MSU H.264 Codec Testing and DivX H.264

[dstln]

Encoding times certainly do matter but wow :P

I personally think it would make much more sense to have the "normal" requirement as realtime and then adjust "high speed" and "high quality" semi arbitrarily from there as you see fit. Either way it's too late now since the rules are already set and process in place, but yeah. Maybe next year.

[Dyomich]

Originally Posted by dstln

Encoding times certainly do matter but wow :P

I personally think it would make much more sense to have the "normal" requirement as realtime and then adjust "high speed" and "high quality" semi arbitrarily from there as you see fit. Either way it's too late now since the rules are already set and process in place, but yeah. Maybe next year.

Real-time requirements differ too much for different PC configurations. It is main problem of this requirement. During previous comaprisons some developers told us that our PCs too slow or too fast for some requirements.

[Biggiesized]

Originally Posted by Blue_MiSfit

Indeed. I consider ~12fps (half realtime for 24p) to be quite usable for most scenarios.

12 FPS is twice realtime. 48 FPS would be half real-time. (This is measured in terms of length of encoding. If you encoded 24p content at 12 FPS, it would take twice as long as if you encoded it at 24 FPS, which is realtime.)

Personally, I think 5 times real-time should be the minimum threshold. (That's roughly 5 FPS).

[AnonCrow]

Originally Posted by Biggiesized

12 FPS is twice realtime. 48 FPS would be half real-time. (This is measured in terms of length of encoding.

<nitpick> FPS is a unit of speed , not a unit of time. </>

[G_M_C]

Originally Posted by bob0r

Dyomich, i have prepared this graph for you:

Originally Posted by Emulgator

The flat parts are amazing, feeling calm.

I lol'ed

An explination on what the graph represents might be usefull. But hey, people seem to love their graphs

[Dyomich]

Dear codec professionals!
We have finished H.264 Video Codecs Comparison report prepearing.
We have tested:

• DivX H.264
• Elecard H.264
• Intel® MediaSDK AVC/H.264
• MainConcept H.264
• Microsoft Expression Encoder
• Theora
• x264
• XviD (MPEG-4 ASP codec)

You can read it here http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/

[julius666]

Originally Posted by Dyomich

Dear codec professionals!
We have finished H.264 Video Codecs Comparison report prepearing.
We have tested:

• DivX H.264
• Elecard H.264
• Intel® MediaSDK AVC/H.264
• MainConcept H.264
• Microsoft Expression Encoder
• Theora
• x264
• XviD (MPEG-4 ASP codec)

You can read it here http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/

On the Speed/Quality tradeoff charts, normal preset's chart is missing for me.

[Dyomich]

Originally Posted by julius666

On the Speed/Quality tradeoff charts, normal preset's chart is missing for me.

Thank you for remark!
Try to refresh your browser window.

[julius666]

Originally Posted by Dyomich

Thank you for remark!
Try to refresh your browser window.

Thx, it works now.
Of course x264 is winner in those cases too

[creamyhorror]

Good to see this comprehensive codec evaluation again. I see MainConcept narrowly beat x264 on HDTV Normal preset. I wonder why? A particular type of material that MainConcept performs better on?

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by creamyhorror

Good to see this comprehensive codec evaluation again. I see MainConcept narrowly beat x264 on HDTV Normal preset. I wonder why? A particular type of material that MainConcept performs better on?

Make sure to check the individual tests; it's quite possible for a single test to shift all the results in one direction if the results are dramatic enough.

[Bordo32]

Blue_MiSfit, just curious if you have done a few codecs comparison as you have mentioned earlier:

"I'll be doing my own comparison soon, between Rhozet Carbon Coder (Mainconcept) and x264 at 50mbps 1080p for mezzanine file purposes."