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. |
26th October 2009, 14:03 | #21 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 1,197
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Nostalgia's not what it used to be |
||
26th October 2009, 14:09 | #22 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
I think there is hope for NAL-HRD. But if you want MBAFF in x264, then it won't be cheap:
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?...05&postcount=5
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ |
26th October 2009, 15:18 | #23 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,545
|
^You're talking to x264 programmers. The same programmers who IMO jumpstarted the whole anti-VFW crusade that still starts flame wars occasionally.
Needless to say, outdated legacy standards like interlacing aren't exactly going to garner much sympathy either. This shouldn't surprise anybody.
__________________
Pirate: Now how would you like to die? Would you like to have your head chopped off or be burned at the stake? Curly: Burned at the stake! Moe: Why? Curly: A hot steak is always better than a cold chop. Last edited by Revgen; 26th October 2009 at 15:35. |
26th October 2009, 18:59 | #24 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
Maybe it will become something to consider once everything else on my list is done, but with most television channels eventually looking to move to 1080p60, interlacing will eventually be dead anyways. |
|
26th October 2009, 20:28 | #25 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 1,197
|
Hopefully by that time also there will be more (affordable) HD camcorders with 50p/60p recording capability. At present, there are just a few models in the professional lower-price bracket offering native 720/50p and/or 720/60p formats - Panasonic AG-HMC-150/151 and AG-HMC-40/41 (AVCHD) and JVC GY-HM100 (MPEG-2).
__________________
Nostalgia's not what it used to be Last edited by WorBry; 26th October 2009 at 20:43. |
26th October 2009, 22:26 | #26 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8
|
Okay, so it appears that what you have more or less committed right now has a decent chance of passing verification and can therefore be used to make Blu-rays. Freaking awesome. Can't wait till those results come back.
With that in mind, what features can/should be used? What part of the h.264 spec is illegal in Blu-ray, and what can safely be tweaked for optimum quality? Any recommended starting points? |
27th October 2009, 17:59 | #27 | Link |
Wewkiee
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: kashyyyk
Posts: 2,269
|
Alex's code is way more clean was really my point. It should be able to be committed with much fewer changes. bad thing is Alex has been MIA. I thought about looking at the code and fix the exact issue, but i dont want to necessarily inherit his since due to RL issues i cant guarantee I'll be around enough/at all to finish. At this point I have no reason to believe he wont resurface (maybe on holiday?) and finish.
__________________
...yeah...but...why on earth would I compare apples with apples? |
27th October 2009, 18:32 | #28 | Link | ||||
BluRay Maniac
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,419
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by shon3i; 27th October 2009 at 18:37. |
||||
27th October 2009, 21:16 | #29 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 272
|
dont any free so called stand alone 'BR Verifiers' exist at this time?, and if not, do we Need at least one OSS licenced BR compliance Verifier today?
as for so called 'Non-compliant BR Encoders' it seems really odd that the professional global post production community would pay around the $5K per copy for 'Non-compliant BR Encoders' or even a wopping $25k per unit for Unverified Encoders. it seems that $25k per unit could get you a reasonable amount of one time OSS compliant BR x264 code patches if your Org is/were in need of bulk purchase, and thats before the potential x264 licence chances for commercial users come in. see:http://www.netblender.com/main/resou...-ray-encoding/ hell you might even get some of the worlds Devs actually interested in making a professional grade intigrated GUI generic IDE suite and related tools for generic post production timecode based (Virtual/remote) video capture,Transport, Decoding, editing , Encoding etc in time...., if you put your $25k per unit corporate money,backing and effort into OSS production in this finantial down turn...., and in time, turn a better profit on your corporate books in the next quarter or two perhaps. Last edited by popper; 27th October 2009 at 21:26. |
28th October 2009, 14:08 | #30 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
The same as x264 makes proper stream, muxer can be also good, but not work with x264, becuase some things are not specified in the BD spec. Sony/Sonic works with all companies which has made pro encoder (and opposite) to make sure they do work well together. It's quite obvious, that "good" BD compliant stream should work with Sonic/Sony muxer, but it needs some testing at the early stages. Andrew Last edited by kolak; 28th October 2009 at 23:01. |
|
25th November 2009, 22:13 | #31 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 66
|
I thought I would provide an update. Using x264_x86_r1301_with_nal-hrd_16, I was able to import and mux with Sonic 5 and pass verification with the Sony verifier. I tested both Profile 4.0 and 4.1.
Here are the settings I used: x264.exe --profile high --level 4.1 --thread-input --threads 1 --keyint 24 --min-keyint 2 --direct auto --aq-mode 1 --ref 4 --slices 4 --qpmin 1 --qpmax 1 --qpstep 1 --ipratio 1.0 --pbratio 1.0 --vbv-bufsize 30000 --vbv-maxrate 40000 --no-mbtree --merange 32 --me tesa --subme 10 --partitions all --trellis 2 --no-fast-pskip --no-dct-decimate --psy-rd 1.0:0 --psnr --mvrange 511 --nal-hrd --aud --sar 1:1 --output foo_41.264 MB_Chroma.avs x264.exe --profile high --level 4.0 --thread-input --threads 1 --keyint 24 --min-keyint 2 --direct auto --aq-mode 1 --ref 4 --slices 1 --qpmin 1 --qpmax 1 --qpstep 1 --ipratio 1.0 --pbratio 1.0 --vbv-bufsize 30000 --vbv-maxrate 24000 --no-mbtree --merange 32 --me tesa --subme 10 --partitions all --trellis 2 --no-fast-pskip --no-dct-decimate --psy-rd 1.0:0 --psnr --mvrange 511 --nal-hrd --aud --sar 1:1 --output foo_40.264 MB_Chroma.avs I encoded synthetic static test patterns. My goal is to get as close as possible to mathematically lossless. I assumed that --no-psy would have provided a better psnr, but it drops psnr by almost 3 db. |
25th November 2009, 22:18 | #32 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
If your priority is good PSNR (instead of good subjective quality), then use "--tune psnr"
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ |
25th November 2009, 22:23 | #33 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 66
|
For test patterns, PSNR is something I consider critical. They are used to measure (objective, not subjective) other devices. (Blu-ray player, video processor, display, etc...) I don't want compression getting in the way. I will give the setting a try.
For real images, I consider PSNR a worthless measurement. Last edited by Stacey Spears; 25th November 2009 at 22:26. |
25th November 2009, 22:36 | #34 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Quote:
More than half your options make no sense whatsoever. |
|
25th November 2009, 22:48 | #35 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 66
|
Quote:
Ignore the B frame option in the command line. I left the option in the example with it set to 0 incase I wanted to put it back in. (being lazy) I also thought, possibly incorrectly, that using fixed QP ignores my VBV settings, so I forced fixed QP this way. Quote:
w/o --tune psnr x264 [info]: PSNR Mean Y:100.000 U:70.920 V:70.993 Avg:75.727 Global:75.727 kb/s:19192.22 w/ --tune psnr x264 [info]: PSNR Mean Y:100.000 U:68.125 V:68.152 Avg:72.909 Global:72.909 kb/s:18761.98 This particular pattern is a zone plate that exists in chroma only. |
||
25th November 2009, 22:51 | #36 | Link | |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
Dump the whole thing and use --preset placebo --tune psnr --level 4.1 --vbv-bufsize 30000 --vbv-maxrate 40000, maybe with --qpmin 0?
Quote:
The only reason you're getting a PSNR benefit is because your options are weird in the first place. |
|
26th November 2009, 07:16 | #39 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 66
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Stacey Spears; 26th November 2009 at 07:23. |
||
26th November 2009, 08:14 | #40 | Link |
Derek Prestegard IRL
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,989
|
Why do you want to use a constant QP???
It seems to me that all you're really trying to do here is maximize PSNR, to replicate your test patterns as close to lossless as possible, while still working within the BluRay spec - right? If so, why re-invent the wheel?? Just dump your options and ideas, use --tune psnr and --preset placebo, and 2 pass target bitrate mode with VBV set for BluRay specs, plus the extra nal-hrd crap that's necessary for bluray compliance. x264's rate control is very good, and will do a good job with your bit budget ! If you must, you can lower qpmin, but I would suggest just leaving things as-is. ~MiSfit
__________________
These are all my personal statements, not those of my employer :) |
Tags |
blu-ray, builds, x264 |
|
|