Software To Encode Blu Ray Files

[zerohash]

Hi,

I want to purchase a pro level software encoder to author Blu Ray movies. Some have advice me Cinemacraft and some Pixeltools and few Net Blender. Please advice me which one should i go for and which one is the best. Just wanted to know if there is any or much of a difference between these 3.
It will be a great help.

Zerohash.

[shon3i]

Why you want to buy "pro" encoder, why not first give chance to free x264 encoder?Because is fully blu-ray compatible, can encode superb quality.

[zerohash]

I want a pro level encoder because i will be encoding movies which are going for replication and are to be released in commercial market and also we need the best to compete with our competitors too.

[aegisofrime]

What makes you think x264 isn't pro level?

[kieranrk]

I want a pro level encoder because i will be encoding movies which are going for replication and are to be released in commercial market and also we need the best to compete with our competitors too.

x264 is the best encoder. It has been approved for use by Criterion Collection (which sponsored x264's compliance testing) and by GDMX, a Warner Bros subsidiary.

There are replicated discs in production as I type this.

See my signature for more information.

[shon3i]

I want a pro level encoder because i will be encoding movies which are going for replication and are to be released in commercial market and also we need the best to compete with our competitors too.
You definitely want to use x264 if you want to beat competitors. There is no other encoder can do that.

[zerohash]

Thanking you all for your replies and help. Was wondering why do people pay 14K + USD for Cinemacraft or 4K +USD to Pixeltools when x264 is available for free. Please let me know your views. Thanks.

[nm]

Thanking you all for your replies and help. Was wondering why do people pay 14K + USD for Cinemacraft or 4K +USD to Pixeltools when x264 is available for free. Please let me know your views. Thanks.

Because they think like you did when you started this thread.

[nurbs]

Because people think stuff that costs a lot of money is better. That's why there is a market for 100€ HDMI cables (1m).

[aegisofrime]

Because people think stuff that costs a lot of money is better. That's why there is a market for 100€ HDMI cables (1m).

Agreed.

Software Engineer: Sir, I think we should use x264. It's the best encoder and it's free!

Big Boss: It's free? Nothing that's good is free! No way! We are going to pay millions for <insert commercial software> and that's the end of it!

[shon3i]

Ok, there is some weaknesses in x264 that makes CCE-HD better for blu-ray authoring (eg. fades can be problem even on very high bitrate), but again after we compare that maybe not ugly fades and cost of CCE :) x264 is absolutely winner.

[poisondeathray]

The other potential weakness is no segment re-encoding

[mp3dom]

In general the word 'best' in this forum is not allowed but is permitted only for x264 :D

Trying to stay as objective as possible, there's really no 'best' because every encoder (pro or not) have its strengths and weak points.
Some encoders performs better with particular footage, some others works better with lower bitrate, other gives more fidelity at higher bitrates and so on. This excluding that some encoders have more speed than others or offers more features than others.

The decision is up to you but consider that, actually, there isn't one only encoder that output the 'best' quality in every possible field (or, if it exists, I've not tested it yet).

Here the people thinks that I'm against x264, but indeed I've replicated BDs using x264 so I'm really no fan of a specific encoder, but rather I'm choosing every time the one that gave me the best output quality.

I would only suggest to stay away from CineVision. In general the output quality is lower than the output quality of other pro-encoders.

Good luck.

[zerohash]

Is it Cinevision or Cinemacraft?

[laserfan]

You need an authoring tool, as well as an encoder. The only "pro grade" authoring tool that I've been exposed to is Sony Vegas Pro w/DVD Architect, and I know it doesn't like some settings of x264. What do folks here see as the top-of-the-line BD authoring (menu-making) software today?

[poisondeathray]

What do folks here see as the top-of-the-line BD authoring (menu-making) software today?

Scenarist , with a top of the line price as well. Perhaps Blu-print

[kieranrk]

Scenarist , with a top of the line price as well. Perhaps Blu-print

Netblender Do Studio as well.

[mp3dom]

Actually the most expansive BD authoring tool is Blu-Print (50.000$) which use abstraction layer. Scenarist was priced-down at the beginning of the year. Now Scenarist BD Pro + Scenarist QC (the bluray emulator for checking what's been compiled) + Lemony Pro (subtitles software) is priced at about 20.000$ (probably less). There are also DoStudio (abstraction layer too) and Kaleidoscope at the pro level.

[kolak]

The other potential weakness is no segment re-encoding

And speed :(

[Dark Shikari]

And speed :(Why, is x264 too fast for you? Would you rather have something slower?

[kolak]

The other potential weakness is no segment re-encoding

And speed and tweaking possibility and reviewing encoded video and lack of support for 10bit feed- maybe this can be done?
Also "proper" support is missing and no one to blame when there is something wrong with encode on replicated disc :)

Also as mp3dom said- some encoders works better than others on certain source types. I use 3 and not always the same :)

Still x264 is good to start with, because won't cost you a penny! You may like it and stay with it.

Andrew

[kolak]

Actually the most expansive BD authoring tool is Blu-Print (50.000$) which use abstraction layer. Scenarist was priced-down at the beginning of the year. Now Scenarist BD Pro + Scenarist QC (the bluray emulator for checking what's been compiled) + Lemony Pro (subtitles software) is priced at about 20.000$ (probably less). There are also DoStudio (abstraction layer too) and Kaleidoscope at the pro level.

Where did you get this price from for Scenarist BD?
It's more like price for Studio version not PRO.


Andrew

[Dark Shikari]

And speed and tweaking possibility and reviewing encoded video and lack of support for 10bit feedx264 supports 10-bit input just fine. And seriously, "lack of tweaking" for an encoder with more options than every single pro encoder combined? Complaining about speed for the fastest software encoder in the world? Is this some kind of troll?

Seriously, criticize x264 for its actual problems, not its strengths! :rolleyes:

[kolak]

x264 supports 10-bit input just fine. And seriously, "lack of tweaking" for an encoder with more options than every single pro encoder combined? Is this some kind of troll?

Good :)

but what about conversion to 8bit, where is it happening?
I want to feed 10bit through some dithering filter and than (as 8bit) to x264.
Is this possible with avisynth?

I encode with Cinemacraft at 1.5 faster than RT at full quality for 24p. x264 is 2-3 times slower than RT to get the same quality on the same machine.

Thanks,
Andrew

[Dark Shikari]

Good :)

but what about conversion to 8bit, where is it happening?It happens at the end of x264's filter chain. Whatever bit depth you currently have is dithered down (or up) to whatever your x264 build's bit depth is.

For example:

10-bit input (v210) -> dither to 8-bit -> libx264
or
16-bit input (libavcodec) -> dither to 8-bit -> libx264

I want to feed 10bit through some dithering filter and than (as 8bit) to x264.
Is this possible with avisynth? Avisynth doesn't support 10-bit, so no.

I encode with Cinemacraft at 1.5 faster than RT at full quality for 24p. x264 is 2-3 times slower than RT to get the same quality.It's not my fault if you insist on using extremely slow encoding settings. I can get 1.5x faster than realtime for 1080p with quite reasonable quality, and my CPU is terrible.

[kolak]

It happens at the end of x264's filter chain. Whatever bit depth you currently have is dithered down (or up) to whatever your x264 build's bit depth is.

For example:

10-bit input (v210) -> dither to 8-bit -> libx264
or
16-bit input (libavcodec) -> dither to 8-bit -> libx264

Avisynth doesn't support 10-bit, so no.

It's not my fault if you insist on using extremely slow encoding settings. I can get 1.5x faster than realtime for 1080p with quite reasonable quality, and my CPU is terrible.

Read it properly :)
I said- to get the same quality on the same machine.
Going down with settings quickly takes quality down.
Some encodes are extreamly close to the source with PSNR about 50dB.

As I said some time ago: encoding for BD is not the same as encoding for web.

I would love to see a product based on x264- with proper GUI, review, input filters etc. Pieces are there, but someone needs to create a product. Quality is the main thing, but still not everything in typical authoring workflow.


Andrew

[Dark Shikari]

Read it properly :)
I said- to get the same quality on the same machine.
Going down with settings quickly takes quality down.
Some encodes are extreamly close to the source with PSNR about 50dB.If you're claiming to measure "quality" with PSNR, you have no idea what you're doing to begin with.

Also, if you want a real all-in-one Blu-ray tool made using x264... there is one currently being made :) But I can't give more info than that.

[kolak]

If you're claiming to measure "quality" with PSNR, you have no idea what you're doing to begin with.

I measure it with my eye frame by frame- PSNR is for your information.

Cinemacraft does not show PSNR (neither Blu-code), but allows you in very friendly way compare whole encode to the source (or filtered file) frame by frame and it will output this over HD-SDI to properly calibrated monitor (if you wish).

Can't wait for this tool :)

btw...have you seen this:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=157702

some new method for very low bitrate encoding for web and mobile devices.


Andrew

[mp3dom]

Whatever bit depth you currently have is dithered down (or up) to whatever your x264 build's bit depth is.
Do you know which kind of dithering is applied? Noise shaping, random number, roundings etc? Thanks.

[kolak]

Do you know which kind of dithering is applied? Noise shaping, random number, roundings etc? Thanks.

Yes- I also would like to know.


Andrew

[Dark Shikari]

Do you know which kind of dithering is applied? Noise shaping, random number, roundings etc? Thanks.x264 uses a variant on Sierra-2-4A error diffusion, a faster alternative to Floyd-Steinberg error diffusion. x264's implementation is explicitly designed such that if the input is upscaled within x264 to a higher bit depth, then downscaled using error diffusion, the result will be losslessly identical to the input.

[Blue_MiSfit]

Hi kolak:

Any chance you could provide some samples from Cinemacraft? I'd love to see how it compares to x264.

Derek

[kolak]

Hi kolak:

Any chance you could provide some samples from Cinemacraft? I'd love to see how it compares to x264.

Derek

Sample of what?
Any file?

Andrew

[kolak]

x264 uses a variant on Sierra-2-4A error diffusion, a faster alternative to Floyd-Steinberg error diffusion. x264's implementation is explicitly designed such that if the input is upscaled within x264 to a higher bit depth, then downscaled using error diffusion, the result will be losslessly identical to the input.

Sounds good.
Smooth CGI is very difficult to encode.

Andrew

[Blue_MiSfit]

Maybe crowdrun, parkjoy, some other easily available, challenging uncompressed sequence.

Derek

[kolak]

Maybe crowdrun, parkjoy, some other easily available, challenging uncompressed sequence.

Derek

Probably x264 is going be better for these sources, due to its better compressibility possibilities.
These sources are not representative- better to have 5min from some film source or join many available short samples (with different picture nature) into one bigger source and use this as a source.


Andre

[Dark Shikari]

Probably x264 is going be better for these sources, due to its better compressibility possibilities.
These sources are not representative- better to have 5min from some film source or join many available short samples (with different picture nature) into one bigger source and use this as a source.All of those are film sources, and there's a wide variety of them, all short samples. :rolleyes:

[Blue_MiSfit]

I can probably create test files from an HDCAM-SR tape if need be...

Otherwise yes I think many of the EBU samples concatenated would be interesting.

[kolak]

All of those are film sources, and there's a wide variety of them, all short samples. :rolleyes:

Yes, but short and very specific. The best is to join different once.
10sec sample of a same scene wont let you see bitrate allocation for example.

Andrew

[Dark Shikari]

Yes, but short and very specific. The best is to join different once.
10sec sample of a same scene wont let you see bitrate allocation for example.

AndrewSolution: cat a ton of them together, silly! :D

[Eric69]

I want a pro level encoder because i will be encoding movies which are going for replication and are to be released in commercial market and also we need the best to compete with our competitors too.

On top of trying x264, Id consider using Do Studio for your authoring. Its an abstraction layer tool but it is BD-J and uses 32bit graphics. It has some bugs but I dont think you'd be interested in customized BD-J development.

I only do HDMV title myself but have had some clients recently ask me why my graphics aren't as "clean" as another title done with Do Studio. I tried to explain why but it went over their heads. I just might need to dump Scenarist HDMV for Do Studio to compete? Who knows?

[kolak]

Solution: cat a ton of them together, silly! :D

No- solution is described in post 36 :D

Andrew

[Dark Shikari]

No- solution is described in post 36 :D

AndrewEr, so you're going to take a lossy Blu-ray film source and compress it again? That's no "solution", that's stupid. Use a lossless film source, like the Fairytale samples.

[kolak]

Er, so you're going to take a lossy Blu-ray film source and compress it again? That's no "solution", that's stupid. Use a lossless film source, like the Fairytale samples.

No- it's about joining many short clips. Where does it say about some Blu-ray source?


Andrew

[Dark Shikari]

No- it's about joining many short clips. Where does it say about some Blu-ray source?


AndrewYou said you weren't going to use the lossless source, but rather you were going to assemble some clips from some other (probably lossy, since Blu-rays are lossy) film source.

Or, if you're testing using a lossless film source that isn't public, you'll test using a source that we can't use, and thus we can't compare anything to your results.

[kolak]

You said you weren't going to use the lossless source, but rather you were going to assemble some clips from some other (probably lossy, since Blu-rays are lossy) film source.

Or, if you're testing using a lossless film source that isn't public, you'll test using a source that we can't use, and thus we can't compare anything to your results.

I don't knwo how you read my posts-others seams to have no problems.

I said that one short clisp is not good- best is to join many. It was about publicly available ones.

Never mentioned any lossy, or BD source- it's all your assumption.

Andrew

[nm]

I don't knwo how you read my posts-others seams to have no problems.

I'm having difficulty.

I said that one short clisp is not good- best is to join many. It was about publicly available ones.

Um, that's what DS has been saying as well?!

Never mentioned any lossy, or BD source- it's all your assumption.

Yes, because you were arguing against him.

[kolak]

Um, that's what DS has been saying as well?!


Yes, because you were arguing against him.

No comments :)


Andrew

[jethro]

The idea that there may be a better encoder than x264, for specific purpose (i.e. BD) at that, is like blasphemy for some users on this board and users claiming that are ridiculed.
If we get to see sample encodings, then we could judge - this is called evidence.

Solution: cat a ton of them together, silly! :D
No- solution is described in post 36 :D

Andrew

'cat' in geekspeak means concatenate, so D_S is saying the same thing here.

[kolak]

The idea that there may be a better encoder than x264, for specific purpose (i.e. BD) at that, is like blasphemy for some users on this board and users claiming that are ridiculed.
If we get to see sample encodings, then we could judge - this is called evidence.



'cat' in geekspeak means concatenate, so D_S is saying the same thing here.

DS repeated few times tha same what I have said :)