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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
12th August 2009, 17:33 | #41 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 602
|
Sadly, if compliance isn't at least "likely", then I really doubt I'll use x264 (unless some sort of solution appears). Even if it involves going with a slightly less high quality but compliant encoder, the quality gains wouldn't be worth the amount of sleep I'd lose (or the consequences of putting a dodgy disc out there).
The best-looking disc in the world done with x264 would be pointless - not to mention a liability! - if it creates playback problems. Chengbin: on past DVD projects, I've normally just filled the disc up - I just don't see any reason not to when you're guaranteed a certain amount of space. A little headroom is good since the sizes can be a little unpredictable, but re-encoding a bonus feature to be 3% smaller to get the whole thing to fit is really no big deal with the speed of today's SD MPEG-2 encoding. |
12th August 2009, 19:22 | #43 | Link |
Software Developer
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Last House on Slunk Street
Posts: 13,248
|
Well, it seems the outcome of this thread is that x264 should be able to produce a BD compliant stream at Level 4.0, just not at Level 4.1 yet.
Also: If somebody is willing to spend thousands of dollars for a proprietary encoder, he could also give that money to the x264 devs to complete the required slices patch
__________________
Go to https://standforukraine.com/ to find legitimate Ukrainian Charities 🇺🇦✊ |
12th August 2009, 19:34 | #44 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 602
|
Quote:
I know there are a lot of people who would love to see a free, high quality BD compliant AVC encoder. And also people who would probably be quite disturbed by the appearance of one... |
|
12th August 2009, 20:40 | #45 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,840
|
One thing that's been reported is some Panasonic and Samsung players don't display video with 24p enabled from x264 encoded streams. It may be an x264 issue or it may be that directshowsource changes the framerate of the input which also breaks eac3to. Either way it's something that would affect millions.
|
12th August 2009, 21:53 | #46 | Link | |
Herr
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Europe
Posts: 556
|
Quote:
EDIT: Although it's no point using b-pyramid now that mb-tree doesn't allow it, which is positive in that way BTW, I forgot to mention that maximum 3 bframes is allowed for Blu-ray. EDIT2: Some more resolutions are allowed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray...specifications Thanks for answering DS, I didn't knew that b-pyramid created that problem (beside adding a ref sometimes). Last edited by Forteen88; 13th August 2009 at 08:20. |
|
12th August 2009, 21:56 | #47 | Link |
x264 developer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,666
|
B-pyramid violates Blu-ray rules anyways because Blu-ray rules prohibit P-frames referencing B-frames. But it's not on by default.
p4x4 is fine, but not useful for Blu-ray resolutions anyways.Well obviously, Blu-ray prohibits other resolutions. |
12th August 2009, 22:05 | #49 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 438
|
Quote:
Does this slicing patch add the needed slice-feature to be ultimately Blu-ray compliant or are there any problems with it? http://mailman.videolan.org/pipermai...st/006106.html How about a Blu-ray preset in x264 with max. settings being compliant to the specs? (except for AQ and psy-rd since it's personal taste and source dependent I guess) Last edited by moviefan; 12th August 2009 at 22:08. |
|
13th August 2009, 01:45 | #50 | Link | |
Just as bad up as down.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
1) I didn't write it and am getting a little tired of the PMs asking me questions about it, and: 2) This commit to x264 breaks the patch and I don't have the time to fix it (although it's probably just a one-line realloc() fix), and finally: 3) Even if the patch worked with the latest revision, I still don't see how it would help as it doesn't allow you to directly specify an arbitrary number of macroblocks, just a threshold. In other words, the patch is not ready for blu-ray prime time. Last edited by cacepi; 13th August 2009 at 01:48. Reason: Typo. |
|
13th August 2009, 03:23 | #51 | Link | ||||
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That said, BD-on-red-laser isn't something that a lot has been done with, and I expect we'll find significant theory/practice divergence, particularly on early hardware BD players. |
||||
13th August 2009, 03:26 | #52 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
|
Quote:
But for DVD-R discs, early players can work better with a lower peak. So if I'm making DVD-R optimized for general consumers (so grandma with a 10 year old hand-me-down player) I'll use
Won't matter for < 5 year old players or PC playback, of course, but raises compatibility for the old stuff. 6.5 Mbps peak isn't bad for 24p, but can be low for 30i. Carbon Mastering Mode FTW... |
|
13th August 2009, 03:38 | #53 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
|
Quote:
Having 40 Mbps peaks can make things a little easier on the compressionist, but they are NOT required for a high quality encode for VC-1 or H.264. I doubt those "low 20 Mbps" titles would have looked any better at 10 Mbps higher ABR. Bear in mind lots of BD encodes have in-loop deblocking off to avoid any potential detail loss, but I don't think that should be needed with a well-tuned adaptive quantization encoder. It'd be interesting to mess around with BD-compliant streams to see how low CRF would have to go in order to generate ABR at 25+ Mbps. x264's one weakness there would be Open GOP support, I suppose. However, with Level 4.0, you're allowed a 2 second GOP as opposed to the 1 second with 4.1, which can offer another efficiency boost. 25 Mbps Level 4.0 with 2 sec max GOP and single slice likely would outperform 26 Mbps Level 4.1 with a 1 sec max GOP and 4-way slicing. Most HD film source really doesn't have THAT much detail. I did a 2.39:1 HD DVD spec 1080p MPEG-2 at 8.5 Mbps ABR disc about four years ago, and it looked really quite good most of the time. The only really bad shot was a bunch of soldiers running through a forest at dawn. Panning shots through moving foliage and lots of shadow detail was not pretty. But it was definitely HD quality for 98% of the content. |
|
13th August 2009, 03:46 | #54 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,750
|
Quote:
For CGI or VFX-heavy Digital Intermediates, sure, but I'd say the average recent BD disc is very close to what's in the master. In the cases where I've been able to compare a title someone had a complaint about with the source, most of the time the defect was present in the source (at least the 8-bit 4:2:0 compression source). There's probably only a few dozen features that really have that intense HD "pop" that many seem to crave. But we're still mainly talking 35mm film with a 1/48th of a second shutter speed. There's a reason they have an on-set photographer instead of don't just blowing up frames for marketing materials . |
|
13th August 2009, 08:38 | #55 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 438
|
Concerning the Blu-ray compatibility discussion with Level 4.0, is the following list a summary of key options/limitations? (media I would like to use is DVD9)
Could someone please confirm that these settings are maxed out within the limits of the Blu-ray specs and (probably only concerns VBV) should not be less compliant for BD9s? As many others already said, I also hope to achieve max. BD compliance with x264 and L4.0 with BD restrictions seems to be covered entirely by x264 by now. Last edited by moviefan; 13th August 2009 at 08:57. |
13th August 2009, 10:27 | #56 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
Andrew |
|
13th August 2009, 10:31 | #57 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1169645 It's quite ineteresting how VC-1 puts relatively more bits into B frames than AVC encode (even if AVC encode has much highier average bitrate many B frames form VC-1 are bigger). Andrew |
|
13th August 2009, 10:41 | #58 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
1. 30Mbit buffer and 24Mbit for maxrate. 2. Double yes. 3. 24Mbit buffer, 24Mbit maxrate, quite many resolutions, up to 60p, no- you can use level 4.1 if you need to. 4. There are special restricion in case of BD5/9. Disc read rate is limited to about 30Mbit, so there are bigger restrictions. Andrew Last edited by kolak; 13th August 2009 at 10:54. |
|
13th August 2009, 10:45 | #59 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
Usually they're about 90-95% full. Hollywood studios seem to have problems with this, even if calculator is a part of Windows Andrew Last edited by kolak; 13th August 2009 at 11:38. |
|
13th August 2009, 10:47 | #60 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,843
|
Quote:
Andrew Last edited by kolak; 13th August 2009 at 11:37. |
|
Tags |
authoring, blu-ray, compliant, verified, x264 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|