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 > New and alternative video codecs

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 7th July 2011, 15:58   #81  |  Link
kieranrk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak View Post
That's why I said that HQX is great- quality can be set from offiline to higher than HDCAM-SR and all extreamly fast for processing. Not free, but also not very expensive.
You could write the MPEG-4 Studio profile data stored on HDCAM-SR straight to MXF if you wanted

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.
kieranrk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2011, 22:18   #82  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,844
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.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2011, 22:20   #83  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kieranrk View Post
You could write the MPEG-4 Studio profile data stored on HDCAM-SR straight to MXF if you wanted

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.
Sony had beta decoder for FCP but what now- buhaha?
Apple decided to kill FCP, so Sony will probably move away from releasing it.

Andrew
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011, 12:27   #84  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,868
Quote:
AVC-I 100 is CAVLC by Panasonic standard, but it's not really transparent at 100Mbit (you need something like 150Mbit).
This only shows that their encoder is not very efficient. 100 Mbps should be enough for 1920x1080@50i.

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)

Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011, 14:05   #85  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
This only shows that their encoder is not very efficient. 100 Mbps should be enough for 1920x1080@50i.

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)


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.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011, 15:20   #86  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,868
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.

Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 8th July 2011 at 15:24.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011, 16:18   #87  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
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.
Just by looking I don't think it's close to 50dB PSNR. If you can see differences on 1:1 size than it's not good enough as intermediate codec.
With all of the existing ones you need to zoom 3x or more to see differences.

Andrew
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011, 16:36   #88  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,868
Quote:
If you can see differences on 1:1 size than it's not good enough as intermediate codec.
Have you downloaded my files or you just checked zoomed comparison? Frankly I can't see difference on 1:1 samples. Even at 200% image degradation is not visible. I really don't understand why you claim that more efficient AVC-Intra 100 is not good enough if even older jpeg compression gives very good results.

Quote:
Just by looking I don't think it's close to 50dB PSNR
PSNR is not good way to measure quality. Human eyes are the best
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011, 16:38   #89  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,844
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.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011, 17:00   #90  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,868
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!)
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011, 19:23   #91  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,844
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
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2011, 11:23   #92  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,868
Quote:
Looks ok- but 2x zoom already reveals quite big differences.
show me where.

Quote:
There is also 601/709 color space issue between source and x264-I, so it's quite difficult to judge.
No wonder because source is 24 bit RGB.

Quote:
It's quite away from intermediate codecs.
I don't agree. Personally I doubt that your camera will capture that kind of details like very expensive Nikon D3S. Moving footage is not that sharp. 100 Mbps x264-I is enough. Period.

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

Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 9th July 2011 at 12:16.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2011, 13:09   #93  |  Link
kieranrk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 707
needs --tune ssim
kieranrk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2011, 13:39   #94  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,868
Quote:
needs --tune ssim
It does not change much. Instead of 0.965 I got 0.967.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2011, 13:52   #95  |  Link
mp3dom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Italy
Posts: 1,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
show me where.
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.
mp3dom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2011, 14:01   #96  |  Link
Atak_Snajpera
RipBot264 author
 
Atak_Snajpera's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 7,868
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)

Last edited by Atak_Snajpera; 9th July 2011 at 14:05.
Atak_Snajpera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2011, 21:37   #97  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,844
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.
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2011, 05:52   #98  |  Link
henryho_hk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera View Post
Like i said before Big SSD (100GB+) are to expensive for me at the moment.
Yup, SSD is both expensive and addictive.
henryho_hk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2011, 07:23   #99  |  Link
smok3
brontosaurusrex
 
smok3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak View Post
Apple decided to kill FCP, so Sony will probably move away from releasing it.
what do you mean?
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/

edit:
p.s. ok i see, quote from a user:
Quote:
No XML,
No EDL,
No OMF,
No External Monitoring,
No Multiclipping,
No RED Support.
No Log & Capture

Last edited by smok3; 12th July 2011 at 07:40.
smok3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2011, 13:57   #100  |  Link
kolak
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 2,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by smok3 View Post
what do you mean?
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/

edit:
p.s. ok i see, quote from a user:
New FCP X has nothing to do with old FCP.
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
kolak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
codec, hdtv, intermediate

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 19:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.