is AVC really that good?

[Sharktooth]

Ok, i did a small test on the usual spiderman 2 trailer.
Encoding was done thru: AVS + recode and AVS + virtualdubmod.
The AVS script is 3 lines long:
# VIDEO SOURCE
Mpeg2Source("sp2tr.d2v", idct=2)

# CROPPING
Crop(0,14,720,548)

# RESIZING
LanczosResize(720,384)
Codec settings:

AVC maximum definition profile:
2 passes, everything (including chroma optimization) enabled. Reference frames set to 5 (old default), GOP size set to 250 (25fps...), vector range set to -256/+256, bframes set to 1 (default) and inloop deblocking set to deblocking strenght = 1.

VP6.4.2 heightened sharpness profile:
default settings except sharpness 8.
(dowload the codec here: http://ebola.gamersrevolt.it/vp6/VP6.4.2.rar and ensure the post processing is set to best quality. A large advantage VP6 has over other codecs is it's postprocessing and the ability to reconstruct the lost data during playback. so postprocessing should be always activated.)

bitrate is about 900kbit for both codecs. Download the clips and post your impressions.

Clip1: Nerodigital (http://www.aziendeassociate.com/sp2.tr.Nero.AVC.mp4) (updated - again - and again...)
Clip2: VP6.4.2 (http://ebola.gamersrevolt.it/temp/sp2.tr.VP6.4.2.avi)
Clip3: x.264 (http://www.aziendeassociate.com/sp2.tr.x.264.avi) (updated to rev. 111)
Clip4: x.264 no b-frames (http://www.aziendeassociate.com/sp2.tr.x.264.noB.avi)
Clip5: Xvid 1.1b1 (http://www.aziendeassociate.com/sp2.tr.xvid.1.1.b1.avi)
Clip6: Xvid 1.1EDP (http://www.aziendeassociate.com/sp2.tr.xvid.1.1.edp.avi)
Clip7: NeroDigital (unreleased encoder) (http://www.aziendeassociate.com/sp2.tr.b3.dbl2_johnv.mp4)

Edit: The ND clip was encoded several times and it seems B-Frames were generating blocks everywhere. 1 b-frame encode was the best result i could obtain (without disabling b-frames...).

Edit2: x.264 clip was added. Settings are default except 1-bframe, 5 reference, deblocking 1/1, no fast first pass and of course 2-passes @ 907 kbits. x.264 w/out b-frames was also added (thanks len0x)

Edit3: Added a xvid and a xvid EDP encode (thanks cruncher) at the same bitrate of 907kbps.

Edit4: Added a new nero digital clip encoded by JohnV with the newest nerodigital filters, deblocking st = -2, 3 b-frames and all encoder options activated.

[Leo 69]

Originally posted by Sharktooth


ensure the post processing is set to best quality. A large advantage VP6 has over other codecs is it's postprocessing and the ability to reconstruct the lost data during playback. so postprocessing should be always activated.)



This is already not fair , mate. :D We'd better test the raw encoder perfomance,without any decoder postprocessing.Although I'm very sad I can't download your clips because of my slow modem :(

[JohnV]

My very subjective personal opinion (as you can guess.. :D). ND AVC has a bit more blocking (which can be fixed with different inloop settings), but looks much more detailed and sharper than VP 6.4.2.
Of course my opinion doesn't count, but anyway.. :)

[Sirber]

VP6 strength is mostly based on it's postprocessing filter. You should always have it on.

[G-Slide]

i prefer AVC

[Sharktooth]

AVC is "generally" more detailed but there are artifacts everywhere...
Ok, what settings you suggest for deblocking?

@ Leo69: so VP6 has no B-Frames and no inloop deblocking etc... should i disable those in AVC? Your comment has no sense at all. VP6 relays on PP since it is part of the codec... It is a COder-DECoder...

[Leo 69]

In my opinion, AVC is a fantastic codec.It does miracles, really.
For the last week I've encoded the three(!) parts of Lord of the Rings onto 1(!) CD(700mb).That's over 9 hours of video & audio (HE AAC @ 32kbps).No other codec is capable of what the AVC has done for me
:cool: This is pretty amazing ! Check out the short clip which shows the OVERALL quality of those encodes.I'm VERY delighted with the result.He-he:D It's a good fun to compress the video so much.

Check it out,it's only @ 130kbps :p

http://cp.people.overclockers.ru/cgi-bin/dl.pl?id=4585&filename=X264.rar

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
AVC is "generally" more detailed but there are artifacts everywhere...
Ok, what settings you suggest for deblocking? But VP 6.4.2 looks very "post-prosessed" and has unstable grainyness.

For AVC, try deblocking 3-4 for this for example, especially if you use that much post-processing for VP6.4.2, then give AVC inloop also more strength.. Maybe automatic smooth is good also, but if you prefer that much post prosessing for VP, then use higher fixed deblocking here for AVC.

[Sharktooth]

It's how vp6 works. PP is adaptive.
I already tried with auto smooth... no good...
Trying with deblocking strength = 4.

[Leo 69]

@ Leo69: so VP6 has no B-Frames and no inloop deblocking etc... should i disable those in AVC? Your comment has no sense at all. VP6 relays on PP since it is part of the codec... It is a COder-DECoder...
Sharktooth
Well maybe it makes no sense.But I never rely on decoder personally.
Xvid is too COder-DECoder,but I prefer not to use postprocessing in it
because,well, it seems to be unfair to me, I don't know why.VP6 doesn't impress me either.What impresses me much is AVC :rolleyes:

[Sharktooth]

ok, let's explain a couple of things:
PP in xvid removes details by removing blocks and ringing effects... PP in VP6 adds quality reconstructing missing data, removing blocks and ringing effects.
Even if AVC has some more details than VP6, what i hate are visible artifacts and AVC clip is full of them...
I'm re-encoding the AVC clip with more deblocking strength to see if it gets better.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
Is AVC really that good? I think so... But it's important to remember that it's very early days for AVC ;)


Cheers

[yaz]

what if full auto pp would be used also in nero decoder ? :-)
anyway, i haven't found vp6 so impressive, but w/pp it's a bit better. however pp-ing the avc in ffdshow gave much better output too. who can tell this ? :-))
the bests
y

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
ok, let's explain a couple of things:
PP in xvid removes details by removing blocks and ringing effects... PP in VP6 adds quality reconstructing missing data, removing blocks and ringing effects.
Even if AVC has some more details than VP6, what i hate are visible artifacts and AVC clip is full of them...
What is an artifact exactly.. Blocking, ringing etc only? Or is generally degraded quality low detailed unstable picture as here in VP's case (in my opinion) not "artifacted" in your opinion? Maybe you just notice the artifacts easier with AVC..?
You should probably use the maximum deblocking for AVC if you prefer VP video here..

[Sharktooth]

well, i didn't say i prefer the VP6 video.
I already said AVC has more details, but what's the cost of those details?
Is AVC really that good at keeping picture quality or some compromises are needed at certain "levels"?
We already saw AVC is not able to reproduce film grain (like xvid for example) even at high bitrates.
Now i'm looking again at the two encodes on my TV (low def) and i can see the same details in both encodes but i see blocks in AVC...
If i rise the deblocking filter AVC looses details and VP6 looks better...

Edit: at deblocking strength = 4 there are still blocks everywhere... trying with maximum deblocking strength. But at 4 facial details were already lost...

[temporance]

For the record, I'm with Sharktooth here. My experience is that ASP and AVC really are not very different in terms of quality/bitrate performance. I would agree though, that each has its own distinctive flavor.

People who think AVC is so much better than ASP, must have their ASP postprocessing permanently disabled. MHO.

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
well, i didn't say i prefer the VP6 video.
I already said AVC has more details, but what's the cost of those details?
Is AVC really that good at keeping picture quality or some compromises are needed at certain "levels"?
We already saw AVC is not able to reproduce film grain (like xvid for example) even at high bitrates. Well, we need to add then better PP as in VP's case.
I don't understand how can you claim that "we already saw AVC is not able..". Things are in constant state of improvement and all AVC implementations are still quite young, so saying something like this doesn't make any sense.

[Sharktooth]

Ok, you're right, i will correct my statement: "We saw the current AVC implementation isn't able to...".
I'm not trying to bash AVC. I just want to understand what are the limits of this codec and where it can be improved.
(actually i add artificial noise thru FFDShow to make it look more like the original... maybe adding some PP to AVC decoder won't hurt?)

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
Ok, you're right, i will correct my statement: "We saw the current AVC implementation isn't able to...".
I'm not trying to bash AVC. I just want to understand what are the limits of this codec and where it can be improved.
(actually i add artificial noise thru FFDShow to make it look more like the original... maybe adding some PP to AVC decoder won't hurt?) BTW, why don't you use chroma optimization? No difference for you?

[Sharktooth]

Isn't chroma optimization intended for cartoons/anime?
I've also noticed that the "Cartoon mode" option under Source Material seems to have been changed to "Chroma optimization".

Does this mean I should check "Chroma optimization" if I want the encoder to use chroma ME?
Yea, that is correct. And only the name has changed.

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
Isn't chroma optimization intended for cartoons/anime? It can improve non-cartoons as well. That's why the name was changed..
Also maybe just use the ME vector range -256 to 255. Max value may not be always optimal..

[Sirber]

VP6 tryes to improve quality by filtering and by using adaptive grain, but "real details" aren't there much. The picture is much more washed than XviD or RV10. Maybe VP7 will be better with details...

[Sharktooth]

I'm updating the nero digital clip with one with deblocking strength set at 6. There are still some visible blocks (!!!) and details are a bit washed but finally it looks good on my TV.
Looking at it on my PC monitor now i dont know what one is better... VP6 or ND.

edit: update finished.

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
I'm updating the nero digital clip with one with deblocking strength set at 6. There are still some visible blocks (!!!) and details are a bit washed but finally it looks good on my TV.
Looking at it on my PC monitor now i dont know what one is better... VP6 or ND. Well deblocking 6 is quite high value, and I think most people here don't prefer that, even if you think it's better.
My guess is that something like ME vectors -256 255, chroma opt and deblock 3-4 changed to your current settings would create video which most people here like the best, but not having the source, difficult to say exactly..

[Sharktooth]

Ok, re-encoding again:)
PM me how to directly contact you and i will send you the source.

Edit: update completed.

[len0x]

I wanna have the source as well :)

[Sharktooth]

ok, i'm uploading it just wait until i finish and i will PM you the URL.

EDIT: Done. Sending PMs.

EDIT2: The trailer source has a LOT of "added" noise btw... that's a b&%$h to encode... :D

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
Ok, re-encoding again:)
PM me how to directly contact you and i will send you the source.

Edit: update completed. Hmm fixed deblock 4 is too strong for my taste. If smaller me vector range and chroma decrease blocking, I'd go for 1-2.
I'll see later what I can produce with latest filters and my preferred settings.

[Sharktooth]

re-encoding...
btw i think 128 or 256 is the optimal value for bitrates under 1000kbps.
512 maybe is good for high bitrates or for HD content.

[Andrey]

>>The picture is much more washed than XviD or RV10.
That's the common problem with VP codecs in my expirience...
But on extremely low (for selected stream) bitrates such a behaviour can help much - it is better to have "washed" picture that a simple crap :)

[Sharktooth]

ok, i updated the nerodigital clip for the nth time.
there are still flashing blocks.
time to eat something...

[len0x]

What is the exact bitrate or target size used?

[LordRPI]

Hmmm, maybe some thoughts from an outsider...

I've done several encodes with the VP6 heightened sharpness mode and have a few mixed impressions. I definately do like this codec, but there are certain things about it that are unsettling to my eyes such as moving textures and odd noise that I can't put my finger on. Sometimes it may look washed out but others it looks really sharp. Visually, it's less disturbing on my eyes when the film grain effect is turned off. In some cases it has retained more detail to my eyes than ASP, but not so in other times. I've seen some really nice looking (didn't look for detail though) in some low bitrate animated encodes that ASP can't touch but AVC seems to do insanely well on. Regardless I'm proud to see a codec so well developed by an office of 25 of which some share my alma mater.

As for AVC, I've already tested out at least 3 different flavors made available to me: Nero Digital (through recode), x264/sex264, Apple's among others. I've been really impressed with the offerings on the quality of a standard so young. Our good old part-2 friend seemed to have a much greater time to come to fruition. On the screens that I've used to watch it on, blocking seemed to be little of an issue, even though there were some annoying effects surrounding blocking. I've reduced bitrates to obscene levels and have seen clips almost lacking blocks but at the expense of looking washed out. ASP would have blocked strongly, VP6 would have given a decent picture, but IMHO not as good as AVC.

While not going into much depth about either of the two codecs, I think part of the reason of seeing these codecs as *not always as good* has to deal with the fact that our eyes are just so used to looking at the tried and true ASP and when something looks different, then it doesn't feel right.

Of course, I prefer the DVD source myself...

[Teegedeck]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
ok, i updated the nerodigital clip for the nth time.
there are still flashing blocks.
time to eat something...
Care to throw in other codecs, like RV10 or Snow (still only fixed quantizer mode available, I believe)? :)

[temporance]

Originally posted by LordRPI
While not going into much depth about either of the two codecs, I think part of the reason of seeing these codecs as *not always as good* has to deal with the fact that our eyes are just so used to looking at the tried and true ASP and when something looks different, then it doesn't feel right.You're definitely onto something here, LordRPI. But I think the psychology works the other way around. Seasoned video experts, so called "golden eyes", or many of the citizens of these fora are very well tuned into the artifacts generated by MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 pt2. Years of nose-against-screen watching 3.11, DivX and xvid have sensitized us to 8x8 blocking and ringing artifacts to such an extent that we are less sensitive to the annoyances of the newer standards.

When I first see an AVC encode for the first time I'm looking carefully for the artifacts that I'm accustomed to: 8x8 blocking and ringing. My eyes, which are painfully sensitive to such effects, are pleased with what they see. Other artifacts (e.g. unstable, blurry features) go unnoticed.

Given time, we'll all be painfully sensitive to the artifacts of the newer codecs. Examples from AVC include:
- contouring of flat backgrounds,
- details "moving in-and-out of focus" over several frames
- loss of fine textures and film grain

After using AVC for several years, we may even become detuned from ASP's characteristic artifacts. Revisit xvid 1.1 or DivX 6.0 in 3 years time, when you're all tuned into AVC artifacts, and you might be delighted with what you see!

[Sirber]

always the same, new codecs, new artefacts, old encodes look like sh*t :)

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by len0x
What is the exact bitrate or target size used?
907 kbits (i couldn't set 900 coz recode doesnt permit to set a precise bitrate).

Originally posted by Teegedeck
Care to throw in other codecs, like RV10 or Snow (still only fixed quantizer mode available, I believe)? :)
I have not the needed experience with those codecs so i think im not able to squeeze the best from them.

I feel AVC can be improved a lot since it's not mature at all, just look at the x.264 improvements in the last months...
However i think AVC has some sort of limits when talking about picture quality and i hope those limits will be heightened with future development.
This trailer is the example that some sources may need more than 1000kbits to be encoded at good quality (the same bitrate needed by old ASP codecs...) and AVC isn't doing miracles here...
So, back to the subject of this thread: Is AVC really that good?

[len0x]

Quick question: how can I play that Recode mp4 file without having anything from Nero installed? I have 3ivx splitter and ffdshow combo that crashes on me...

[Sharktooth]

moonlight mp4 splitter and latest ffdshow with h.264 support checked (i dont know if it works, but it should...)

[len0x]

it really does. 10x :)

[len0x]

I just compared x264 vs ND AVC and x264 wins easily if you look at P-frames (B-frames can be broken often in x264 atm). ND introduces very large number of artifacts in high motion scenes: look at broken glass when the car hits the window - ND encode has twice as many white pieces as original source! (frame ~980)

[Sharktooth]

interesting.
len0x can you pls send me the x.264 encode?

[len0x]

Sure I'll make another encode with presize bitrate 907 (I used 900 before) and without b-frames and I'll put them both somewhere and PM you.

[Sharktooth]

ok, i'm patiently awaiting... :D
... i also started a x.264 (b107) encode with 1 b-frame.

edit: i've finished encoding and the x.264 clip with deblocking strength = 1 is much more "deblocked" and kept more details than the ND one...

[len0x]

Better try no bframes first :) (Actually that encode is up already)
There are too many broken b-frames in my b-frames encode.

P.S. my settings were all defaults, but 5 reference frames.

[len0x]

Now that I think of it - ND AVC vs x264 very much reminds me DivX vs XviD situation when first encoder washes out too much details comparing to the second one...

[Sharktooth]

ok i'm uploading the new sample clips.
What i've noticed is ND generates far more blocks than x264. then deblocking is needed to remove them ... and details "go away"...

Edit: btw my encode seems to have correct b-frames... the download link is in the first post but wait until i finish uploading it. *OK i finished*

[len0x]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
Edit: btw my encode seems to have correct b-frames...

May be its decoder. I'm opening it with VDubMod via DShowSource. Seeking is a bitch there :(

P.S. Try more reference frames - the more the better :)

[Sharktooth]

I'm going for 5 reference frames and 3 b-frames (the same settings i used for ND).
BTW, donwload the clip and look at b-frames. Are they corrupted on your side?

EDIT: 3 b-frames is causing BLOCKING as in ND encode. So i suppose all the mess in ND comes from b-frames too.
Re-encoding...

EDIT2: I was right, less b-frames, less blocking in both x.264 and ND. Encodes are updated with 1 b-brame.

EDIT3: x.264 has been re-uploaded due to a x.264 update (rev 108).

[Sharktooth]

I added a xvid encode too.
The settings are default + VHQ4 + B-VHQ + CQM=EQM V3ULRr2 + I Frame int. 250 + Chroma OPT. + AQ.
Try watching it with PP enabled too.