Sample HD MPEG-1 Clip... [Archive] - Page 2

digigami

23rd December 2005, 22:31

Coupled with AAC audio the best and most efficient Audio/Video tech in the world.

Yes, AAC is an MPEG-2 technology, and it is excellent. Read the specs. ISO/IEC 13818.

--------------------------------------------------
Digigami
MegaPEG MPEG-2 Encoder (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/) - people disagree as to whether it's any good.
MPressionist MPEG-2 Analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/) - no disagreements with this one, everybody likes it.

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 22:33

LOL!!!!!!!!!
AAC+ (aka AAC-HE V2) is not mpeg2...

digigami

23rd December 2005, 22:33

HD at DSL bitrates.

Can you make me a 720p sample based on a movie trailer from the Apple site (or any other HD source we both can obtain) that does HD at 500 kbps?

Thanks.

--------------------------------------------------
Digigami
MegaPEG MPEG-2 Encoder (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/) - people disagree as to whether it's any good.
MPressionist MPEG-2 Analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/) - no disagreements with this one, everybody likes it.

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 22:34

well... 500kbps is not DSL bitrate...
i dont know where you live but we (in italy) have DSL up to 8mbps...
and however what i meant at dsl bitrate was 1200kbps.
however i can easily produce 500kbps streams at near DVD quality:p

http://www.live24.it/ (it's only in italian for now).

digigami

23rd December 2005, 22:39

LOL!!!!!!!!!
AAC+ (aka AAC-HE V2) is not mpeg2...

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg2aac/standard.html

--------------------------------------------------
Digigami
MegaPEG MPEG-2 Encoder (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/) - people disagree as to whether it's any good.
MPressionist MPEG-2 Analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/) - no disagreements with this one, everybody likes it.

digigami

23rd December 2005, 22:42

and however what i meant at dsl bitrate was 1200kbps.

OK, that sounds fine to me. Take any 720p trailer from the Apple site and make 1200 kbps HD H.264 file from it.

--------------------------------------------------
Digigami
MegaPEG MPEG-2 Encoder (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/) - people disagree as to whether it's any good.
MPressionist MPEG-2 Analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/) - no disagreements with this one, everybody likes it.

Sagittaire

23rd December 2005, 22:44

So now let's go over the advantages of doing HD file sharing in MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 VBR. It is clear that our encoder can produce the streams at well under 10 mbits.

1) Certainely with some source/situation but not with all
2) With the same bitrate H264 will produce very better quality
3) All the MPEG2 encoder can make that and perhaps with better quality

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 22:46

http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg2aac/standard.html
It's not AAC+ (aka AAC-HE V2)...

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 22:47

OK, that sounds fine to me. Take any 720p trailer from the Apple site and make 1200 kbps HD H.264 file from it.
That is already AVC encoded material. As i said im interested in LOSSLESS stuff. The same sources as used for creating DVD movies...

digigami

23rd December 2005, 22:51

That is already AVC encoded material. As i said im interested in LOSSLESS stuff.

Ok, pick any lossless source you want. Preferably something with organic cinematography (the CG trailers like Ice Age are actually quite easy to compress).

As i said im interested in LOSSLESS stuff. The same sources as used for creating DVD movies...
Since that's what you're interested in, let's use one of your samples. I actually prefer to work from uncompressed myself. "The Least Likely" from our web site is made from uncompressed targa files.

Just so we're clear: I actually expect our encoder to be beaten by H.264, but also enjoy the circumstances when it does not. Or does so by a narrow margin. Because if the margin is narrow, the advantage is not as clear.

BTW, I think LAME MP3 encoder is actually quite comparable in quality to AAC, but other MP3 encoders are not.

--------------------------------------------------
Digigami
MegaPEG MPEG-2 Encoder (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/) - people disagree as to whether it's any good.
MPressionist MPEG-2 Analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/) - no disagreements with this one, everybody likes it.

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 22:55

Just a question... do you know AVC supports 8x8 dct like mpeg2 too? (it's in High Profile...)
And for the last time AAC+ is not mpeg2 AAC...
However i supposed you had some lossless suorces (the ones you used to do your site sample encodings)...

digigami

23rd December 2005, 22:58

1) Certainely with some source/situation but not with all
2) With the same bitrate H264 will produce very better quality
3) All the MPEG2 encoder can make that and perhaps with better quality

Actually, for 720p, on easy material we run around 3 mbits/s and on difficult material between 7-11 mbits/s. The peak bitrate is higher than standard DVD, but the average is not. As I said earlier, highly saturated color is difficult with 4:2:0 chroma.

--------------------------------------------------
Digigami
MegaPEG MPEG-2 Encoder (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/) - people disagree as to whether it's any good.
MPressionist MPEG-2 Analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/) - no disagreements with this one, everybody likes it.

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 22:59

Uhm... Mpeg2 @ 3mbps for 720p? how much blocks? lol...
hoever i'm compressing one of your samples (which is already compressed and already has visual banding problems at 14mbps...).
the sample in the first post is even blocky and flashing...

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 23:07

however "someone" asks if you currently know about the tests that were carried out by the BDA in 2004 that showed AVC HP to be around 3x more efficient than mpeg-2...
http://ftp3.itu.ch/av-arch/jvt-site/2004_07_Redmond/JVT-L033.doc

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:07

I make HD test actually ... try High Detail level source like that
http://www.apple.com/trailers/dreamworks/overthehedge/hd/

I think that quality can be very good with H264 1080p at 2 Mbps and H264 720p at 1.5 Mbps. Try to make MPEG2 encoding with these bitrate.

According to this post:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=98247

The recommendations for DSL video are 640x480 at 15fps. I want to see 1280x720x24 or 1280x720x25fps, because that is the minimum of what HD means to everybody else. 1200 kbps is what was promised.

--------------------------------------------------
Digigami
MegaPEG MPEG-2 Encoder (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/) - people disagree as to whether it's any good.
MPressionist MPEG-2 Analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/) - no disagreements with this one, everybody likes it.

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:11

the sample in the first post is even blocky and flashing...

You must be using a decoder with a IDCT that is mathematically weak. I look through our samples with our analysis tool before posting, using both 32-bit floating point and 16.16 fixed point IDCT, and there are no blocks.

If you want to make statements about the quality, you should qualify them with the specs of your playback system. In this case, what is the name of the IDCT algorithm and what is the mathematical precision of it, fixed point or floating point. I will say that the MPEG-1 IDCT in Windows Media Player is quite awful.

MPEG IDCT analysis (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/blog/2004_11_18_archives.html).

--------------------------------------------------
Digigami
MegaPEG MPEG-2 Encoder (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/) - people disagree as to whether it's any good.
MPressionist MPEG-2 Analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/) - no disagreements with this one, everybody likes it.

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 23:11

it's going on... but take into consideration i have no lossless material and im encoding one of your already encoded samples that shows blocks and banding effects...
the IDCT is the reference IDCT.

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:13

your already encoded samples that shows blocks and banding effects...

If you're talking about Mako Shark Club, the banding effects are part of the source material.

Tell me what the linear frame#s are that have block artifacts and I will look at them.

Are you talking about a sample from here:
HD MPEG-2 VBR (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/samples.php)

I find it strange that you are only interested in encoding from LOSSLESS sources but do not have any to work from.

--------------------------------------------------
Digigami
MegaPEG MPEG-2 Encoder (http://www.digigami.com/megapeg/) - people disagree as to whether it's any good.
MPressionist MPEG-2 Analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/) - no disagreements with this one, everybody likes it.

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:17

Just a question... do you know AVC supports 8x8 dct like mpeg2 too? (it's in High Profile...)

Of course it does. It has the most advanced feature set around.
8x8 DCT goes back into the 70s.

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 23:19

im talking about the sample in the first post the marko shark club sample and all the other encodes.
a magnified example...
http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/blocks_and_rings.png
blocks, rings, artifacts in all the scenes...
maybe you need to check your encodes with a good LCD monitor before posting them...

I find it strange that you are only interested in encoding from LOSSLESS sources but do not have any to work from.Licensing problems.

Sagittaire

23rd December 2005, 23:26

Here sample H264 High Profil

King Kong (http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/x264HP_KingKong_720p_1500.mp4)
1280*720*25
1500 Kbps

Harry potter IV (http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/x264HP_HPIV_720p_1250.mp4)
1280*720*25
1250 Kbps

Ice Age 2 (http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/x264HP_IceAge_720p_1250.mp4)
1280*720*25
1250 Kbps

All the QT AVC are uncompressible trailer (like generaly all trailer)
You can make that with all trailers (720p 1-1.5 Mbps and 1080p 1.5-2 Mbps)

I can make the same MPEG2 encoding in 1080p with libavcodec with 5 Mbps I think (same metric). IMO libavcodec is the best MPEG2 encoder. I think that if you can prove that your encoder is better than libavcodec could be a good publicity for your encoder ...

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 23:30

i can hear the silence...

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:34

it's going on... but take into consideration i have no lossless material and im encoding one of your already encoded samples that shows blocks and banding effects...
the IDCT is the reference IDCT.

OK I'm going to assume 32bit floating point. Can you send me the frame #s where you are seeing the block artifacts? I'd like to check them here with my MPEG-2 IDCT analyzer (http://www.digigami.com/mpressionist/screenshots_hdtv.php). I can inspect the IDCT coefficients and look at what has happened to the block during compression and we can discuss it.

Maybe you can do a frame grab and use photoshop to encircle the blocks and that way I will know where to look.

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 23:36

blocking is EVERYWHERE in EVERY SAMPLE...
however look at the sagittaire's post... and see the HD at low bitrates MPEG2 can only dream of...

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:39

All the QT AVC are uncompressible trailer (like generaly all trailer)
You can make than with all trailers with 720p 1-1.5 Mbps and with 1080p 1.5-2 Mbps I think ... ;-)

Mon francais est terrible. Mais... Your english is much better. But I did not understand what you said.

I can make the same MPEG2 encoding in 1080p with libavcodec with 5 Mbps I think (same metric). IMO libavcodec is the best MPEG2 encoder. I think that if you can prove that your encoder is better than libavcodec could be a good publicity for your encoder ...

Ok, did you mean that your examples are created from the sources on the Apple H.264 site?

Also, what do I need to play them? Minimum CPU and playback.

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:44

im talking about the sample in the first post the marko shark club sample and all the other encodes.
a magnified example...

Thanks. Can you give me the frame#s please. Also, is this grab from a I, P or B-frame.

Gen

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 23:46

a good CPU or a Ati x1000 series videocard (soon even nvidia video card will be able to play back h.264 almost totally in hardware) installed.
mplayer, VLC or any other player based capable to decode FULL h.264 features.
however... i did some calculation and we can put 8 hours of 1280x720@25fps in a standard 4.3GB DVD...
We can place all the Lord Of The Rings EE in High Definition + extras in 2 DVDs...

i can smell something like 12 (out of 14) DVD less in the package, lowering the distribution cost just a bit...

Are we still talking of advantages?

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:47

blocks, rings, artifacts in all the scenes...
maybe you need to check your encodes with a good LCD monitor before posting them...

Ok, now recommend which H.264 encoder I can use to encode this same clip, and what settings I should use. The source material is 1080p uncompressed. I have it as a series of .tga files and also as a Pixlet .MOV file on maximum/lossless quality. So your H.264 encoder would need to read one of those or I can convert it to an AVI.

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:53

a good CPU or a Ati x1000 series videocard (soon even nvidia video card will be able to play back h.264 almost totally in hardware) installed.

Thanks. Still waiting for the frame#s of your complaints. If you don't have the #s, I'll take the frame times. HH:MM:SS:ff

OK?

Sharktooth

23rd December 2005, 23:55

Ok, now recommend which H.264 encoder I can use to encode this same clip, and what settings I should use. The source material is 1080p uncompressed. I have it as a series of .tga files and also as a Pixlet .MOV file on maximum/lossless quality. So your H.264 encoder would need to read one of those or I can convert it to an AVI.
x264... obviously...
head to the AVC forum and you'll find there all the info you need... but i guess you better get a PC or you wont be able to use the most poverfull frameserver application in the world: avisynth.
however, ever tried ffmpeg as mpeg2 encoder? im sure it works better than yours...
Thanks. Still waiting for the frame#s of your complaints. If you don't have the #s, I'll take the frame times. HH:MM:SS:ff

OK?
I'm not complaining about ONE frame.. but ALL frames!!! They all have clearly visible and annoying artifacts

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:55

I can make the same MPEG2 encoding in 1080p with libavcodec with 5 Mbps I think (same metric).

If you can do this, then we agree that MPEG-2 VBR can do HD at standard def DVD bitrates. If you read our press release, that is exactly what we said.

digigami

23rd December 2005, 23:57

What PC Software can read these H.264 files and write them out as uncompressed AVI? I want to compare them to the Apple sources.

Sagittaire

23rd December 2005, 23:59

Ok, did you mean that your examples are created from the sources on the Apple H.264 site?

yes ... there are very good source because 8-10 Mbps is high bitrate for 1080p H264 AVC.

Also, what do I need to play them? Minimum CPU and playback.

My sempron 2.1 ghz can play my encoding but for HD-DVD/BR CPU playback it's not important ...

Sharktooth

24th December 2005, 00:05

What PC Software can read these H.264 files and write them out as uncompressed AVI? I want to compare them to the Apple sources.
... you definatly need a PC ...
install a h.264 directshow decoder (ffdshow, nero, etc...), install avisynth, create a script to load the .mp4, load the .avs into virtual dub and save uncompressed frames into avi.
or use some other opensource software to do the job as well on Mac or Linux.

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:07

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:08

... you definatly need a PC ...
install a h.264 directshow decoder, install avisynth, load the .avs into virtual dub and save uncompressed frames into avi.
or use some other opensource software to do the job as well on Mac or Linux.

What's a good H.264 direct show decoder that will render H.264 in the highest quality, rather than the fastest playback?

BTW, the IDCT on the video cards is not 32bit float reference, unless you are thinking of a particular card.

Sharktooth

24th December 2005, 00:10

What's a good H.264 direct show decoder that will render H.264 in the highest quality, rather than the fastest playback?

BTW, the IDCT on the video cards is not 32bit float reference, unless you are thinking of a particular card.
every h.264 decoders (except the crippled ones like QT) will decode at the same quality.
however you can get ffdshow for free here: http://mirror01.x264.nl/x264/ffdshow-20051221-gcc4.0.2-sse-x264.nl.exe

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:12

I'm not complaining about ONE frame.. but ALL frames!!! They all have clearly visible and annoying artifacts

Yes I heard you. What playback software (Build#) are you using to audition the files?

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:14

every h.264 decoders (except the crippled ones like QT) will decode at the same quality.

What aspects of H.264 AVC are not implemented by QuickTime. If you know the exact features. BTW, if you were to encode H.264 using x264 in a way that QuickTime will play, what settings do you target?

Thanks.

Sharktooth

24th December 2005, 00:15

Yes I heard you. What playback software (Build#) are you using to audition the files?
tried with quicktime, MS Windows MPEG Decoder, libavcodec, dgmpeg avisynth mpeg plugin, Media Player Classic mpeg decoder...
but the artifacts are always there...

Sharktooth

24th December 2005, 00:17

What aspects of H.264 AVC are not implemented by QuickTime. If you know the exact features. BTW, if you were to encode H.264 using x264 in a way that QuickTime will play, what settings do you target?

Thanks.
Doing that will seriously cripple the x264 encoder capabilities since QT simply is not compatible with the major h.264 features.
I already created some profiles for QuickTime compatibility but, compression and quality are seriously compromised.

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:17

I'm not complaining about ONE frame.. but ALL frames!!! They all have clearly visible and annoying artifacts

In comparing what you describe to what I see on my Apple Cinema using both MPressionist 32-bit float and 16.16 fixed point IDCT, I would say that your MPEG-1/MPEG-2 playback is just as crippled as you describe QT to be.

Windows Media Player has horrible IDCT.

VideoLAN on the Mac seems to be doing a good job. I'll have to look at it on my PC.

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:18

I already created some profiles for QuickTime compatibility but, compression and quality are seriously compromised.

That's cool, I am interested for other reasons. Where do you describe your QuickTime profiles.

Also, can you tell me what H.264 AVC features are not implemented by QT?

Sharktooth

24th December 2005, 00:19

In comparing what you describe to what I see on my Apple Cinema using both MPressionist 32-bit float and 16.16 fixed point IDCT, I would say that your MPEG-1/MPEG-2 playback is just as crippled as you describe QT to be.

Windows Media Player has horrible IDCT.

VideoLAN on the Mac seems to be doing a good job. I'll have to look at it on my PC.
I didnt use Windows Media Player... but Media Player Classic (it's open source and not by Microsoft).
However be aware, MACs have a higher Gamma than PC with Windows or Linux and that tends to "mask" the artifacts.
That's cool, I am interested for other reasons. Where do you describe your QuickTime profiles.

Also, can you tell me what H.264 AVC features are not implemented by QT?
The profiles are included in my x264 builds for windows (the sticky thread in the AVC forum) and there's also a discussion in the AVC forum.
the unsupported features are the whole "high profile" (8x8 dct, custom scale matrices, 8x8 intra blocks, lossless encoding/decoding...), mixed reference frames, multiple b-frames, weighted prediction and some other stuff i dont recall.
However i have to go now. You can reach me on irc (#x264 on irc.freenode.net) or MSN or this forum.

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:23

frameserver application in the world: avisynth.
however, ever tried ffmpeg as mpeg2 encoder? im sure it works better than yours...

Yes avisynth is a nice little utility. I read the sources about 7 years ago.

Regarding ffmpeg, I hope they fixed the bugs in the quantizer. They had some serious problems in the logic of handling clipped DCT values.

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:31

However be aware, MACs have a higher Gamma than PC with Windows or Linux and that tends to "mask" the artifacts.

I understand what you're saying, but if it is a IDCT mismatch problem then the 'artifacts' you are seeing is the result of the frame being reconstructed poorly. When you go for low bitrates the situation is exacerbated. If the DC coefficient in a motion compensated non-intra block is off by one during the deconstruction, the visual effect is quite large.

Did you read my blog entry about IDCT precision in MPEG-2 DVDs? Even well-encoded DVD discs exhibit the kind of blocking you are describing when auditioned on poor DCT. Switch to the reference 32-bit float and it looks perfect.

However i have to go now.
Thanks for all your help. I want to learn about H.264 and I think I came to the right place! I will definitely be checking out your x264.

Sharktooth

24th December 2005, 00:34

CruNcher

24th December 2005, 00:36

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:40

Digigami i think you are on OSX ;) so you most probably use an outdated version of Videolan (you have to keep up with development) strange that you don't know that as a developer of video solutions anyway try this http://nightlies.videolan.org/build/macosx/trunk-20051223-0114.dmg

OK thanks. I like to try and keep up, but if you look at how much software I am maintaining (GUI + codec) I sometimes fall behind. Also, after writing altivec for everything I now have to port everything to SSE2.

BTW, the disc image did not mount.

digigami

24th December 2005, 00:41

last thing...
i was forgetting to post the encode :)
http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/mako.mp4
it was already of poor quality (noise, banding, blocks and other artifacts) but i applied no filters... encoded at 1200kbps without any special settings.

OK thanks. Now that I know what encoder you are using I can duplicate your results here from the uncompressed sources.