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.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Video Encoding > MPEG-4 AVC / H.264

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 26th October 2009, 14:03   #21  |  Link
WorBry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsevakis View Post
From what I can gather, a compliant stream needs both --slices:4 (in the svn since early September) and --hal-nrd (patch available for some time, being worked into the SVN now). Is this accurate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
I'm still waiting for some BD-verifier results from a contact of mine...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
Does the latest patch from Alex Giladi work? Trahald says that Alex's patch is much better and that we should get that one into git, not his.
Sorry to be a bit ignorant of x264 development and BD-compliance requirements, but can it be expected that an official x264 build incorporating hal-nrd will bring with it true MBAFF interlace encoding (i.e. MB adaptive, not just MBAFF signal syntax) or at least an improvement in interlace encoding efficiency?
__________________
Nostalgia's not what it used to be
WorBry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2009, 14:09   #22  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,212
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
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.


LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2009, 15:18   #23  |  Link
Revgen
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Needless to say, outdated legacy standards like interlacing aren't exactly going to garner much sympathy either.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.
Revgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2009, 18:59   #24  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by WorBry View Post
Sorry to be a bit ignorant of x264 development and BD-compliance requirements, but can it be expected that an official x264 build incorporating hal-nrd will bring with it true MBAFF interlace encoding (i.e. MB adaptive, not just MBAFF signal syntax) or at least an improvement in interlace encoding efficiency?
Put simply: I am probably turning down over 20-30 thousand dollars by not working on MBAFF.

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.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2009, 20:28   #25  |  Link
WorBry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 1,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shikari View Post
.....but with most television channels eventually looking to move to 1080p60, interlacing will eventually be dead anyways.
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.
WorBry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th October 2009, 22:26   #26  |  Link
jsevakis
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?
jsevakis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2009, 17:59   #27  |  Link
Trahald
Wewkiee
 
Trahald's Avatar
 
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?
Trahald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2009, 18:32   #28  |  Link
shon3i
BluRay Maniac
 
shon3i's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsevakis
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?
Use search i think is explained many times, what settings is allowed and what can be changed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trahald
Alex's code is way more clean was really my point.
What is different between your rev16 and rev19 because rev19 crash x264 with --keyint 24. Can you fix that. Your rev16 patch work stable for now. VFRManiac says that you chaged some calucaltions between r16 and r19

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak
Bad assets from reatail BD are the last one to suspect in my opinion.
Well it's true, as you can see, i found few more titles with different codec's, but i have little collection of BD's

Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak
Verifiers work on muxed streams not elementary stream, which makes sens. That's why you need all header information to be correct, becuase they're used during muxing process.
Agree, and if x264 produce compatible stream that accomplish all parameters i don't see what muxer can do to make incompatible BD, then muxer is bad.

Last edited by shon3i; 27th October 2009 at 18:37.
shon3i is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th October 2009, 21:16   #29  |  Link
popper
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.
popper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th October 2009, 14:08   #30  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by shon3i View Post
Agree, and if x264 produce compatible stream that accomplish all parameters i don't see what muxer can do to make incompatible BD, then muxer is bad.
As I said before- it's not really true.
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.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2009, 22:13   #31  |  Link
Stacey Spears
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.
__________________
Stacey Spears
Co-Creator, Spears & Munsil Ultra HD Benchmark
Stacey Spears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2009, 22:18   #32  |  Link
LoRd_MuldeR
Software Developer
 
LoRd_MuldeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,212
If your priority is good PSNR (instead of good subjective quality), then use "--tune psnr"
__________________
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment.
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.


LoRd_MuldeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2009, 22:23   #33  |  Link
Stacey Spears
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.
__________________
Stacey Spears
Co-Creator, Spears & Munsil Ultra HD Benchmark

Last edited by Stacey Spears; 25th November 2009 at 22:26.
Stacey Spears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2009, 22:36   #34  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacey Spears View Post
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.
If you care about maximum PSNR, why are you using such insane bizarre commandlines?

More than half your options make no sense whatsoever.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2009, 22:48   #35  |  Link
Stacey Spears
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 66
Quote:
If you care about maximum PSNR, why are you using such insane bizarre commandlines?
What do you recommmend? So far, the settings provided produce the highest PSNR.

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:
If your priority is good PSNR (instead of good subjective quality), then use "--tune psnr"
PSNR goes down when I use this option.

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.
__________________
Stacey Spears
Co-Creator, Spears & Munsil Ultra HD Benchmark
Stacey Spears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th November 2009, 22:51   #36  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacey Spears View Post
What do you recommmend?
Dump the whole thing and use --preset placebo --tune psnr --level 4.1 --vbv-bufsize 30000 --vbv-maxrate 40000, maybe with --qpmin 0?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacey Spears View Post
PSNR goes down when I use this option.

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.
Well of course it does. Your PSNR is already absurdly high, so the only thing that matters is the chroma quantizer. You've set QPmin to 1, not 0, so the quantizer can't go all the way down. Psy-RD lowers the chroma quantizer by 2, which allows it to reach 0.

The only reason you're getting a PSNR benefit is because your options are weird in the first place.
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2009, 00:31   #37  |  Link
ajp_anton
Registered User
 
ajp_anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Stockholm/Helsinki
Posts: 792
Both his qpmin and qpmax are 1 =)
ajp_anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2009, 00:33   #38  |  Link
Dark Shikari
x264 developer
 
Dark Shikari's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajp_anton View Post
Both his qpmin and qpmax are 1 =)
Which makes the VBV settings rather pointless as well
Dark Shikari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2009, 07:16   #39  |  Link
Stacey Spears
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sammamish, WA
Posts: 66
Quote:
Both his qpmin and qpmax are 1 =)
I want my encodes to use a constant QP. Can't use the --qp option AND set the VBV.

Quote:
Which makes the VBV settings rather pointless as well
Not if you a.) want to use a constant QP and b.) want to know if you underflow using a constant QP.
__________________
Stacey Spears
Co-Creator, Spears & Munsil Ultra HD Benchmark

Last edited by Stacey Spears; 26th November 2009 at 07:23.
Stacey Spears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th November 2009, 08:14   #40  |  Link
Blue_MiSfit
Derek Prestegard IRL
 
Blue_MiSfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,843
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
Blue_MiSfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blu-ray, builds, x264

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.