Sample HD MPEG-1 Clip...

[Sharktooth]

For someone who won't use your own encoder to compress the Apple trailers, you seem quite chirpy. I'm going to write exactly what I find out. You don't seem to understand that for me to fail here is still a huge success in my books. My main point is about being HD at under 10 mbits/s, and there is no question that we are doing that.

I'm growing to respect a number of the posters here - the ones who think before they act, the ones who are oriented towards metrics and testing and the ones who understand there are 2 points of view. But it seems to me that H.264 is still bleeding edge, except where it comes to Ateme, which I understand (still waiting for an answer) is $9K.

Speaking of bleeding edge, can anyone list the H.264 decoders that "don't suck" and are in a stable release form?
well x264 is free and was rated almost on par with ateme encoder in the 2nd round of the doom9's codec comparison (well ateme is better by a very little margin).
yes, it doesnt support interlacing and other "pro" stuff, but it's a significative point that an open source codec can almost be on par with a professional one.
Also we can say h.264 can go HD with less than 2kbps... and that means it will render HD-DVDs and BD almost useless for video distribuition... maybe that's why Sony pushes for MPEG2?

P.S.: i'm not marketing/advertising anything commercial... i always provided encodes from free/open-source stuff.

Have to go now. Dinner time... :)

[digigami]

How about BBC motion gallery. Like I said in our press release, H.264 has a big edge with saturated color.

[JohnV]

How about BBC motion gallery. Like I said in our press release, H.264 has a big edge with saturated color.
Fine, just let me know what clip you want me to encode.

[digigami]

How about BBC Motion Gallery 'Reel'.

[JohnV]

I find many results. Which clip exactly?

[digigami]

Since Ben Waggoneer was already quoted once in this thread,
Gen's a smart guy, but I think his passion for his product has outstripped its real-world strengths.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=411600&page=600&pp=30


Regardless as to what Ben says, I'll take Sagittaire's opinion and method of comparing encoders over Ben's anyday. Also if you look at the language that they use, it's obvious that Sagittare (and others up here) are more versed in the underlying technology. At least I learn something when you guys bash on my samples, my encoder and my marketing. I rather enjoy it.

[digigami]

I find many results. Which clip exactly?

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/bbcmotiongalleryreel.html

[digigami]

P.S.: i'm not marketing/advertising anything commercial... i always provided encodes from free/open-source stuff.

You are marketing your knowledge, your builds of x264 for Windows, your config files and your quant matrices. Marketing has nothing to do with money - it means promoting what you believe in. Apple markets both H.264 and iPod.

BTW, do the Apple produced H.264 files play on all the H.264 decoders? Are their streams, which are a subset of AVC, compliant and well-formed?

[JohnV]

At least I learn something when you guys bash on my samples, my encoder and my marketing. I rather enjoy it.
I don't think everybody is bashing your encoder. But it depends quite a lot with what kind of claims and attitude you come here.
If for example you'd ask help for evaluating your encoder and suggestions where it needs improvement, I'm 100% sure the feedback would be totally different.
But when you come to Doom9 with claims that your MPEG1/2 encoder is as or more efficient as h.264, it's the wrong start and people will act accordingly.

But have to say that one positive thing is that you seem to be actually interested what is said here.

I'll encode the Reed Apple clip for you and maybe that commandN with even lower like 1000kbps just to see what it looks like. :)

[digigami]

But when you come to Doom9 with claims that your MPEG1/2 encoder is as or more efficient as h.264, it's the wrong start and people will act accordingly.

I did _not_ come to doom with claims. If you go up to the start of this thread, about 6mos ago, you will see I came here to defend the unverified complaint about blockiness which was never answered. In fact, it started again until you, JohnV, auditioned our file in VLC where you could see it properly rendered.

I came back because the thread started again.

But you know what they say, "If you can't beat em, join em". And, my friends, I am looking for a H.264 encoder for my freeware:
http://www.digigami.com/moviesformypod/

And I know exactly which one I'm going to use.

[JohnV]

I did _not_ come to doom with claims. Ok. :) But maybe you shouldn't have come to Doom9 to talk about your encoder if you have just released a press release with such claims.. ;)
Eventhough in that playback blockiness case you were right as I confirmed, WMP playback is much worse with your streams than with VideoLan or Nero ShowTime (for example).

[digigami]

I'll encode the Reed Apple clip for you and maybe that commandN with even lower like 1000kbps just to see what it looks like. :)

Cool sounds great. I told you I wanted to learn about H.264 and I have my ways of finding the right people to ask.

http://www.digigami.com/dg-ice-age.png
MPEG-1 VBR, semi-constant Q via Q-floor.
I have one more pass. Too much filtering, so again, looks like H.264 AVC done by pros is 1/3 size of MPEG-1 at 1280x720x25fps.

Oh yeah, M$FT DirectShow MPEG-1 decode may not be able to play IBBBP. It's either 3 or 4 B-frames that make it choke. But VLC works great.

[digigami]

Ok. :) But maybe you shouldn't have come to Doom9 to talk about your encoder if you have just released a press release with such claims.. ;)
Eventhough in that playback blockiness case you were right as I confirmed, WMP playback is much worse with your streams than with VideoLan or Nero ShowTime (for example).

I have a number of macs and pcs to work with and if using VLC, our streams look great. Both QT Player and MSFT MPEG-1 decoders are second class citizens, and so they just work OK. But at least the streams play. Also, it is the agressive quant that brings out the blocks with poor DCT accuracy. Like I said, it is the DC coefficient inverse quantize and off by one gray level or more that causes the problems. However, it is not restricted to MPEG-1. If you single step through most Hollywood pro-encoded DVDs with MPressionist on fixed point DCT, you can usually see blocking on B-frames. Very light, but it is definitely there. Switch to 32-bit float reference and it looks perfect.

[digigami]

http://digigami.in-long-beach-ca.com/megapeg/Doom9/Pour-Sagittaire/dg-trailer-1700kbps.png

This encode represents _my preferences_ with respect to low bitrate coding of video. I'll be happy to hear how the PSNR stacks up, but to my eye (and you will need good IDCT for this), there are blocks, but they are well-hidden and do not detract from the program at a normal viewing distance. For exaggeration, I have upsampled the frame to 1280x720. I am using the split-view of MPressionist to lay up the original .m2v and the bitrate-reduced version side by side (vertical split). Which is which?

Audition with VLC.
http://digigami.in-long-beach-ca.com/megapeg/Doom9/Pour-Sagittaire/megapeg-1.7mbs.m2v

My upload is only 1/3rd done, so keep that in mind when downloading. Server is slow and I am too lazy to walk to the next bldg to plug firewire in for a quick transfer.
Pound away.

[digigami]

Also, since I was under the target bitrate, I decided to do a couple more. One note: our quant matrices tend to hammer the chroma at very low bitrates. But overall, I like the way they degrade better than the ISO or usual MPEG-2 suspects.

[digigami]

Quick notes about the screen grab. Once again, I am using the split screen feature to lay up A|B side by side. However, I encoded at 24fps and the source is 23.976 and it is off by one, which I am using to show the dividing line. As you can see, there is some fine detail in the Apple version not present in the MPEG-1, but it is very slight.

According to Mr. Waggggonnner, his fastest encoder is 60x faster than this. My encoding ratio for 1280x720x24p on "Mastering Quality", which is exhaustive half-pel search equivalent (exactly) to a hardware MPEG encoder is 20:1. So that means he has an encoder that runs 3x real time doing exhaustive motion compensation. I don't think so.

http://digigami.in-long-beach-ca.com/megapeg/Doom9/dg-ice-3630.png

Ok, this is as low as my quality meter will allow. 3.6 mbs/s, but I think the quality is on target. Complain about the bitrate if you must, but I'd like to see the H.264 version without blocks. There is some very minor blocking in this, can you find it with VideoLAN?

http://digigami.in-long-beach-ca.com/megapeg/Doom9/ice_age_2-tlrD_720p.010.m1v

At this time, 20min remaining. Christmas eve. Made some new friends who are smart, doing cool stuff. Hope you feel the same. Time to take a ride, get some sunlight.

kiyooka-san!
hai!

[CruNcher]

sure but hey their is still the tractor that want's to be encoded ;)
i also redid Ben Waggoners 8 Mbps The Island Trailer with the Ateme Encoder and X264 alot more complex then his quicktime encode, unfortunately i don't have so much space available for upload i see that i can host it maybe on Rapidshare :)

[digigami]

BTW, if someone wants to whip up a .torrent file for these, I'm sure my friends whose web sites I host will appreciate it.

[bobololo]

Thanks. Judging by the server you are Ateme employee? How much $ is your HP encoder, BTW?

Yes I work at Ateme, though I'm not from the sales so I won't be able to give you accurate info about pricing and licensing model of our encoder. Just keep in mind that our primary role is to provide technology to industry integrators and therefore our customers are mostly professionals. These latters offer our IP in their products to end users. So our price isn't very significant since it's not directly related to the end user product's price which can range from 30 euros to some stratospheric amounts ;)

[digigami]

sure but hey their is still the tractor that want's to be encoded ;)

Doood! my tractor.yuv gets to 100% and just hangs. I restarted it 2x.

BTW, can QT read this file?

[JohnV]

digigami:
Here's some more AVC clips for you
http://morbo.org/nero/commandN_spotLIGHT_HD_720p-ateme_avc_hp_1000k.mp4
http://morbo.org/nero/bbc-r_m720p-NeroDigital_3500k.mp4

There's the 1000kbps commandN with High Profile latest Ateme codec. Still looks good.
Then there's 3500kbps BBC motion clip with NeroDigital AVC (Ateme Main Profile). I'll do a 2500kbps encode also. Notice that there's some heavy blocking already in the original Apple trailer especially in the blue sky areas.
Your comments are welcome. :)

[IgorC]

Why you are showing us 3.6 mbps MPEG-1 encoding when bitrate was 1.250 mbps?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=756651#post756651

[digigami]

Why you are showing us 3.6 mbps MPEG-1 encoding when bitrate was 1.250 mbps?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=756651#post756651

I've already described in my blog that JohnV, Sagittaire, and others have demonstrated that emerging H.264 coders and Ateme (which is robust), are capable of the bitrate claims of reduced bitrate burden of MPEG-2. However, this thread was largely about our press release. Our press release was about the suitability of MPEG-2 for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, and that we were able to achieve HD at SD DVD bitrates. Well fella, 3.6 mbits/s is a SD DVD bitrate, and the quality is definitely there. And that gives us 24 mbits/s to do whatever else we want 1080i etc. Top notch quality.

Personally, what I am most interested here at Doom9 is intelligent, thoughtful conversation. If you're not interested in that, go join another thread. This one started with someone questioning the 'blockiness' of our MPEG-1 streams 6 months ago. Today that matter was resolved as well.

Merry xmas to ya all.

[JohnV]

Here's the BBC Reel with 2.5Mbs HP
http://morbo.org/nero/bbc-r_m720p-ateme_hp_2500k.mp4

[JohnV]

3.6 mbits/s is a SD DVD bitrate, and the quality is definitely there. Can you now provide 3.6Mbps BBC Reel MPEG-1/2 clip for comparison?

[digigami]

Why you are showing us 3.6 mbps MPEG-1 encoding when bitrate was 1.250 mbps?

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=756651#post756651

Also, if you want to 'pipe in', I have requested a version of Ice Age (Kung Fu) which does not have blocking artifacts in the low-contrast, low-light regions of the clip. You cannot claim 1250 as a HD bitrate for feature films if you have the artifacting. Fine for archiving HD on whatever, but not for original material to be replicated. I want to know what the real HD bitrate is, probably more in the 2000-3000 range for perfect quality. There is also some aliasing in the Ice Age trailer, and some banding.

[digigami]

Can you now provide 3.6Mbps BBC Reel MPEG-1/2 clip for comparison?

I will look at this one, but I can tell you it will not be pretty. However, our motion comp has improved since the last time I encoded it, so we will see.
right now, food, etc.

Fun meeting you guys. As we say in California, Totally! Of course, I'm from Canada myself.

[IgorC]

digigami

Ok. Sorry. I've downloaded this sample http://digigami.in-long-beach-ca.com/megapeg/Doom9/ice_age_2-tlrD_720p.010.m1v.
Quality isn't bad for such low bitrate as 3.5 mbps. However it isn't nor even closer to call it HDTV. Already knows issues like ringing, artefacts, visual macroblcoks on palet of soft colors. It's typically for MPEG-1/2.
I'm not sure but I think mencoder MPEG-2 in 3 passes with slowest setings can do the same job or even better.


I can't say the same thing for H.264 at 3.5 mbps . All details are preserved, no visual blocks. Excelent visual quality.

Don't see any point to discuss. Your trailer clear shows what MPEG-1 can do (can not do).

[CruNcher]

Here is the Tractor @ 3 Mbps 1920x1080x25p
http://rapidshare.de/files/9780965/Tractor_HD-High_Profile-x264.mp4.html

and here is the more complex High Profile X264 version of Ben Waggoners The Island Trailer 8 Mbps test (better detail preservation) 1920x800x23.98 manualy croped and keeped the 2.40 AR :) (dunno how Ben Waggoner comes to the idea that this clip is 2.35 :P )
http://rapidshare.de/files/9781798/The-Island_HD-Trailer-High_Profile-x264.mp4.html (more then 2.4 GHz needed)
http://rapidshare.de/files/9787718/The-Island_HD-Trailer-High_Profile-x264-nodeblocking.mp4.html (less complex) (at least 2.4 GHz needed)

here is the XviD EDP version (needs less CPU resouces for playback) (still comparable detail preservation to X264 HP @ this bitrate)
http://rapidshare.de/files/9784778/The-Island_HD-Trailer-XviD-EDP.mp4.html (2 GHz needed could also run on slower)

Ben Waggoners Quicktime Encode

http://cruncher.mufflastig.com/x264/The-Island-BenQuicktime.png

CruNchers High Profile X264 Encode

http://cruncher.mufflastig.com/x264/The-Island-X264.png

CruNchers XviD EDP 1.4 Encode (Better Profile)

http://cruncher.mufflastig.com/XviD/test/The-Island-XviD-EDP.png

[Sagittaire]

Merry Christmas everyone.

@ digigami

your link don't work (no access)
http://digigami.in-long-beach-ca.com/megapeg/Doom9/Pour-Sagittaire/megapeg-1.7mbs.m2v

For good comparison you must target the perfect bitrate (PAL MPEG2 MP@ML DVD Compliant stream at 1800 Kbps if possible). Because it's low quality for MPEG2 and in low quality zone Metric variability is very high ...

For MPEG2 vs H264

As I say differencies are exponential : lower bitrate and higher difference. I think that metric comparison for each quant can be usefull ...

[digigami]

It's typically for MPEG-1/2.
I'm not sure but I think mencoder MPEG-2 in 3 passes with slowest setings can do the same job or even better.

If you want to be a scientist/engineer, please describe your playback environment, IDCT precision, and qualify your criticisms with screenshots. I know for a fact that what you have said is not true. Go back up to the top of the thread and look at this (http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=684002&postcount=8). Nobody responded to my post. Not one.

I have eyes. I have a high end PC. I have MPEG analysis tools that I have built myself for the purpose of performing this analysis.

What method do you use to compare? Even a screenshot from your program is better than nothing.

If you look up this thread, you will see that I am "not allowed" to use QT player to view the H.264 streams because it is crap. Therefore, it is my right to request a certain level of competence in MPEG-1 playback. Thank you.

BTW, the Nero streams seem to work partially with QT player. Does Nero have a template for making QT compatible streams?

[digigami]

I'm not sure but I think mencoder MPEG-2 in 3 passes with slowest setings can do the same job or even better.

You are not sure but you think? Either do your own encode to compare, and post the file, or please go back to lurking. If you post a file, I will bring it up under MPressionist and I will show you exactly how the files differ. So if you are used to 'comparing' by simply watching, could be problematic.

[digigami]

For the record, these are my outstanding 'questions/requests' without answers as of yet:

1. Ice Age (Kung Fu) trailer without blocks in darker low contrast areas. What bitrate is it free of artifacting of any kind.
2. How your bitstreams are checked for conformance/compliance with spec. It is not possible to do this by watching as I'm sure H.264 is very resilient to errors as is MPEG-2.
3. Exactly what subset of the H.264 AVC is QuickTiime player implementing?
4. Exactly what subset of the H.264 AVC is QuickTiime encoder implementing?
5. Who is interoperable with who? Does someone have a compatibility matrix with decoders/encoders and what parts of spec have been implemented? For instance, does VLC decode interlaced H.264?
6. What is the minimum PC required to decode full (720p,1080p) H.264 AVC feature set with VLC? Clock speed, video card and CPU (mmx,sse,sse2 etc).
7. What is the minimum Mac required to decode same.
8. New: what H.264 playback program allows you to pause and look at individual frames?
9. New: how do I obtain Ateme HP encoder?
10. New: what subset of H.264 is iPod supporting. Frame rez is max 320x240, but what subset of features.

[savage747]

Heh, what a nice "discussion". ;)

I think nobody here seriously doubts h264 is really really really superiour to MPEG2 when it comes to "low" bitrate video. However, when it comes to storage of HD-content on next-gen optical media (HD-DVD or BluRay) you have a lot of bits to spend. And if MPEG2 can deliver basically "perfect" HD video at bitrates > 15 mbit there is no real reason why you shall use h264.

Seems at least Sony Pictures thinks so: http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/29/sony-pictures-to-use-mpeg-2-on-blu-ray/ (by now this has been confirmed to be more than a rumor)

I don't really what made Sony to decide the way they did - perhaps they are just very used to their MPEG2 production chain or want to make sure the higher storage capacity is really used (or lower license fees?).

However, it seems MPEG2 will be with us a long time to go...

[Doom9]

Sony needs a reason to justify the size premium over HD-DVD.

2. How your bitstreams are checked for conformance/compliance with spec. It is not possible to do this by watching as I'm sure H.264 is very resilient to errors as is MPEG-2.
Naturally, you'd have to use the reference JM decoder to conformance testing, just as for any other standard.

4. Exactly what subset of the H.264 AVC is QuickTiime encoder implementing?Baseline + 1 B-frame. Technically that makes it Main goes a lot further. And in terms of performance and quality, QuickTime lags severely behind good AVC encoders.
3. Exactly what subset of the H.264 AVC is QuickTiime player implementing?The same as the encoder. Bottom line, QT gives AVC a bad name.
5. Who is interoperable with who? Does someone have a compatibility matrix with decoders/encoders and what parts of spec have been implemented? For instance, does VLC decode interlaced H.264?Have a look here for decoder features: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=99402
8. New: what H.264 playback program allows you to pause and look at individual frames?Only every DirectShow based player ;)
9. New: how do I obtain Ateme HP encoder?I believe they put the contact information right on the product description page: http://www.ateme.com/products/pcencoder_fr.php

like to see at what bitrate it hits the quality expectation for commercial concerns, rather than ripping and archiving.commercial concerns eh? Why is it that when watching DVDs on good equipment (flatscreen with a native HDTV resolution, fed via DVI) I always find severe imperfections? Hollywood doesn't care about quality a lot.

Last but not least, it's very convenient if the encoder just happens to be on a platform nobody around here has ;) Makes it very hard to disprove a point...

[digigami]

I finally managed to download your commandN_spotLIGHT clip (what a pain to retrieve 550 MB at a transfert rate of 3.5 kB/s) and made an encode using ateme mp encoder. I uploaded the result here:

ftp://mood.ateme.com/digigami/commandN_spotLIGHT_HD_720p-ateme_avc_mp_1500k.mp4


Hi bobololo,

I looked at your file and it looks great. However, for this particular example, since the commandN (http://commandn.typepad.com/) audience are regular PC/Mac users and just want to watch the movie, can you re-encode it using a H.264 profile that QuickTime can play on Mac/Windows. Otherwise, in this case it is not a fair comparison. It is unrealistic for regular PC/Windows users to have to go get a fresh build of their player before viewing every file. Also, many internet users do not have Admin priviledges and cannot necessarily even install new software on their computers.

Gen

[digigami]

Sony needs a reason to justify the size premium over HD-DVD.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but when has anyone ever wanted a smaller optical disc format rather than a larger one?

All Sony has said is that they are putting their features on Blu-Ray in MPEG-2 format. I believe they continue to support the HD codecs of H.264 and M$FT.

Gen

[digigami]

Last but not least, it's very convenient if the encoder just happens to be on a platform nobody around here has ;) Makes it very hard to disprove a point...

? What is the problem, I have a Mac, I have a PC.

According to this thread, Ateme HP is 'publicly unavailable'.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=99402

In my books, this says "Unobtanium" and should not be allowed to compete.
That leaves us the version of Ateme included in Nero.

Does the Nero version support interlaced encoding?

[digigami]

Bottom line, QT gives AVC a bad name.

I disagree. Between Apple's HD Trailers and the iPod, Apple is raising public awareness for H.264 and AVC and this will inevitably help H.264 _and_ lead to more awareness for the superior encoders.

Instead of simply criticizing, consider partnering with people like commandN who do not understand the difference and help them to Podcast H.264 with a better encoder.

Interoperability is the key to standards.

In 1997, CreativeLabs released a hardware player that refused to play my MPEG streams. I could have blamed them, but instead, I made changes to what I was doing to support their limitations. Consumers expect files to play on all devices. The acceptance of the standard is accelerated not by showing off the ultimate encoder performance but by creating the most seamless and uniform experience for the consumer, so that they can realize the benefits of the technology as soon as possible. In that respect, Apple's H.264, despite its technical limitations, reaches the widest audience, has robust playback and user experience. Eventually they will play your advanced H.264 streams just fine. In the meantime, if you are in support of the acceptance of the standard, it is a good idea to make it easy for people using these more advanced H.264 encoders to create files compatible with QT.

Other than the Apple site and DVB transport stream grabs, where do you find your HD content to play with? Apple and MPEG-2.

"We stand on the shoulders of giants".

[digigami]

However, it seems MPEG2 will be with us a long time to go...

No question about that. Basic television unchanged for 40+ years.

Also, when FCC mandates switch to HDTV in the US, it will be all MPEG-2 + optional H.264. Count on it. The companies that have already geared up for MPEG-2 HDTV transmission are not going to change again. They might add channels/features but not change.

As I understand it DVB is a pay-for-service, yes? Like DirecTV. ATSC HDTV is different. It is public airwaves. Just buy the receiver. Huge difference.

Also, you can expect MPEG-2 encoders to get better. Count on it. Refer to my comment about gigabit ethernet over twisted pair and you will understand.

[digigami]

Why is it that when watching DVDs on good equipment (flatscreen with a native HDTV resolution, fed via DVI) I always find severe imperfections? Hollywood doesn't care about quality a lot.

Can you give me an example? I believe there are also counter-examples. Superbit DVDs are encoded by people that care about quality. You can see it in their use of bitrate, custom quant matrices and other details.

[digigami]

Ateme Main Profil (Nero)
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/NDAVCMP_IceAge_720p_1250.mp4

OK, I am seeing playback problems with this stream using VLC 084a on both Mac/G5 and WinXP/P4HT.

The problem occurs when the big closeup of the 'eyeballs' comes on screen, and immediately after, the playback freezes for 2-3 seconds before continuing.

Would anyone like to address this problem or submit a different H.264 file encoded with a different encoder?

UPDATE: If this stream is bad, the encoder is disqualified. If the stream is good, then this entire profile is disqualified because my press release refers to 'current H.264' and noone can tell me that VideoLAN is not a current H.264 player. And grabbing a nightly build is not current, it is pre-production. Either way, I need a Ice Age (Kung Fu) trailer that plays without glitching on all the primary H.264 decoders on PC.

[savage747]

As I understand it DVB is a pay-for-service, yes?

Depends.

DVB-T (terrestrial) is 100% free at the time being (no cable fees, no encryption that'd force you to hire a key card or whatsoever). I'm using DVB-T and it's usually nice. Some tv networks broadcast with 2.5 mbit/s on average, though (because their stupid Dolby Digital (mostly 2.0, sometimes 5.1) consumes ~400 kbit/s - and they have to broadcast 192 kbit/s MP2 audio, too).

<off-topic>
Oh, and some stations re-encode their DVB-C/S streams to generate a lower-bitrate DVB-T stream... argh.

I'd really appreciate an efficient MPEG-2 encoder for standard definition at bitrates between 2 und 3 mbit/s... no idea how efficient the usual rack-mounted "hardware" MPEG-encoders are.
</off-topic>

However, on DVB-C (cable) and DVB-S (satellite) some tv networks begin to use encryption even when *not* charging a monthly fee - that's because Hollywood is paranoid and gives some nice discount if the consumer cannot record their content.

Pay-TV per DVB-S is something really common, too.

[bobololo]

Hi bobololo,

I looked at your file and it looks great. However, for this particular example, since the commandN (http://commandn.typepad.com/) audience are regular PC/Mac users and just want to watch the movie, can you re-encode it using a H.264 profile that QuickTime can play on Mac/Windows. Otherwise, in this case it is not a fair comparison. It is unrealistic for regular PC/Windows users to have to go get a fresh build of their player before viewing every file. Also, many internet users do not have Admin priviledges and cannot necessarily even install new software on their computers.

Gen

Gen,

I don't really see where you're trying to get, but please consider that the only purpose of this encoding was to answer to your request to demonstrate that H.264 could perform much better than MPEG-1/2 and nothing more.

If you want to learn more about H.264 and especially if you want to check what is achievable with QT restrictions, I'd suggest you to spend some time on the corresponding threads on this board where those topics have been deeply discussed and to make you own tries. Doing it yourself is often the best way for learning ;)

[Sagittaire]

OK, I am seeing playback problems with this stream using VLC 084a on both Mac/G5 and WinXP/P4HT.

The problem occurs when the big closeup of the 'eyeballs' comes on screen, and immediately after, the playback freezes for 2-3 seconds before continuing.

Would anyone like to address this problem or submit a different H.264 file encoded with a different encoder?

UPDATE: If this stream is bad, the encoder is disqualified. If the stream is good, then this entire profile is disqualified because my press release refers to 'current H.264' and noone can tell me that VideoLAN is not a current H.264 player. And grabbing a nightly build is not current, it is pre-production. Either way, I need a Ice Age (Kung Fu) trailer that plays without glitching on all the primary H.264 decoders on PC.

No problem for me ... VLC 0.8.2

but you have very strange and not objectif judgement : "If my prefered player is not able to play the stream then stream is bad" ... :confused:

1) H264 is compliant format with HD-DVD and BR
2) H264 is always better than MPEG2 in all situation (with small advantage for low quantizer but high advantage for high quant)

[digigami]

Gen,

I don't really see where you're trying to get, but please consider that the only purpose of this encoding was to answer to your request to demonstrate that H.264 could perform much better than MPEG-1/2 and nothing more.

I disagree. The purpose of compressing video is to allow people to view it. The commandN clip was distributed over the internet to allow viewers of the commandN TV show to see the show in HD, instead of 320x240. I transcoded the file to MPEG-1 and reduced the size to make the download manageable. To provide an "alternative" H.264 encoding, using a current encoder, it must be realistic comparison. It is not realistic to say that this H.264 file that has been produced will play on a DVB set-top box with H.264 built in, or only on a special H.264 decoder on a PC. If H.264 is a standard, your comparison should be a file which plays back on all the popular H.264 decoders. For this example. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are another matter altogether.

But, if you don't want to do it, that is fine. I just bought Nero Digital, so I will post my own results.

You have complained that the QuickTime AVC encoder is crap, so I would think you would like an opportunity to demonstrate that another encoder can produce a file to the exact same H.264 profile that QT supports, but at a vastly reduced file size.

[digigami]

No problem for me ... VLC 0.8.2

but you have very strange and not objectif judgement : "If my prefered player is not able to play the stream then stream is bad" ... :confused:

Rather: if H.264 is a standard, the _current_ support for that standard is what I am interested in. My press release describes 'current', not emerging or forthcoming, or futuristic. It talks about what is available, proven, ready right now.

[Sagittaire]

Can you give me an example? I believe there are also counter-examples. Superbit DVDs are encoded by people that care about quality. You can see it in their use of bitrate, custom quant matrices and other details.

yes try this with superbit bitrate
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/lossless.avi

DVD for complexe motion/texture is unable to make good quality

http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/MPEG2-hightexture.jpg

Try with your MPEG1/2 encoder if you want

And here my best libavcodec result for my HPII trailer challenge (it's a new record with 47.35 dB by far better than CCE, TMPGEnc, HCEnc, Procoder ... )
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/Libavcodec.m2v

[digigami]

Depends.

DVB-T (terrestrial) is 100% free at the time being (no cable fees, no encryption that'd force you to hire a key card or whatsoever). I'm using DVB-T and it's usually nice. Some tv networks broadcast with 2.5 mbit/s on average, though (because their stupid Dolby Digital (mostly 2.0, sometimes 5.1) consumes ~400 kbit/s - and they have to broadcast 192 kbit/s MP2 audio, too).

<off-topic>
Oh, and some stations re-encode their DVB-C/S streams to generate a lower-bitrate DVB-T stream... argh.

I'd really appreciate an efficient MPEG-2 encoder for standard definition at bitrates between 2 und 3 mbit/s... no idea how efficient the usual rack-mounted "hardware" MPEG-encoders are.
</off-topic>

Yes, an interesting problem. I think if you look at the upstream compression environments for your DVB H.264 future, you are going to see different encoding results than you are getting with your multiple pass encoder samples produced here. In many broadcast situations, multi-pass simply is not feasible because there is a variety of diverse source material all feeding into a single pipe.

So even if the DVB set-top box supports all the advanced H.264 features, I doubt you will see 15 reference frames in a broadcast feed unless it was compressed offline for ad-insertion or something similar.


However, on DVB-C (cable) and DVB-S (satellite) some tv networks begin to use encryption even when *not* charging a monthly fee - that's because Hollywood is paranoid and gives some nice discount if the consumer cannot record their content. Pay-TV per DVB-S is something really common, too.

Since I am in the US, perhaps you can give a breakdown of what HD formats are available via DVB in your area.

[digigami]

yes try this with superbit bitrate
http://multimediacom.free.fr/Download/lossless.avi


Sagittaire, he was looking for an example from Hollywood that cared about video quality.