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. |
17th May 2023, 18:20 | #81 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,878
|
Quote:
|
|
18th June 2023, 04:02 | #83 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
--hme-search between 0,1,2. Is 2 the best? / Highest setting? --hme-range between 0,1,2. Same question. Is 2 for both settings maxed out? |
|
19th June 2023, 18:06 | #85 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,878
|
Quote:
--hme-search is 0-5, just replicating the --me options. --hme-range replicates --merange, and so can be anything from 0 to 32768 |
|
26th June 2023, 21:29 | #86 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
Is search best at 5, but say, the hme range to follow whichever settings you use for merange? Which for me is 57. |
|
27th June 2023, 22:41 | #87 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,878
|
Quote:
I can see some combination of coarser --me with a wider net (note that 24 px at the 25% size would be 96 px in the final frame) search range for the lower resolutions, and a more precise me with a smaller search range at the higher makes intuitive sense as a potential quality/speed tradeoff improvement. I've not dived deep to try and find that combination, however. There was some early talk from MCW some years ago that --hme would help improve quality with very grainy content, as the low pass filtering of the downscales would exclude false positive motion vectors resulting from random grain matches, with the full resolution pass refining on the initial matches. Which makes intuitive sense, but I never saw an actual PoC of this benefit. I didn't find any benefit in a couple of rounds of initial testing. It's on my backlog of things to noodle with further time permitting. |
|
29th June 2023, 03:57 | #88 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
|
|
1st July 2023, 21:01 | #89 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
I re-encoded with me=5 and that got set fine. However, I set merange to the default of 57 and it still gets set to 48. Is hme controlling this? |
|
1st July 2023, 22:05 | #90 | Link | |
ffx264/ffhevc author
Join Date: May 2007
Location: /dev/video0
Posts: 1,870
|
Quote:
|
|
3rd July 2023, 17:46 | #92 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,878
|
Quote:
To get a "placebo" --hme, you'd probably use --hme-search 3,3,3 --hme-range 92,92,92 it's the last digit of each that's most important, as those are for the full resolution final pass. I imagine that --hme-search 2,2,3 --hme-range 57,57,92 Would give you essentially equal results. I don't think that --hme would offer much benefit at all in placebo. To get a better speed-quality benefit, something like the below would be more likely to be net beneficial. HME techniques are generally about improving quality @ speed, not maximum quality when not speed bound. --hme-search 2,2,3 --hme-range 25,25,26 Where the motion search range can be constrained for the higher resolution passes as the coarser stages were able to identify good matches to refine in the later stages. a 25 range at quarter resolution maps to 100 at the final resolution. (25 constrains motion search to 32x32 in hex, as does 26 to 32x32 in star. That allows another 32x32 row to be parallelized in WPP versus higher values). |
|
11th July 2023, 22:07 | #93 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 138
|
Quote:
I've recently been testing placebo vs straight hme, and hme gave me 0.1 QP average QP more than not using it vs placebo that then uses me=5 and 92 for the merange. Interestingly enough the hme encode was faster than placebo when just stating hme, and not stating the range or search values. So, I think you might be right that under placebo it may not be needed. However, now knowing what I can change, I might be able to eek more out of it, LOL. Placebo with no hme = Job completed (Elapsed Time: 8h 16m) Placebo with basic hme turned on = Job completed (Elapsed Time: 7h 09m) Placebo with no hme average QP= Avg QP:8.74 Placebo with basic hme turned on = Avg QP:8.73 So, unless you can tune hme significantly with the settings you said --hme-search 3,3,3 --hme-range 92,92,92, maybe there's some more quality to be gained? But, I assume you'd lose speed with these settings vs the default which is 16,32,48 for the range, but I'm not sure what for the search. My media info says hme / Level / merange / L0,L1,L2=16,32,48, which is me just stating hme in the command line. I did a search for hme-search and that isn't there. I assume that you have to manually state that? The big this is, is there a visual difference when using hme vs not using it when using placebo? Also, I wonder when the speed crosses over? Meaning, I wonder which preset hme becomes slower? Because the merange is always 57 on every other preset. If hme-range is the equivalent and by default only goes to 48, is hme always better to use? hme-range <integer>,<integer>,<integer> is the last number the most important number? Does the first and second number matter if they are lower-resolution searches? Thanks. Last edited by HD MOVIE SOURCE; 11th July 2023 at 22:10. |
|
12th July 2023, 22:25 | #95 | Link | |||
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,878
|
Quote:
--hme-search: 0: dia 1: hex (default) 2: umh 3: star 4: sea 5: full Thus the default search modes for HME are Dia for 1/4 res, Hex for 1/2 res, and UMH for full res. --preset placebo uses 3: Star. So for placebo-equivalent you'd want at least the third --hme-search value to be 3. Quote:
Quote:
Sure --hme-search 3,3,3 --hme-range 24, 48, 92 should match placebo quality, but I don't know that it would look better than placebo, or that it would save any encoding time. |
|||
23rd September 2023, 16:50 | #96 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2023
Posts: 28
|
[QUOTE=benwaggoner;1975353]
Quote:
Last edited by N'Cha; 23rd September 2023 at 16:59. |
|
26th September 2023, 01:11 | #97 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,878
|
Quote:
If anyone has more recent or specific results, I'd love to hear about them! |
|
22nd January 2024, 09:58 | #98 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 48
|
Recently found a good balance of settings and quality I would like for my encodes, except for one issues that I can not seem to fix.
I'm getting a great image overall with these settings, other than blurring near the top of the canvas. It's like it doesn't know how to handle the edge very well. I would love to find a setting that can stop this. A lower CRF value (even 0 for testing) does not stop it. aq-strength, is really the only tweak I make between different films (1.0-1.3), but again, even a high value here does not help. You can see the issue I'm having below. My settings current settings are; 10-bit. CRF 17. Slow preset. selective-sao=2:no-strong-intra-smoothing:rskip=2:rskip-edge-threshold=3:aq-mode=3:aq-strength=1.2:deblock=-3:-3 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|