Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
10th February 2009, 21:06 | #1 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Land Of Dracula (Romania - EU)
Posts: 934
|
Encoding with h264 at low bitrates [bits/(pixel*frame): 0.09 - 0.11]
Hi. I want to encode some tv shows with h264 (using megui) at low bitrates [bits/(pixel*frame): 0.09 - 0.11].
For those unfamiliar with this it means for example: 1/4 cd-r (175mb) for 42min (average) at 624x352@24fps or 1/8 cd-r (87.5mb) for 21min (average) at 624x352@24fps. Can you suggest downsizing methods, custom matrix, megui profiles, your experience etc? Thanks a lot. _ Last edited by b66pak; 10th February 2009 at 21:23. |
10th February 2009, 21:09 | #2 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
__________________
Follow x264 development progress | akupenguin quotes | x264 git status ffmpeg and x264-related consulting/coding contracts | Doom10 Last edited by Dark Shikari; 10th February 2009 at 21:11. |
10th February 2009, 22:28 | #3 | Link |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,806
|
BTW . Who created this ridiculous value???
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
10th February 2009, 23:06 | #5 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 14
|
so around ~550kbps bitrate (AACplus2 suggested over mp3 to).
i've done some of those a while ago with SGA (for fun and learning experience) i don't use megui anymore but when i did sharktooth profiles worked good with settings. dxva-hd-insane (even tho your doing sd encodes) would be a good idea as it doesn't do 16 ref frames (like unrestricted insane) which can double encoding time (also as i hear 5-6 is the most you normally need unless anime/cartoon). some people dont like to do me=tesa (satd exaustive) because it slows things down a bit but you may want that over umh (multi hex) considering the low bitrate your doing. also note that for the encodes, re-encoding a 720p x264 to 624x352 x264 will give better results then just re-encoding a 624x352 xvid to 624x352 x264 |
10th February 2009, 23:26 | #6 | Link | |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,806
|
Quote:
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
|
11th February 2009, 01:33 | #9 | Link |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
Ignoring the fact that bpp is meaningless, ~500 kbps (bpp = 0.1 for 624x352 @ 24 fps) would give you very good quality. Hell, my own DVD rips @ 848x480 average around 1 mbps for the video. Extrapolating backwards, that would make a bitrate of around ~500 kbps also good for your video. (Note: Bitrate scaling isn't linear to resolution. Doubling the resolution usually requires less than twice the bitrate, and halving the resolution might not always require half the bitrate).
Stop using pointless metrics like bpp and just stick with crf mode. crf = 20 - 22 should give you very good quality at low bitrates.
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. |
11th February 2009, 12:14 | #11 | Link |
Encoding Dinosaur!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,668
|
I don't know what's wrong with taking bpp as an approximating quality measure. I'm aware that different videos may require different bpp, but it's a fast "rule of thumb" for those who don't have time to do compressiblity tests and stuff, and need to hit a specific size target.
I would agree that going below 0.1bpp is not healthy and that it's considered a low bitrate. Did you ever see a blu-ray disc with less than 5GB for the main movie?? I didn't think so. Even 720p rips hit the 4GB mark easily, which results in about 0.25bpp. But, b66pak, I would still go with light bicubic resizing (default avisynth setting) instead of bilinear, bilinear washes too much for my taste. Make sure to filter the noise well though. @Sagekilla: what's up with you guys following that "upsizing trend"?! encode anamorphic, let the player handle the upsizing! MPC HC can do bicubic resizing, I don't know what's wrong with that! just wasting bitrate for nothing IMHO... |
11th February 2009, 13:48 | #12 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,460
|
I use crf 22 for my rips and bpp vary greatly. I looked at some movies on my harddrive now (blu-ray rips, 720p or equivalent number of pixels) and the bpp values are between 0.1 and 0.35. Assuming that crf gives a more or less constant quality difference between source and encode that makes bpp pretty useless, because while you can say most movies above ~0.3 bpp will look good it doesn't tell you anything about the quality of rips below that value and there are still cases where this is not enough. Also with higher resolutions you can generally get away with less bitrate so you'd have to take that also into account.
|
11th February 2009, 14:21 | #13 | Link |
Mr. Sandman
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Haddonfield, IL
Posts: 11,768
|
how many times i have to say BPP is a completely useless metric?
leave it alone. use CRF instead or do a compression test if you need to hit a filesize. BPP is useless. period.
__________________
MPEG-4 ASP Custom Matrices: EQM V1(old), EQM AutoGK Sharpmatrix (aka EQM V2), EQM V3HR (updated 01/10/2004), EQM V3LR, EQM V3ULR (updated 04/02/2005), EQM V3UHR (updated 17/12/2004) and EQM V3EHR (updated 05/10/2004) Info about my ASP matrices. MPEG-4 AVC Custom Matrices: EQM AVC-HR Info about my AVC matrices My x264 builds. Mooo!!! |
11th February 2009, 16:58 | #14 | Link |
Encoding Dinosaur!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,668
|
As said, I'm well aware of the limitations of the bpp index, but in times of "time is money", you can get away with it as an approximation for the quality you should be expecting.
Anything below 0.1bpp should look like crap Anything between 0.1 and 0.2bpp should look good Anything above 0.2bpp should look very good - providing right filtering! - And as they say, exceptions confirm the rule No doubt that a compressibility test is the best method, I'm not arguing about that, don't worry, we're on the same side OLD SCHOOL ISN'T THAT BAD GUYS! |
11th February 2009, 17:09 | #15 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 67
|
Quote:
Got a link to where I can study what it actually does? |
|
11th February 2009, 17:21 | #16 | Link |
Encoding Dinosaur!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,668
|
@ DW
I'll try to explain the compressibility test with DivX terms: 100% uses the lowest possible quantizer, which is 2 in the case of DivX. 50% equates Quantizer 4. 75% Quantizer 3. You seem to dislike anything higher than Quantizer 3. Quantizers are a bit different in the h.264 world, but they follow the same logic. |
11th February 2009, 18:11 | #17 | Link | |
x264aholic
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 1,752
|
Quote:
It's not a bash against "old school methods." It's just being smart. Like everyone said, and as you acknowledged, a bpp of X will look great on one video but horrid on another. But, crf of Y on one video will look just as good on one video as it does on every other. Save your time, stop doing guess work, and use crf. Edit: Yes I know I can just encode anamorphic video. No longer a concern of 720x480 or 848x480 though. 720p rips of Blu-ray all the way
__________________
You can't call your encoding speed slow until you start measuring in seconds per frame. |
|
11th February 2009, 19:17 | #18 | Link |
Encoding Dinosaur!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,668
|
@ Sagekilla
Am I missing something here? I thought CRF-encoding is for people that don't care about final file size?! The point behind bpp is to get a quick approximation of what the resolution should be for a given target file size (I don't know if you got this specific point right) |
11th February 2009, 19:37 | #19 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,346
|
Back to the original topic/theme regarding tips for lower bitrate encoding:
-Depending on the source / desired goal, preprocessing with some denoising filters might help lower bitrate requirements -Use higher quality x264 encoder settings -I would disable psy rd /psy trellis, they tend to "eat up" too much bitrate , and ringing artifacts are more readily visible at low bitrates It will take you a few minutes to test out various settings on a short representative clips |
11th February 2009, 22:31 | #20 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The Land Of Dracula (Romania - EU)
Posts: 934
|
Hi. I was given the BPP value so we can quickly get the bitrate for a desired resolution@framerate and NOT as a quality measure...
Example: -for 1920x1080@24fps BPP 0.1 we talking about 4977kb/s -for 1280x720@24fps BPP 0.1 ... 2212kb/s -for 720x480@24fps BPP 0.1 ... 830kb/s -for 720x576@25fps BPP 0.1 ... 1037kb/s -for 640x368@30fps BPP 0.1 ... 706kb/s -for 640x368@24fps BPP 0.1 ... 566kb/s -for 624x352@30fps BPP 0.1 ... 660kb/s -for 624x352@24fps BPP 0.1 ... 527kb/s you get the ideea... thank you Sagekilla! i didn't know that bitrate scaling isn't linear to resolution... Dark Shikari provided (on the first reply) a 10min cartoon (1920X1080@24fps) at a stunning BPP 0.03!!! now lets talk about avisynth resizing for low bitrates... DJ Bobo kindly suggested soft bicubic resize...what about neutral or sharp resizing?...pro and contra... _ Last edited by b66pak; 12th February 2009 at 03:12. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|