Google VP9 "Next Generation Open Video" information posted

[Mangix]

Originally Posted by Rumbah

If anyone is interested here is a Windows Cygwin compile of vpxenc/vpxdec to tinker with. I tried to get a MinGW compile to work but gave up after trying for some time.

x264.janhum.alfahosting.org/vpx05072013.7z

IIRC it's the same as making the cygwin compile but doing ./configure --cross-prefix=x86_64-w64-mingw32- --host=x86_64-pc-mingw32

MinGW has to be installed of course, which is possible through cygwin's installer.

[easyfab]

Originally Posted by Rumbah

If anyone is interested here is a Windows Cygwin compile of vpxenc/vpxdec to tinker with. I tried to get a MinGW compile to work but gave up after trying for some time.

x264.janhum.alfahosting.org/vpx05072013.7z

Rumbah for MinGW compile you need a patch see :

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...29&postcount=6

[zerowalker]

I have done some tests on VP9 VS VP8 on youtube, meaning there own encoded material.
And from that, i can say that VP8 looks better then VP9.

Now, i don´t know what bitrate VP9 uses, as i can´t download it.

If anyone knows a way to download the VP9 encoded videos from Youtube, please tell.

[MoSal]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

I have done some tests on VP9 VS VP8 on youtube, meaning there own encoded material.
And from that, i can say that VP8 looks better then VP9.

Now, i don´t know what bitrate VP9 uses, as i can´t download it.

If anyone knows a way to download the VP9 encoded videos from Youtube, please tell.

What videos?

[zerowalker]

Youtube videos.
Some are encoded in VP9, they have a user and playlist that contains them.

[MoSal]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

Youtube videos.
Some are encoded in VP9, they have a user and playlist that contains them.

You mean?
https://www.youtube.com/user/WebMVP9/videos

Those videos were not encoded with the final bitstream.

You can download VP9 versions by parsing the output of:

https://www.youtube.com/get_video_info?video_id=VIDEO_ID

This is what libquvi/cclive and others do to download from yt. It's just the VP9 formats in those experimental videos are not supported.

[zerowalker]

Yes.

I see, well is it that big of difference?

I tried to use that, i got a Get_Video_Info file, that was 32kb;S

[xooyoozoo]

Originally Posted by schweinsz

Could you provide more results on more sequences such as the JCT-VC sequences, bqsquare, bqterrace, racehorses, basketballdrive, cactus.

I tried a couple more, made with latest July 4 '13 master.

Instantaneous MS-SSIM bitrate gap versus QP32 HEVC is +25% filesize for basketballdrive (bitstream, side-by-side download) and +30% filesize for cactus (bitstream, side-by-side download).

Personally, I think I've lost interest in the next-gen "codec war" until we can find scenarios that seem nuanced at the very least.

(By the way, the bitstreams work perfectly on Chrome dev branch, and the side-by-sides had their frame rates reduced to 24.)

[zerowalker]

Could you record some 3d game lossless, and encode it in vp9 and hevc?
I don´t mean a whole session, but you know, some secs.

As it would be nice to see some, Unencoded material being encoded and compared.

Personally, I think I've lost interest in the next-gen "codec war" until we can find scenarios that seem nuanced at the very least.

I have to agree there. I was extremely excited with VP9, i have been waiting for it with high hopes.
But i can´t say i am impressed, but i still have a bit of hope

[MoSal]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

Yes.

I see, well is it that big of difference?

I tried to use that, i got a Get_Video_Info file, that was 32kb;S

I see you need more hand-holding.

Assuming you replaced VIDEO_ID with the video id, you will get a file with url-encoded text. You need to escape/unquote the text (you might need to do that twice depending on the method you use for this).

Now, reading the (escaped) text should be easier, search for vp9, then copy the following url (what comes after url=) until and including the signature parameter. That's the video url.

[zerowalker]

Yes indeed.

Never done this, but i actually got it to work!
Much thanks to you!

[zerowalker]

Okay i tested myself, so here is a picture from the same source, which was lossless, and i encoded in vp9 1 pass -good -target 1000bitrate (but it was 300bitrate in the end for some reason)
So the x264 encode was 2 pass and 300bitrate, default slower preset.

The difference is significant, it´s night and day
And hopefully, i did things right.

EDIT: Forgot, the x264 i encoded is 10bit, so it has a bit of advantage there, especially as this is a dark clip.

[vivan]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

And hopefully, i did things right.

I bet defaults are still awful and presets are still broken. Try finding recommended settings, they were somewhere in this thread... They are way better than just --good or --best.

[BadFrame]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

Okay i tested myself, so here is a picture from the same source, which was lossless, and i encoded in vp9 1 pass -good -target 1000bitrate (but it was 300bitrate in the end for some reason)
So the x264 encode was 2 pass and 300bitrate, default slower preset.

Why did you do 1 pass in vp9 (particularly when you did two pass in the x264 test)? As far as I know it's very dependant on two-pass for quality.

For my vp9 tests I used settings I picked up on the webm mailing list which I recall some dev said is what they are typically using:

vpxenc --best --cpu-used=0 --threads=0 --profile=0 --lag-in-frames=25 --min-q=0 --max-q=63 --end-usage=vbr --auto-alt-ref=1 --passes=2 --kf-max-dist=9999 --kf-min-dist=0 --drop-frame=0 --static-thresh=0 --bias-pct=50 --minsection-pct=0 --maxsection-pct=2000 --arnr-maxframes=7 --arnr-strength=5 --arnr-type=3 --sharpness=0 --undershoot-pct=100 --codec=vp9 --target-bitrate=BITRATE -o <output video> <input video>

[zerowalker]

I didn´t do a precise test, it was just more to check if it is noticable at all.

And with that encoding i did, x264 had alot of advantages. 2Pass and 10 Bit, and it still looked way worse than VP9.

Which means, x264 will look even worse with the same settings as vp9 right?


And if i did use 2 pass, it would have taken like 5 hours, for 2 secs, which isn´t that great;P
will have to wait till they improve it to atleast 1fps and not 0.005


EDIT: Also, is there a directshow filter/decoder for vp9?
As i need to watch in chrome, which is not that nice.

[benwaggoner]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

Okay i tested myself, so here is a picture from the same source, which was lossless, and i encoded in vp9 1 pass -good -target 1000bitrate (but it was 300bitrate in the end for some reason)
So the x264 encode was 2 pass and 300bitrate, default slower preset.

Given the speed differences, I think --preset placebo would have been appropriate for an even faintly apples-apples comparison .

--tune film may have also helped with that content.

Can you share the full x264 command line you used? The quality seems less than it should be for even that bitrate, unless there is a crazy lot of motion or something.

[zerowalker]

True, but i really doubt it would make a real difference.
Tune Film might though.

here: program --preset slower --pass 2 --bitrate 300 --stats ".stats" --output "output" "input"

It was a lot of movement i guess, it was a third person game, and i looked right and left about there (was scared from something and panicked;P).

I can give the original lossless clip if you want.


EDTI:

Added anyway: http://www.sendspace.com/file/embffb

VP9 file, encoded with the settings got from some posts before, though 1 pass, (don´t know how to get 2 pass working).
And also the lossless clip is there.

[BadFrame]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

Which means, x264 will look even worse with the same settings as vp9 right?

I still think it's important to strive for as similar settings as possible when doing comparisons, which typically means going for the best each encoder has to offer.

Originally Posted by zerowalker

And if i did use 2 pass, it would have taken like 5 hours, for 2 secs, which isn´t that great;P

The first pass in VP9 two pass encode is MUCH MUCH faster than the second one, they're not remotely comparable, first pass only gathers information on the file, it's the second pass where it encodes that gets super slow.

Originally Posted by zerowalker

EDIT: Also, is there a directshow filter/decoder for vp9?
As i need to watch in chrome, which is not that nice.

I have no idea, I re-encoded the resulting webm file to a x264 file with --crf 0 (lossless) to check the end result.

[STaRGaZeR]

Originally Posted by zerowalker

Okay i tested myself, so here is a picture from the same source, which was lossless, and i encoded in vp9 1 pass -good -target 1000bitrate (but it was 300bitrate in the end for some reason)
So the x264 encode was 2 pass and 300bitrate, default slower preset.

The difference is significant, it´s night and day
And hopefully, i did things right.

EDIT: Forgot, the x264 i encoded is 10bit, so it has a bit of advantage there, especially as this is a dark clip.

What in the world are you doing compressing 1920x1080 high detail game footage at 300kbps? This is the same kind of retarded testing Google did to prove VP9's superiority, if my memory serves me right.

[BadFrame]

I decided to re-do zerowalker's tests at higher bitrates, I also re-did the 300 bitrate test.

VP9 used the same settings I posted above (lifted from the webm mailing list) and is 2 pass.

For x264 I used --preset=placebo and --tune=film (as per benwaggoner's suggestion) and 2 pass.

I encoded at the following bitrates: 300, 1000 and 2000.

VP9 300 bits:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9178/nklw.png
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/593/exk1.png

VP9 1000 bits:
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2787/lhf.png
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3884/ysyz.png

VP9 2000 bits:
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/406/akn8.png
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/7550/x9i.png

x264 300 bits:
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/4861/vi2z.png
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4782/qbqo.png

x264 1000 bits:
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9409/1n2k.png
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/221/2v7.png

x264 2000 bits:
http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/6510/cghv.png
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/3185/n6k.png

With this specific high definition content, and at these bitrates, VP9 certainly came out the clear winner.

I'll try uploading the resulting files to sendspace or something in a couple of minutes.

edit: here are the files http://www.sendspace.com/file/0quq36