec comparison from July 08 (http://mirror05.x264.nl/Dark/website/compare.html) which was conducted once psyRDO was implemented(?). It compares x264, Elecard HD, and Nero Recode for H.264, as well as the same source with Xvid, DivX, VC-1, VP7, and HCEnc.
I'm not sure if you can really call that a shoot-out. I was hoping for something much more detailed and transparent; something along the lines of the Fourth Annual MSU MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codec Comparison (http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/mpeg-4_avc_h264_2007_en.html).

The Doom9 2005 codec shoot-out has been referenced all over the web. A new shoot-out should be thorough, transparent and as detailed as possible.

[Dark Shikari]

I'm not sure if you can really call that a shoot-out. I was hoping for something much more detailed and transparent; something along the lines of the Fourth Annual MSU MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 Video Codec Comparison (http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/mpeg-4_avc_h264_2007_en.html).

The Doom9 2005 codec shoot-out has been referenced all over the web. A new shoot-out should be thorough, transparent and as detailed as possible.Yes, I didn't intend for it to be Doom9-level quality; if I wanted to do that I most definitely could though, it would just take more work. The main annoyance is that I like having tons and tons of encoders on comparisons, not just two or three of the best, and that really increases the workload of doing a comparison.

[Avenger007]

Having a new Doom9 codec shoot-out would act as a new benchmark. So the new benchmark can be referenced when having "tons and tons of encoders on comparisons", which can always be appended separately.

[IgorC]

Things have improved considerably since then, so I really should redo the test. And this time, I'd add a few others, like Ateme.
I think it will be more interesting (competitive) since there are only two H.264 encoders wich have good psy implementation: Ateme and x264.
What version of Ateme encoder do you have? I saw Ateme got a new generation encoder. Old one can't be on par with current psy implementation of x264 but still not bad.

[Dark Shikari]

I think it will be more interesting (competitive) since there are only two H.264 encoders wich have good psy implementation: Ateme and x264.
What version of Ateme encoder do you have? I saw Ateme got a new generation encoder. Old one can't be on par with current psy implementation of x264 but still not bad.The version I have access to is the July 2007 core.

Overall, I'd say its pretty decent, but falls into a lot of the same traps as many of the other encoders. Its significantly better than Mainconcept though.

[bob0r]

Fact remains, thousands of happy x264 users and more coming every day. The x264 developers are doing a great job, I thank them all!

[komarovsky]

Fact remains, thousands of happy x264 users and more coming every day. The x264 developers are doing a great job, I thank them all!

:goodpost:

i do too, they're great :)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Fact remains, thousands of happy x264 users and more coming every day. The x264 developers are doing a great job, I thank them all!

No doubt on that :cool:

A detailed codec shoot-out would be very interesting anyway. And maybe it could help to make x264 even more popular and/or reveal parts that still have room for improvement...