Google VP9 "Next Generation Open Video" information posted - Page 13

easyfab · 9th July 2013, 20:33

BadFrame,

It is possible to do the same for VP9 but with --good --cpu-used=4 instead of --best --cpu-used=0 . I will be normally faster ( a lot ?) and i'm interesting in the quality with that parameters vs x264.

BadFrame · 9th July 2013, 21:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by easyfab

BadFrame,

It is possible to do the same for VP9 but with --good --cpu-used=4 instead of --best --cpu-used=0 . I will be normally faster ( a lot ?) and i'm interesting in the quality with that parameters vs x264.

Hmm.. I don't quite see the point of re-doing the tests with 'good', it will only be a bit worse in quality, and as for comparisons between encoders I think the only 'fair' quality comparison is when you use the best options you know for each encoder. Unless I'm missing something here?

I'd certainly be interested in re-doing the tests if someone has better settings for either x264 or vp9 to try out.

As for --cpu-used=4, I've tried that and --threads=4 but to no avail, vpxenc only used one of my cores, of course I make sure to run 4 simultaneous encodings when doing tests so as to make use of my full cpu capacity, but I've never been able to have one encoding use more than 1 core.

Is there some configuration option necessary when compiling vpx?

mindwin · 9th July 2013, 22:29

Share a source file, please.

Very interesting to compare with HEVC too.

zerowalker · 9th July 2013, 22:32

BadFrame good comparasions there.

And i totally agree, i am impressed with how good VP9 looks, especially on low bitrate (under 1k).

But above 1k bitrate, it really polishes the picture compared to X264, which can barely show the picture correctly more or less.

BadFrame · 9th July 2013, 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by mindwin

Share a source file, please.

Very interesting to compare with HEVC too.

I used the source file posted by zerowalker right here in this thread just a few posts up (which is why I didn't include it with my test files) :

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

And yes, I was thinking about doing tests using the hm reference encoder, but if you do it instead then that's just fine by me

hajj_3 · 9th July 2013, 22:52

Would be better to see how it handles 1080p bluray source rather than a video game.

mindwin · 9th July 2013, 22:55

BadFrame
thx.
I am not familiar with reference HEVC encoder.
I want to try Strongene HEVC latest beta version.

zerowalker · 9th July 2013, 22:58

Videogame is probably alot more complex with movement in terms of small details compared to Bluray.
At least in that source ( a dark scene with some effects from shooting etc).

And it´s very good to see how it performs in Dark Scenes, as that is where every encoder "Fails" to put it simple.

BadFrame · 9th July 2013, 23:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerowalker

And i totally agree, i am impressed with how good VP9 looks, especially on low bitrate (under 1k).

But above 1k bitrate, it really polishes the picture compared to X264, which can barely show the picture correctly more or less.

Yes I was surprised at how good quality VP9 could muster out of such a low bitrate, I guess it has to do with it being developed with real time video in mind?

At 2000 bits the difference wasn't that profound though, in my opinon, although I think VP9 still clearly won.

I'd like to do some high definition animation tests on my Akira bluray, I just gotta figure out how to decrypt it.

mindwin · 9th July 2013, 23:03

zerowalker
You may try this video sample. (660mb)

Have dark, static, dynamic scenes, some film grain, and very high quality.

Code:

Format                                   : AVC
Format profile                           : High@L4.0
Duration                                 : 2mn 7s
Bit rate                                 : 43.4 Mbps
Width                                    : 1 920 pixels
Height                                   : 1 080 pixels
Stream size                              : 660 MiB (99%)

BadFrame · 9th July 2013, 23:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by mindwin

BadFrame
thx.
I am not familiar with reference HEVC encoder.
I want to try Strongene HEVC latest beta version.

Ok, I've only tried the fraunhofer reference encoder, that commercial encoder you linked looks interesting but I'm on Linux, perhaps it runs under wine though.

zerowalker · 9th July 2013, 23:06

Yes indeed, at high bitrates, the only Real difference was that x264 wasn´t able to keep the image "accurate", it tried it best to keep the bits at the right places, but you can clearly see that it doesn´t do to well.
While VP9 have alot more balance, and is able to produce a much more detailed and accurate image.

Though, the difference isn´t Day and Night, but it´s still there.
And thinking that VP9 will be better and better makes this very interesting!

mindwin · 9th July 2013, 23:10

BadFrame

Quote:

but I'm on Linux, perhaps it runs under wine though.

I think it will not work, becouse it is a DirectShow filter.
I am using it with GraphStudioNext utility.

zerowalker · 9th July 2013, 23:10

mindwin, will maybe try it later, currently VP9 is so slow, that it takes like 1-2 hours for 2-3 secs, which isn´t that fun;P

schweinsz · 10th July 2013, 04:41

Is there any configuration to use the vp9 to get the max PSNR using the fixed QP coding? I want to do a comparison between the HEVC HM and the vp9 reference software.

guada2 · 10th July 2013, 13:59

Hello midwin,
The installation went well. But i have a small problem:
VFW_E_CANNOT_ CONNECT (0x80040217)

how can i do to solve it.

Thanks

zerowalker · 11th July 2013, 08:32

Well let´s try to keep it towards VP9. Comparing VP9 with HEVC is a good thing though, they should be compared as they are combating about the "throne".

But i would like to know, why can´t i make a .webm file with VP9?

mkvtoolnix doesn´t allow this for some reason, i thought the VP9 in Webm was a standard for a while now, or has it been changing alot, making them wait?

Guest · 11th July 2013, 13:02

OT posts have been removed. This thread is about VP9. Start a new thread for HEVC. Thank you.

mzso · 11th July 2013, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerowalker

Well let´s try to keep it towards VP9. Comparing VP9 with HEVC is a good thing though, they should be compared as they are combating about the "throne".

But i would like to know, why can´t i make a .webm file with VP9?

mkvtoolnix doesn´t allow this for some reason, i thought the VP9 in Webm was a standard for a while now, or has it been changing alot, making them wait?

I'm assuming it wasn't updated to do so with vp9.

Did vp9 made it into the main ffmpeg branch?

zerowalker · 11th July 2013, 13:58

Probably, would like to see it though, but as there is no decoder to play the videos, it doesn´t really matter at this time.

From when i last checked, No.

ffmpeg seems to go after the git version 1.2.0 instead of Master for some reason.

9th July 2013, 23:03	#250 \| Link
mindwin Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 10	zerowalker You may try this video sample. (660mb) Have dark, static, dynamic scenes, some film grain, and very high quality. Code: Format : AVC Format profile : High@L4.0 Duration : 2mn 7s Bit rate : 43.4 Mbps Width : 1 920 pixels Height : 1 080 pixels Stream size : 660 MiB (99%)

9th July 2013, 23:10	#254 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	mindwin, will maybe try it later, currently VP9 is so slow, that it takes like 1-2 hours for 2-3 secs, which isn´t that fun;P Last edited by Guest; 11th July 2013 at 12:57. Reason: remove ot content

10th July 2013, 04:41	#255 \| Link
schweinsz Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 497	Is there any configuration to use the vp9 to get the max PSNR using the fixed QP coding? I want to do a comparison between the HEVC HM and the vp9 reference software. __________________ The Next Generation Internet Video Codec project.[/url].

9th July 2013, 20:33	#241 \| Link
easyfab Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 332	BadFrame, It is possible to do the same for VP9 but with --good --cpu-used=4 instead of --best --cpu-used=0 . I will be normally faster ( a lot ?) and i'm interesting in the quality with that parameters vs x264.

9th July 2013, 22:29	#243 \| Link
mindwin Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 10	Share a source file, please. Very interesting to compare with HEVC too.

9th July 2013, 22:32	#244 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	BadFrame good comparasions there. And i totally agree, i am impressed with how good VP9 looks, especially on low bitrate (under 1k). But above 1k bitrate, it really polishes the picture compared to X264, which can barely show the picture correctly more or less.

9th July 2013, 22:52	#246 \| Link
hajj_3 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,126	Would be better to see how it handles 1080p bluray source rather than a video game.

9th July 2013, 22:55	#247 \| Link
mindwin Registered User Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 10	BadFrame thx. I am not familiar with reference HEVC encoder. I want to try Strongene HEVC latest beta version.

9th July 2013, 22:58	#248 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	Videogame is probably alot more complex with movement in terms of small details compared to Bluray. At least in that source ( a dark scene with some effects from shooting etc). And it´s very good to see how it performs in Dark Scenes, as that is where every encoder "Fails" to put it simple.

9th July 2013, 23:06	#252 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	Yes indeed, at high bitrates, the only Real difference was that x264 wasn´t able to keep the image "accurate", it tried it best to keep the bits at the right places, but you can clearly see that it doesn´t do to well. While VP9 have alot more balance, and is able to produce a much more detailed and accurate image. Though, the difference isn´t Day and Night, but it´s still there. And thinking that VP9 will be better and better makes this very interesting!

10th July 2013, 13:59	#256 \| Link
guada2 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Lyon Posts: 194	Hello midwin, The installation went well. But i have a small problem: VFW_E_CANNOT_ CONNECT (0x80040217) how can i do to solve it. Thanks

11th July 2013, 08:32	#257 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	Well let´s try to keep it towards VP9. Comparing VP9 with HEVC is a good thing though, they should be compared as they are combating about the "throne". But i would like to know, why can´t i make a .webm file with VP9? mkvtoolnix doesn´t allow this for some reason, i thought the VP9 in Webm was a standard for a while now, or has it been changing alot, making them wait?

11th July 2013, 13:02	#258 \| Link
Guest Guest Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 21,901	OT posts have been removed. This thread is about VP9. Start a new thread for HEVC. Thank you.

11th July 2013, 13:58	#260 \| Link
zerowalker Registered User Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 1,121	Probably, would like to see it though, but as there is no decoder to play the videos, it doesn´t really matter at this time. From when i last checked, No. ffmpeg seems to go after the git version 1.2.0 instead of Master for some reason.