collection of available AVC custom quant matrices [Archive] - Page 2

IgorC

14th March 2006, 15:10

... get the sagittaire encodes :P

however

4mbps for that is an overkill...

And? I saw them. Very smooth. Many details are washed. Those "HD" at 1600 kbit/s? I do 1200-1500 kbit/s for transparent DVD backups.
x.264 is excelent codec but can't do magic.

QT H.264 Baseline Profile +1b (Low complexity) for 1280x720 uses 5-6mbit/s.
I would repeat another time for H.264 MP/HP 3,8-4,5 Mbit/s is a normal bitrate for 1280x720.

Sharktooth

14th March 2006, 15:27

ok.. but he encoded a 640x480 source at 4mbps....

IgorC

14th March 2006, 15:31

yes, here I agree . 640x480 4 mbps is even more than enoughl for MPEG-2

*.mp4 guy

14th March 2006, 16:01

I have encoded movies at ~1500kbps with X264, the encodes have a lot of artifacts, and texture is never kept perfectly. ~3000 kbps is better, but most of the time its still not "Perfect". Theres no harm in trying to get transparent results from X264, and mpeg2 doesn't look transparent on most sources at 4mbps.

Sharktooth

14th March 2006, 16:08

maybe some particular sources (very noisy stuff, ect)... but the majority of DVD movies doesnt need that bitrate.
I encoded all the Band of Brothers (very noisy and grainy) episodes at 1600 with AVC HR and it was enaugh to keep both noise and grain with no artifacts.

Soulhunter

14th March 2006, 16:11

then use xvid :p
what you do is like encoding a 640x480 source at 20mpbs with xvid... it's useless, just use MPEG-2...

Nah, with XviD i can get such a high PSNR with "just" 4-5mbps, so i can fit most flicks on a single-layer DVD without loosing (visible) quality. Humm, you really need 20mbps via h.264 to reach a PSNR close to 50dB? Probably thats the reason i still use XviD for my daily encodes... ^^;

Bye

Sharktooth

14th March 2006, 16:32

Humm, you really need 20mbps via h.264 to reach a PSNR close to 50dB? Probably thats the reason i still use XviD for my daily encodes... ^^;
i didnt say that...

Soulhunter

14th March 2006, 17:04

i didnt say that...
Right, you said Id need 20mbps for a 640x480 source to reach a PSNR ~50dB via XviD, correct?

Well, just read through my old encode logs...

The day after tomorrow - DVD PAL/R2

1024x576 (Lanczos) / 25fps / 118min.

XviD 1.0.2
Fixed Quantizer 2 (VHQ1)
I-frame interval = 250
Chroma motion
B-VOP's = 1 / 1 / 1
Matrix = Soulhunters v3

Average bitrate: 3668.7 kbit/s

PSNR: 49.69 dB (Y 48.26 U 49.99 V 50.80)

Gladiator - DVD PAL/R2

1024x576 (Lanczos) / 25fps / 148min.

XviD 1.0.1
Fixed quantizer 2 (VHQ1)
I-frame interval = 250
Matrix = MPEG

Average bitrate: 4589.9 kbit/s

PSNR: 50.30 dB (Y 47.94 U 51.34 V 51.62)

The Italian job - DVD PAL/R2

1024x576 (Lanczos) / 25fps / 106min.

XviD 1.0.0
Fixed quantizer 2 (VHQ1)
I-frame interval = 250
Matrix = Soulhunters v3

Average bitrate: 4931.0 kbit/s

PSNR: 49.51 dB (Y 48.93 U 49.62 V 49.97)

Underworld - DVD PAL/R2

1024x576 (Lanczos) / 25fps / 128min.

XviD 1.0.2
2Pass @ 4425 kbps (VHQ1)
I-frame interval = 250
Matrix = Soulhunters v3

Average bitrate: 4420.0 kbit/s

PSNR: 49.89 dB (Y 49.02 U 49.52 V 51.13)

So if i need 4-5mbps for 1024x576, 640x480 certainly wont need 20mbps, huh?

Bye

Daodan

14th March 2006, 17:51

I wonder if Sharktooth isn't refering to global PSNR, not average. By the way, what's global PSNR supposed to be?

Sharktooth

14th March 2006, 18:29

i was referring to the fact you said "i go even higher" and i thought you did it with h.264...

Soulhunter

14th March 2006, 18:59

Ah, okay... my fault then... my reply was sorta vague, heh? ^^;

Anyway, for high bitrate encodes I recommend to use XviD!

AVC only pwns at low-mid bitrates imho... :\

Bye

Audionut

14th March 2006, 22:36

Off-topic.

I hope a mod split this thread at post #47.

Oline 61

14th March 2006, 23:40

*.mp4 guy

15th March 2006, 00:29

750, 1250 and 2000 would be good.

kotrtim

15th March 2006, 08:04

496 x 272 23.976 fps

just emulate noise by addgrain (30,0,0)
that is overkilling the codec, even with 3000 kbps, it still fail to preserve the noise.
really bad psnr 38..only...but for clean spurce it generally does not need such nigh bitrates

What bitrates do you specifically want to see tested at 640x480?

This is just my suggestion... Encode with only "--crf 26/25 --bframes X" , see what is the final bitrate you got for CRF, then use this bitrate to do 2-pass

Soulhunter

15th March 2006, 15:25

/me votes for 500kbps (very low), 1000kbps (low), 1500kbps (medium) ^^

Bye

Sharktooth

15th March 2006, 16:12

/me votes for 500kbps (very low), 1000kbps (low), 1500kbps (medium) ^^
1000 aint that low... it's "medium"... and 1500 is mid/high.

Soulhunter

15th March 2006, 17:55

500kbps (very low), 1000kbps (low), 1500kbps (medium), 2000kbps (high), 2500kbps (very high) :D :p

Bye

IgorC

15th March 2006, 18:58

I should say watchig at all custom matrices that x264 does good.
There some matrices to keep filmgrain, another for anime etc.

Some advanced users of Xvid like Soulhunter and Teegedeck say that they prefer Xvid+CM because it keeps "details" perfectly.

I prefer H.264 look and of course maybe H.264 with its inloop filter remove some filmgrain and/or noise, but all details are perfectly preserved at certain bitrate.
There is another considetation. What is the noise and what are the details. But it's matter of taste and nothing else.

Sharktooth

15th March 2006, 19:08

AVC-HR at 1600kbps...
http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/grain_example.png
grain is perfectly preserved... :)

IgorC

15th March 2006, 19:10

Exactly :)

emmel

15th March 2006, 19:34

I have now tested x264 for a month or two, with different settings and Sharktooth's profiles from "fast to insane". My data consists of about 1T of dvb/pal-recordings in mpeg2 ts, and I have re-encoded some of it into h264 with x264. I'm a visual perfectionist, but I'd say that a bitrate somewhere between 1400-1800kbps, depending on the material of course, is enough to preserve the original quality in any case. More is an overkill, and less you notice as artifacts. So, I agree with the Soulhunter classification of the bitrates. Maybe some day I'll learn more, and change my opinion... :)

Soulhunter

15th March 2006, 19:46

AVC-HR at 1600kbps...
http://www.webalice.it/f.corriga/temp/grain_example.png
grain is perfectly preserved... :)
And where is the source frame? ;)

Bye

Sharktooth

15th March 2006, 21:30

i need to take a SS from the DVD

Oline 61

16th March 2006, 00:16

Bleh, on 640x480 sources I usually get far too much blocking below about 1750 kbit/s.

I need to scrap together a commandline for the test. How 'bout this:
x264 --pass 1 --bitrate 0000 --stats x264stats.log --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --filter -2,-2 --subme 1 --analyse none --direct auto --me dia --cqmfile ~/matrices/matrix.cfg --progress --output out.264 in.avs

x264 --pass 2 --bitrate 0000 --stats x264stats.log --ref 5 --mixed-refs --no-fast-pskip --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --filter -2,-2 --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse all --8x8dct --direct auto --me umh --cqmfile ~/matrices/matrix.cfg --progress --output out.264 in.avs

Sharktooth

16th March 2006, 01:47

Bleh, on 640x480 sources I usually get far too much blocking below about 1750 kbit/s.
That's quite impossible unless your sources are really of crap quality or so noisy to blow your eyes...
I need to scrap together a commandline for the test. How 'bout this:
x264 --pass 1 --bitrate 0000 --stats x264stats.log --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --filter -2,-2 --subme 1 --analyse none --direct auto --me dia --cqmfile ~/matrices/matrix.cfg --progress --output out.264 in.avs

x264 --pass 2 --bitrate 0000 --stats x264stats.log --ref 5 --mixed-refs --no-fast-pskip --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --filter -2,-2 --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse all --8x8dct --direct auto --me umh --cqmfile ~/matrices/matrix.cfg --progress --output out.264 in.avs
why --filter -2,-2 ?

Oline 61

16th March 2006, 01:58

Okay, it is pretty noisy as DVD movies go, and there are already blocks in the MPEG2 video.

But why not filter -2,-2?

Sharktooth

16th March 2006, 02:26

you should postprocess/deblock your mpeg2 source then.
also the --filter parameters should be set to a higher level if you have blocking...

Oline 61

16th March 2006, 03:28

Using the built in deblocked in DGDecode smears and blurs so much that I'd rather just have blocks. The movie is a Pan and Scanned version of Friday Night Lights on a Dual Layer DVD. I am amazed that they managed to have blocking in a large scale movie on a medium of that capacity though. I guess I'll just live with it. It's not extremely apparent blocking.
I'll try a full encode tonight and post source and compressed screenshots tomorrow. The biggest problem is that the artifacts are very apparent once the 640x480 video is blown up to fullscreen on my 1280x1024 monitor. I wan't to encode at a higher resolution, but it takes so long to PixieDust+LimitedSharpen and then encode at a high res.

Marsu42

18th March 2006, 05:14

/me votes for 500kbps (very low), 1000kbps (low), 1500kbps (medium) ^^
1000 aint that low... it's "medium"... and 1500 is mid/high.

... good to have that sorted out :-). Nice way to improve one's post count, though.

Personally, I encode DVDs @non-anamorphic original size (usually 704x300 or something like that after cropping and resizing to square) and target 1CD. The result ususally is ~900kbps with ps-he aac sound.

While I have only used XviD matrices so far, I guess that's the region where cqms make sense: @4000kpbs you shouldn't use cqms, but just encode @5000kpbs instead because space doesn't seem to matter. On the other hand, 640x460@500kbps will look crappy anyway (if it's not a documentaton of still photography).

Therefore, my vote clearly goes to 900-1000kpbs, it would be nice it any of you wizards would come up with a test that shows whether cqms do make a visible difference or I should just forget about them (ffdshow doesn't play them anyway, right?).

Sharktooth

18th March 2006, 14:19

... good to have that sorted out :-). Nice way to improve one's post count, though.

Personally, I encode DVDs @non-anamorphic original size (usually 704x300 or something like that after cropping and resizing to square) and target 1CD. The result ususally is ~900kbps with ps-he aac sound.

While I have only used XviD matrices so far, I guess that's the region where cqms make sense: @4000kpbs you shouldn't use cqms, but just encode @5000kpbs instead because space doesn't seem to matter. On the other hand, 640x460@500kbps will look crappy anyway (if it's not a documentaton of still photography).

Therefore, my vote clearly goes to 900-1000kpbs, it would be nice it any of you wizards would come up with a test that shows whether cqms do make a visible difference or I should just forget about them (ffdshow doesn't play them anyway, right?).
support for cqms in ffdshow (libavcodec) has been added some months ago. just get a recent build (from x264.nl, celtic druid, etc) and it will have no problems.
also cqms make sense at any bitrate as in xvid. there are times you rise the bitrate but wont notice any quality improvment... but if you use a cqm you can clearly see some difference.
regarding 640*xxx@500kbps, some ppl use even lower bitrates (ask sirber...) for anime backups and they do not look crappy at all :)

Chainmax

18th March 2006, 14:36

Oline 61: try DeBlock_QED_MT2() or FunkyDeBlock() for block removal and FFT3DFilter for noise removal, then LimitedSharpenFaster() after the final resize. This will probably make the movie look better and help x264 make a better encode.

Oline 61

18th March 2006, 19:09

I'll give it a shot. I think I might leave out FFT3DFilter so that the encode will be <24 hours. I don't think denoise is nessecary for sharpening without upscaling.

Chainmax

20th March 2006, 00:32

Well, you could always try DeGrainMedian(), although it does remove a bit more detail than FFT3DFilter's sigma=1. For some very slight denoising that almost doesn't slow down encoding at all, try RemoveGrain(mode=5).

siddharthagandhi

20th March 2006, 00:50

what is a matrice?

Oline 61

20th March 2006, 02:30

what is a matrice?
Search!

Thanks for the denoising and filtering advice. I have been experimenting a lot. FFT3dFilter(sigma=1) is too slow, FFT3dGPU(sigma=1) is okay though. I may try out RemoveGrain. FFT3d* seems to muddle some of the picture too much. Also, Deblock_QED doesn't seem to be having any effect at all, even at high settings.

siddharthagandhi

20th March 2006, 03:53

I did...it doesnt show any substantive results

Oline 61

20th March 2006, 04:45

I did...it doesnt show any substantive results
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=54147&highlight=quantizer+matrix
Maybe try a little harder next time?

siddharthagandhi

20th March 2006, 21:40

Well, that says matrix. My search query was matrice.

*.mp4 guy

20th March 2006, 21:46

They are the same thing, matrices is a commonly used plural form of matrix.

siddharthagandhi

21st March 2006, 01:36

Yea I know that but one gives the appropriate search results while the other doesnt.

Oline 61

21st March 2006, 01:51

Sounds like it would be a great idea to try multiple differing iterations of your search next time.

foxyshadis

24th March 2006, 14:57

Yeah, this thread has kind of gone off topic, but.....

The previous results are flawed, because I agree no one uses that much bitrate for 640x480. I will try more testing overnight.

What bitrates do you specifically want to see tested at 640x480?
If you ever get a chance to further work on this, I think --crf 18, 22, 26, 30, 34 should be tested, rather than any specific bitrates. That will test both how bitrate-hungry a matrix is, in addition to how it looks (which is probably secondary to how big it is, unless there are major visual differences).

Oline 61

24th March 2006, 21:32

Haven't got around to it. Next week is Spring Break and I'll be at the beach. Teachers heaped on a lot of work the last couple weeks before break. Hopefully I can do it after Break.

The problem with using CRF is quality cannot be compared. The only result we can deduce from a --crf encode is how bitrate hungry the matrix is, which is not something I am interested in. I want quality results.