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. |
7th July 2011, 15:58 | #81 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 707
|
Quote:
I don't see what the problem is with Intra H.264 as an intermediate codec, just as long as there's good 10-bit 4:2:2 support and possible CABAC turned off and maybe only limited deblocking. With enough slices it would be fast to decode. "Pro" intra codecs aren't much different, but the manufacturers of editing tools can control the market. |
|
7th July 2011, 22:18 | #82 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
No problem except complex decoding-more complex than all intermediate codecs for the price of smaller size. These days storage is cheap, so I prefer easier decoding.
AVC-I 100 is CAVLC by Panasonic standard, but it's not really transparent at 100Mbit (you need something like 150Mbit). Andrew Last edited by kolak; 8th July 2011 at 14:16. |
7th July 2011, 22:20 | #83 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
Apple decided to kill FCP, so Sony will probably move away from releasing it. Andrew |
|
8th July 2011, 12:27 | #84 | Link | |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,815
|
Quote:
100 Mbps / 8 = 12,5 MB/s 12,5 / 25 fps (PAL 50i) = 0,5 MB per frame. This is even enough for old M-JPEG compression. (Quality ~95% format 4:4:4)
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
|
8th July 2011, 14:05 | #85 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
Is that PSNR 50+? Avatar is very clean source shot with small depth of field- in this case 100Mbit may be quite ok, but this is not the best reference source. Andrew Last edited by kolak; 8th July 2011 at 14:08. |
|
8th July 2011, 15:20 | #86 | Link |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,815
|
Ok. Now something more detailed. Photo made by Nikkon D3S downloaded from http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/re...review-samples
Then resampled and cropped to 1920x1080 PNG http://www.mediafire.com/?utm0btipanw4plt JPG Quality at 85% (4:2:2) http://www.mediafire.com/?afgze6mfw29w107 Comparison Don't forget that we are talking about old jpeg compression . I'm sure that highly optimized H.264 (x264) produces even better results.
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 8th July 2011 at 15:24. |
8th July 2011, 16:18 | #87 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
With all of the existing ones you need to zoom 3x or more to see differences. Andrew |
|
8th July 2011, 16:36 | #88 | Link | ||
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,815
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
||
8th July 2011, 16:38 | #89 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
I've checked AVC-I (Panasonic encoder) few times and you can see differences on 1:1 frame on many sources. It's good enough for TV, documentaries, but not for crucial work- movies, grading, etc.
PSNR is just a metric- never as good as human eye AVC-I is most efficient of all of them, I don't complain- just needs more than 100Mbit for high quality masters. Looked at original files- there is loss in sharpness and big problems on red- not good enough as intermediate file. You can see differences on 1:1- no need for zoom. Good BD encoding can achieve such a transparency- so you need better quality as a master Andrew Last edited by kolak; 8th July 2011 at 16:54. |
8th July 2011, 17:00 | #90 | Link |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,815
|
Let's forget about crappy Panasonic encoder and better focus on x264 INTRA efficiency.
Again but this time I added x264 PNG http://www.mediafire.com/?utm0btipanw4plt JPG Quality at 85% (4:2:2) http://www.mediafire.com/?afgze6mfw29w107 x264 --preset superfast --tune fast decode (4:2:0) mp4 file size = 516 KB http://www.mediafire.com/?spr2vvvkmk412sz Comparison in Corel PhotoPaint (zoomed 4 times!)
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
8th July 2011, 19:23 | #91 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Looks ok- but 2x zoom already reveals quite big differences.
There is also 601/709 color space issue between source and x264-I, so it's quite difficult to judge. It's quite away from intermediate codecs. It confirms what I have said- you need 150Mbit+, but this is still way better than other codecs. AVC-I is probably about 1.5x more efficient. Andrew |
9th July 2011, 11:23 | #92 | Link | |||
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,815
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Another test park_joy_1080p.y4m (1920x1080@50p) ~500 KB per frame Code:
x264_x64.exe --bitrate 200000 --preset superfast --tune fastdecode --keyint 1 --nal-hrd vbr --vbv-bufsize 5000 --vbv-maxrate 200000 --ssim -o C:\temp\AVC-INTRA.mp4 E:\_Video_Sample\y4m\park_joy_1080p.y4m y4m [info]: 1920x1080p 1:1 @ 50/1 fps (cfr) x264 [info]: using SAR=1/1 x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 Cache64 x264 [info]: profile High, level 5.1 x264 [info]: frame I:500 Avg QP:25.25 size:491982 x264 [info]: mb I I16..4: 3.4% 26.5% 70.1% x264 [info]: 8x8 transform intra:26.5% x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 99.1% 95.7% 85.7% x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 6% 6% 61% 27% x264 [info]: i8 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 14% 16% 24% 5% 8% 6% 7% 7% 12% x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 13% 17% 17% 6% 11% 6% 8% 7% 14% x264 [info]: i8c dc,h,v,p: 52% 21% 15% 11% x264 [info]: SSIM Mean Y:0.9653102 (14.598db) x264 [info]: kb/s:196792.66 encoded 500 frames, 48.27 fps, 196793.21 kb/s
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 9th July 2011 at 12:16. |
|||
9th July 2011, 13:39 | #94 | Link | |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,815
|
Quote:
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper |
|
9th July 2011, 13:52 | #95 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,135
|
At original zoom:
The AVC have red color bleeding on the red mistletoe dots (more than the results on jpeg) and the darker leaf gets some visible loss. Also the red dots itself have a 'washy' reds compared to the original and jpeg version. At 2x zoom the differences are even more noticeable. Considering that this is an 'intermediate' pass so you need to do another step of compression, the quality loss is too much for my taste. I prefer to go all the way with a lossless codec. Today hard disk space is cheap and RAID systems are even cheaper. An HD "Canopus Lossless" file is playable/editable in realtime in a non-RAID system with an NLE like Edius (as its a native codec for that NLE). With RAID the performances are even better. Gets imported without waiting anything, it can be printed to a deck without rendering the whole timeline, it's a 4:2:2 codec and gets decoded to YUY2 in AviSynth without any plugin (you only need the codec installed). Personally I'm happy with this workflow. For only backup purpose I prefer UTVideo. |
9th July 2011, 14:01 | #96 | Link |
RipBot264 author
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,815
|
My current workflow looks like this
AVCHD -> AVC-Intra 100 (x264 --preset superfast --tune fastdecode --tff) -> Sony Vegas -> UTVideo Like i said before Big SSD (100GB+) are to expensive for me at the moment. Also I'm not going to invest in RAID because SSD is alot better (up to 480MB + ultra fast random access + SILENCE)
__________________
Windows 7 Image Updater - SkyLake\KabyLake\CoffeLake\Ryzen Threadripper Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 9th July 2011 at 14:05. |
9th July 2011, 21:37 | #97 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Your needs are totally different than main- that's it
Quite often quality of this what you call "intermediate format" I have on BD disc, so I need to start with something much better. Canopus codecs are great and when you use Edius than it's unbeatable workflow. Andrew Last edited by kolak; 9th July 2011 at 21:41. |
12th July 2011, 07:23 | #99 | Link | ||
brontosaurusrex
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,392
|
Quote:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/ edit: p.s. ok i see, quote from a user: Quote:
Last edited by smok3; 12th July 2011 at 07:40. |
||
12th July 2011, 13:57 | #100 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
It should never been called FCP. Apple also recalled all existing licenses of FCP 7-editors/companies are going crazy Welcome to Apple World- you do it the way how Steve says- not how you like it Andrew |
|
Tags |
codec, hdtv, intermediate |
|
|