Recommended intermediate HD codec

[kieranrk]

Originally Posted by kolak

x264 at 100Mbit is great, but still not that easy to cope for NLE.

x264 decoding with sliced threads would probably be ok.

[henryho_hk]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

Does XviD support interlaced encoding (MBAFF) ?

It supports Progressive, TFF and BFF. Easily selectable via xvid_encraw (multithread unfriendly) and VFW GUI (via Virtualdub which is multithread friendly, fully unleashing the new sliced-threading).

Note that the new sliced-threading may have compatibility problems with hardware standalone players, but there is no need to worry if used as an intermediate codec.

[Alex-Kid]

Originally Posted by henryho_hk

xvid_encraw is not multithread-friendly at all.

I didn't note that, but now that you have mentioned, I don't remember any option related to multi-threading. Then I have to assume that MeGUI didn't have multithreading support either.

Table updated with results from henryho_hk (post). Just to keep things in order.

[henryho_hk]

xvid_encraw has "-threads" option (squid80's 1.2 version is better threaded) and the newer 1.3 versions has the "-slices" option. "-slices" should scale quite well but I find it much better realized in VirtualDub via VFW.

Concerning the speed, I suggest adjusting it by prorata as ~30.89fps = ~35fps / ~40 * 35.3

[kolak]

Originally Posted by kieranrk

x264 decoding with sliced threads would probably be ok.

Yes- for simple timelines it works fine, but once you make it more complicated (or use multicam) it starts showing problems.

It's still more difficult than all intermediate codecs.
For crucial work it needs 150Mbit or more, so that's make it even more difficult.


Andrew

[nm]

Originally Posted by kolak

Yes- for simple timelines it works fine, but once you make it more complicated (or use multicam) it starts showing problems.

It's still more difficult than all intermediate codecs.

Bad decoders and demuxers aside, I don't see a format-related issue that would make it more difficult as long as you only have intraframe video.

[kolak]

It just complicity of AVC- all intermediate codecs are much easier to decode.

Edius export for this sample to HQX (about 120Mbit)= 145fps using 12 cores at 100% (all CPU processing).

There are different implementation of the decoders, but we're talking about using AVC as an intermediate format- so it has to work in NLEs.

In Edius to play this sample CPU=7%, for HQX file=4%.
Not sure how good is Edius AVC decoder, but I have not seen better NLE for handling AVC files.

Going to encode it to AVC-I using posted cmd and check playback.

AVC-I CPU=6%, but seeking is much better.

Andrew

[Atak_Snajpera]

@kolak
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...72#post1508272

[kolak]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

@kolak
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...72#post1508272

Decoding speed?

To have fast decoder is one thing, but to have it working inside NLE with timeline, seeking is another.


Andrew

[Atak_Snajpera]

What is your problem if we are talking about AVC-INTRA (each frame is independent) in mp4 container?

[kolak]

Yes- I know.

Not sure what are you talking about

I've encoded this sample to AVC-I using posted cmd line. I had 80fps using 60% of 12 cores. It may maxing my HDD speed.

update- it was maxing HDD- encodign from Canopus HQ gives about 180fps (6x faster than RT) and 70% of all 24threads. Should it be 100%?


Andrew

[Atak_Snajpera]

Have you increased number of decoding and encoding threads?

[kolak]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

Have you increased number of decoding and encoding threads?

Encodign from uncompressed.

One note- people encode to AVC-I with x264, but this streams are way out of Panasonic AVC-I spec as far as I can see.

If it's just AVC with I frames only than fine, but it has nothing to do with AVC-I spec.

Andrew

[Atak_Snajpera]

update- it was maxing HDD- encodign from Canopus HQ gives about 180fps (6x faster than RT) and 70% of all 24threads. Should it be 100%?

Are you sure that your hdd is not a bottleneck again? Increase number of encoding threads.

[nm]

Originally Posted by kolak

One note- people encode to AVC-I with x264, but this streams are way out of Panasonic AVC-I spec as far as I can see.

Maybe some people encode to AVC-I, but you are the only one who has mentioned it in this thread so far. There's no reason to care about Panasonic specs when the stream is used internally and the tools aren't limited to AVC-I.

[kolak]

That's the whole point- you need compatibility with AVID and rest of Pro software if you want x264 being used commercially.

It should be also 4:2:2 as intermediate codec.

For home use you can do whatever you want. You never have good quality source- best is ripped BD, so it's bit pointless anyway.

Andrew

[Atak_Snajpera]

Does so called pro software support mp4 container as input? BTW. I'm not "PRO" so for my AVCHD recordings x264 Intra 100 Mbps is perfect. Small size + very high quality + very fast decoding speed + natively decoded by Sony Vegas + it' free. Why should I use something else.

It should be also 4:2:2 as intermediate codec.

I always thought that x264 10 bit does that.

[kolak]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

Are you sure that your hdd is not a bottleneck again? Increase number of encoding threads.

No- it can do 450MB/sec. Canopus HQ file is about 150Mbit.
It can be related to decoding in avisynth (I read it through mt mode 2). I know that it works 2x as fast in Edius- decoding/encoding for HQ.

Andrew

[kolak]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

Does so called pro software support mp4 container as input?

Depends which- some do. Most likely you need MXF.

Andrew

[kolak]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

Does so called pro software support mp4 container as input? BTW. I'm not "PRO" so for my AVCHD recordings x264 Intra 100 Mbps is perfect. Small size + very high quality + very fast decoding speed + natively decoded by Sony Vegas + it' free. Why should I use something else.


I always thought that x264 10 bit does that.

Exactly, but world does not end only on your needs

Yes- but posted cmd line is for normal 8bit encoding. 10bit 4:2:2 would be even slower for decoding.

That's why I said that HQX is great- quality can be set from offiline to higher than HDCAM-SR and all extreamly fast for processing. Not free, but also not very expensive.

There is no specially designed, free intermediate codec (except DNxHD- but it's quite limited)- only paid ones. We have amazing lossless ones- like UtVideo, but someone would like lower bitrate (for small loss in quality).


Andrew