the x264 mess

[gwaitsi]

Frustration is getting the better of me.

I previously used nero recode 2 (which was great from an ease of use) but discovered non of the videos streamed properly to my PS3 (nero recode 3 solved this - but it still has too many issues to be of use).

I then read the encoder reviews and thought right, x264 seems to be the way to go. well, ease of use goes out the window.

I tried AutoMKV, RipBot264, MeGUI and couldn't class any as being easy to use.

all of the files i created with the packaged versions of x264 caused nero showtime player to hang. even if remuxed with yamb.

zoom player plays them but there are shoddy streaks across the screen. and they generally take longer than recode 3 to get less quality.

In summary, why is it so hard to get a simple, user friendly GUI like nero that enables encoding with a good quality at approximately 1.5mbps with aac 5.1, plus chapters, plus subtitles.

until, a package with an ease of use like nero comes along, i don't see anything being widely adopted across the broad range of users. the average guy does not want to spend hours and hours with trial and error to get the best quality. defeats the whole purpose as any money saved on space is lost on time.

Simple GUI requirements for example.
profiles - set and forget: -
- movie, HQ, Lots of motion, compression speed slow
- movie, HQ, Lots of motion, compression speed med
- movie, HQ, Still Images, compression speed slow
- movie, HQ, Still Images, compression speed med

Cropping & Rizing options - with preview like nero

I don't doubt the flexibility of the current GUIs but the average user is not concerned with that, lot alone understand what all the settings dose.

[Brother John]

Designing a user friendly UI in general needs some serious usability expertise which most programmers don’t have. In the freeware/open source world usability experts are rare. And you can’t expect a completely non-profit project to hire one. Then video encoding is a really complex process which means building a usable UI is even harder. So it’s hardly surprising that most UIs have room for improvement.

What you seem to want though is not so much “user friendly” (which can be very complex) but rather “simplified”. And maybe (probably even) most of the free tools are not aimed at Joe Average but rather at people who DO care about the best quality they can get and don’t mind the extra time it takes.

[bkman]

Nero costs money.

MeGui, x264, etc. are free.

If you want a professional GUI, I'd suggest that you hire some programmers.

[nm]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

I tried AutoMKV, RipBot264, MeGUI and couldn't class any as being easy to use.

How about Avidemux and Handbrake (although I don't know if its Windows GUI is as good as the OS X one)?

Judging based on screenshots, Handbrake looks pretty nice and friendly to me.

all of the files i created with the packaged versions of x264 caused nero showtime player to hang. even if remuxed with yamb.

Sounds like a bug in Showtime.

zoom player plays them but there are shoddy streaks across the screen. and they generally take longer than recode 3 to get less quality.

What kind of streaks? Maybe you didn't use an IVTC or deinterlacing filter. The better GUI's should detect this automatically though... Or do you mean blocking/banding?

[buzzqw]

feel free to try AutoMen, should be easy enough

BHH

[Dark Shikari]

Nero is a "user-friendly GUI"? Its a horrible mess, and I'd rather use Staxrip, Ripbot264, AutoMKV, MeGUI, or Handbrake any day of the week.

Plus, its output quality is atrocious.

[audyovydeo]

Although I use x264 via DOS batches, I must admit the original poster has a point.
If x/H.264 is going to be around 5 years from now, it's got to battle against the usual enemy :

http://www.microsoft.com/expression/...px?key=encoder
http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/default_ns.aspx

I suggest reading MS Expression's FAQ for a lesson in product positioning.

We all *know* H.264 is superior to VC1, but how many are *we*, and how many people read MSU's report vs how many download Microsoft's bloatware ?

Technical superiority alone does not win markets, glitzy packaging does.

cheers
audyovydeo


(corollary : cmdline programs win *enthusiasts* ...)

[Sagekilla]

I find it very hard to consider the WME (now expression apparently) GUI to be any better than most of the x264 GUIs.

Too much clutter all over the place and too many tabs for that matter. StaxRip does a better job than it, imbo.

[Avenger007]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

Simple GUI requirements for example.
profiles - set and forget: -
- movie, HQ, Lots of motion, compression speed slow
- movie, HQ, Lots of motion, compression speed med
- movie, HQ, Still Images, compression speed slow
- movie, HQ, Still Images, compression speed med

Cropping & Rizing options - with preview like nero

Maybe this might help w.r.t "set and forget":
MeGUI Custom x264/AVC video profiles http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=101813
You don't even need to click the Config button, just use the bitrate calculator for a particular file size or bitrate and then click AutoEncode (after loading the AviSynth script and audio file of course).

MeGUI also has a preview for Cropping and Resizing when creating the AviSynth script.

Other than speed and quality, compatibility is also an issue to consider when encoding for PS3.

Happy encoding

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

Nero is a "user-friendly GUI"? Its a horrible mess, and I'd rather use Staxrip, Ripbot264, AutoMKV, MeGUI, or Handbrake any day of the week.

Plus, its output quality is atrocious.

I guess it is a perception thing....cause that is why i paid for nero. i felt recode 2 was simple and just works without any d.cking around. Recode 3 i think is even better but of course is not perfect.

As far as quality is concerned...That is subjective. If i compare a good quality DivX against a good quality Nero on my HD PC screen..sure i notice the difference. if i view them on my standard TV played through my PS3 or through my mp4/divx capable h/w player, can't tell the difference.

in view of the comments, i tried again handbrake and ripbot264 because i think i got the de-interlacing wrong. they are still encoding and it has been the whole night.

with over 150dvds in my collection, it is not worth the time to convert them at that rate.

So in summary, back to my original point. If i can't stick it in and it just works, then there ain't much use it being a better quality and that is where nero presently excels.

[check]

Please also don't forget, these GUIs are mainly created for enthusiasts. I don't mean home theatre enthusiasts, I mean people who enjoy tweaking and twiddling the knobs on their programs, and who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty.

To be sure, there are some 'one click' options around, such as MeGUI's one, but most of the people on this site are simply not interested in them (compare the activity of the gordian knot forum with the MPEG-4 AVC forum). If you are after a higher level tool, look around for a lower level forum ;-)

[DarkZell666]

Originally Posted by check

To be sure, there are some 'one click' options around, such as MeGUI's one, but most of the people on this site are simply not interested in them (compare the activity of the gordian knot forum with the MPEG-4 AVC forum). If you are after a higher level tool, look around for a lower level forum ;-)

I haven't extensively used either, but I'd rather say the activity around MeGUI is rather like "I can't get this to work", wereas the lack of activity around GK and AGK is rather like "no news is good news" imho

[NWDaniels91]

Back when I first started encoding DVDs to XviD, I used AutoGK. Then after reading some more about digital video, I tried to figure out how to do a few custom options (like using a different de-interlacing method), I learned enough so AutoGK seemed too limited in its options, so I started using GordianKnot. I kept learning (slowly), and eventually it seemed strange to me to even assume that DGIndex or the AviSynth generator were doing exactly what I wanted. After needing to edit the AviSynth script directly to get the desired results a few times, I got to the point where I wanted to do everything pretty much manually. Especially since GordianKnot doesn't really do H.264, that meant using MeGUI. MeGUI came fairly easy to me since I understood what most of the options meant. It's sort of a GUI for doing everything manually, if that makes sense.

So for me, there was a gradual progression to using MeGUI as I read and learned about digital video. I guess we all start as noobs, and I would recommend that you read a little until you can get MeGUI to do what you want (there is still a lot that I don't know, but I feel good at the level I've reached). I guess that's why there's no good GUI that's really simple: the people who know enough to write the programs have learned that having lots of custom options is important.

(Also, I like the frequent updates to the x264 encoder. It's updated much more often than Nero's (at least to the public), and I like feeling like I'm on the cutting edge.)

[odditory]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

Frustration is getting the better of me.

I previously used nero recode 2 (which was great from an ease of use) but discovered non of the videos streamed properly to my PS3 (nero recode 3 solved this - but it still has too many issues to be of use).

I then read the encoder reviews and thought right, x264 seems to be the way to go. well, ease of use goes out the window.

I tried AutoMKV, RipBot264, MeGUI and couldn't class any as being easy to use.

<snip>

I feel the same way you do, I just don't state the opinion very often because it often meets with flames from veterans of the x264 opensource scene, since they often (mistakenly) take it as negative criticism. Ever since 2005 when the idea of H.264 really grabbed my attention, I've checked back on this forum every few months just to see if things had evolved past the point of buggy GUI's that utilize a hodge-podge of other tools through scripts/batches that are prone to breaking. There are just too many variables to try and gain proficiency in all of them - and definitely more art to it than science. Bottom line is with such a decentralized approach to it with so many people working on different parts of a 'system', you get a rubber band ball rather than a single solid rubber ball.

I do see the point of the newbie-unfriendly (or just time-unfriendly) x264 CLI tools and GUI's and the people that love them: these people are passionate about it because they have total control of every parameter not to mention have a lot of time invested (and perhaps even emotion), and being able to discuss and dissect the hairs of every command line parameter is not much different than Wine zealots discussing grape seed genetics and ideal soil moisture levels, or a car enthusiast insisting that a toothbrush gives him more control to getting his car 5% more shiny than with a rag.

In other words, I often get the sense that many in the opensource x264 scene revel in the complexity of it all, just for the *sake* of the complexity, when it comes to the usage of the different tools and how they interact with one another.

As well, the tired old argument "but opensource is FREEEEE!" always comes up in these discussions, and I always think "who cares?" because that argument misses the point: a lot of people *are* willing to PAY for something that can hit a good ratio of performance and ease of use. In other words, some of us feel that saving $50 by using free software is NOT worth the lost time in trial & error and learning curve.

Nero actually DOES produce decent results despite what others will say (but the GUI is buggy/bloat like all Nero crap), and the only other one I've tried is Mainconcept Reference: it's buggy but excellent interface produces decent results that I'm still trying to fine-tune to match x264 results, since its ability to handle a large number of batch encodes without intermediary files is great.

Good luck!

[odditory]

Originally Posted by NWDaniels91

<snip>
(Also, I like the frequent updates to the x264 encoder. It's updated much more often than Nero's (at least to the public), and I like feeling like I'm on the cutting edge.)

I like frequent updates too, but you never know if an update equals a step forward or a step back - history has proven it can sometimes be the latter. That means you have to follow all the discussions of each build to find out if you should even use it. Once again, attractive for some, but a time-drain for others.

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by odditory

In other words, I often get the sense that many in the opensource x264 scene revel in the complexity of it all, just for the *sake* of the complexity when it comes to the usage of the different tools and how they interact with one another.

Its almost as if there weren't idiot-proof one-click GUIs out there for x264 with even fewer options than Nero!

Hell, I even made one that was literally "select input, select output, select quality, select speed." Four options.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Hell, I even made one that was literally "select input, select output, select quality, select speed." Four options.

Nice but how you ensure that your file will be compatible with AVCHD , PSP , IPOD and so on. Life is not that simple...

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

Nice but how you ensure that your file will be compatible with AVCHD , PSP , IPOD and so on. Life is not that simple...

It was for computer-targeted encoding.

For AVCHD/similar encoding, you add a fifth option: "target device"

Literally you need three real options for any "simple" encoder--nothing more:

1. Quality / Filesize: allow someone to pick either a particular quality or a particular filesize.

2. Speed: a slider that automatically chooses encoding commandlines.

3. Target: Sets the profile and DPB/bitrate/level parameters.

[Atak_Snajpera]

yeah and then another and another... and another

all of the files i created with the packaged versions of x264 caused nero showtime player to hang. even if remuxed with yamb.

Blame Nero not us

Simple GUI requirements for example.
profiles - set and forget: -
- movie, HQ, Lots of motion, compression speed slow
- movie, HQ, Lots of motion, compression speed med
- movie, HQ, Still Images, compression speed slow
- movie, HQ, Still Images, compression speed med

This reminds me old years when we were playing with DivX3.11 Low/High motion

[fields_g]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

Literally you need three real options for any "simple" encoder--nothing more:

1. Quality / Filesize: allow someone to pick either a particular quality or a particular filesize.
2. Speed: a slider that automatically chooses encoding commandlines.
3. Target: Sets the profile and DPB/bitrate/level parameters.

Exactly.... Look at it this way... When we judge the results of our encoding parameters, we look at these categories. The optimal GUI is one that takes our WANTS as inputs and optimally sets all the encoder parameters and filters. But there are obvious reasons this isn't always easy to develop. Source Material, codec/filter changes (improvements, hopefully), and personal tastes come to mind.

This leaves room for two different types of GUIs, "Sir-Tweaks-a-Lot's Super option filled GUI" and the "Just-do-it-DAMMIT cookie cutter GUI". The latter is applicable to many more people in general, but probably not the choice of many enthusiasts on this forum. Don't use one and expect the other.

[Sagekilla]

Indeed, you hit the nail on the head.. Personally I think if you're really obsessed with getting the best quality, the best way to go is with CLI. If you just want ease of use to stick your videos across various devices and don't mind having slightly lower quality, (due to less prefiltering, and moderate settings) then I think a GUI, like the one Dark Shikari described, would be better to use.

Yes, I realize I'm making things black and white here. But the beauty of open source projects like x264 and all the related goodies is there's so many different offerings! Still, that could be problematic for the user who just wants to store movies on his computer and not fiddle around with intricacies.

[gwaitsi]

well FYI all,

thinking that i missed something the first round - given i read something about de-interlacing and the video produced in my test seem not to have been deinterlaced i.e. horizontal streaks accross when frame changes.

so last night i tried with handbrake and ripbot AGAIN. double checking de-interlacing settings again.

it's not difficult. i am using Proof of Life for my test 2.15hr at 1.5mbps it should produce a file around 1.6Gb/s.
Using nero recode 2 i established that 1.5mbps when played back through a standard Pal TV is about as low as i want to go. I could n't notice any difference between 2mbps and 1.5mbps.

so, i encoded again last night ripbot produced a 1.5Gb file in mp4. doesn't have the sttreaks like last time but it is blocky like DivX when encoded for single CD size. Doesn't play in showtime.
--- i know, blame nero

handbrake also encoded to about 1.6Gb in mv4 format (and it does play in nero showtime). shows avc level as 5.1. has the horizontal streaks i.e. doesn't seem to have been deinterlaced.

same time, i used recode 3 again - even with its current bugs. used encoding precision set to extra. sorry to beat and old drum, but she just works....

give me a way of turning a standard 4.7Gb DVD to x264 with the ability to manually crop with a quality that puts the DVD down to 1.5Gb +/- prefer to maintain a constant quality where the is no noticable difference when play back on a standard TV.

I'll be happy. I am even happy to use foobar and do the audio conversions separately + yamb to remux.

you ask so why don't i use recode 3 then. because
- it doesn't have constant quality and f.cks-up on the 2nd pass with the audio/video for some which waistes my time
- the bit rate gradually drops off with high precision set
- it converts .srt to vobsub

you ask why i don't use recode 2 - which i had already converted a lot of movies.....
- they don't play on PS3 when streamed via tversity. recode 3 does.

in summary,
i use AAC-HE 128k for the audio - nero
i need to manually crop but not resize
it should handle interlacing basedon the variety of dvds in my collection
batch encoding with individual settings nice but not essential
video i want to set and forget with a quality equiv to approx 1.5mbps (that play when streamed through tversity)

surely, one of you guys can give me some specific settings to wake into one of these gui's to achieve the above if it is so easy?

maybe there is the challenge for you. Can you get a novice producing top quality stuff with some basic instruction?

[gwaitsi]

ok, i am satisfied a probable component is a user problem.
i just used the trial of mainconcept reference and have the same problems.

so: my video is
- 720x480 NTSC (black bars top and bottom)
- pixel shape is (4:3) 10:11
- interlaced
- 29.97fps

after crop
- 704x268

my screen is 1650 x 1050

In nero, i don't resize. (i did the same in x264 and mainconcept)

the encoded video from recode scales correctly when viewed full screen from any player.

the encoded video from x264 and mainconcept has blocked and clearly is not scaled correctly when viewed full screen.

what i am doing wrong? Solve this and i may be able to make a better assessment on usability :-)

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

so: my video is
- 720x480 NTSC (black bars top and bottom)
- pixel shape is (4:3) 10:11
- interlaced
- 29.97fps

Are you sure the video isn't telecined, not interlaced?

[Stingrey]

Are you really using 128kB HE-AAC ?
For that bitrate you should use the LC profile, or bether just do a one-pass vbr encode and only change the -q rate (let the encoder select the best profile) using neroaacenc with foobar.

[Atak_Snajpera]

Are you really using 128kB HE-AAC ?

128 LC sounds more natural than 128 HE. However 64 HE is wining with 64 LC. So tip for you use 128 LC or 64 HE.

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by Atak_Snajpera

128 LC sounds more natural than 128 HE. However 64 HE is wining with 64 LC. So tip for you use 128 LC or 64 HE.

Or just let the encoder decide

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

Are you sure the video isn't telecined, not interlaced?

Dark, i believe it might be. I can't remember which gui - i think MeGUI. had a test for determining the interlaced and the summary was telecined. actually reported a mixture of interlacing with the % of frame for each and the summary was telecined.

Nero/Mainconcept simply report as interlaced.

Others, i am not concerned about the audio. I use LC 192kbs 2pass for audio and HE 128kbs 2pass for movies. produced in foobar2000 or recode.

The issue i seem to have is with x264 and mainconcept and the resizing after cropping. no one has provided an answer to that which leaves with with recode as it is the only one i can get to crop the video yet allows the player to resize to full screen with normal looking output.

[talen9]

The issue i seem to have is with x264 and mainconcept and the resizing after cropping. no one has provided an answer to that which leaves with with recode as it is the only one i can get to crop the video yet allows the player to resize to full screen with normal looking output.

I'n not sure I understand correctly what you mean; anyway, in MeGUI, try "Clever (TM) anamorphic encoding" in the "AviSynth script creator" wizard

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by talen9

I'n not sure I understand correctly what you mean; anyway, in MeGUI, try "Clever (TM) anamorphic encoding" in the "AviSynth script creator" wizard

it is difficult to explain. Firstly i thought the video was not de-interlacing but that is not the problem.

- i crop video to 704 x 268
- i do not resize video

resulting file when viewed in a window on pc is ok. but when switching to full screen is unevenlly stretched and has blocks in the video.

this does not happen with the nero recode outputs.

obviously i am doing something wrong with the settings.

[fields_g]

What player software are you using?

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by fields_g

What player software are you using?

doesn't matter.
i tried nero showtime, zoom player and windows media player. they all do the same thing.

nero recode files play perfectly in full screen mode with all players.

when i try to encode with any x264 gui or mainconcept i get the problems described above.

So back to my original whinge. if i can even get the basic encoding functioning happening (not even talking about tweaking), then it must be all too complicated and that is why non-standard proprietry software will prevalue over this open source staff. because is too complicated for the average jo.

sh.t, i'm glad i didn't pay the rediculous money for mediaconcept. so far i have more luck with a 50eur piece of software than with free or expensive software.

[nurbs]

You have to tell the encoder what aspect ratio the material is. In MeGUI you have to check the "clever anamorphic encoding" box in the avs-script creator.

[odditory]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

<snip>
sh.t, i'm glad i didn't pay the rediculous money for mediaconcept. so far i have more luck with a 50eur piece of software than with free or expensive software.

You have to admit Mainconcept Reference has a nice GUI though - its still the best GUI for H.264 encoding and batch handling that I've seen. If someone ever comes close to that GUI and it employed x264.exe, then I'd be all over it - that really would be the best of both worlds to me.

For the record I don't have weird aspect ratio issues during playback after cropping in Mainconcept or Handbrake.

Nero Recode 3 doesn't really do batch encoding (that I can tell), so it's out of the running for me.

[odditory]

By the way, how often are you really going to be cropping? Every movie? If its just a one-time or occasional thing, i wouldn't be basing my choice on encoder to standardize on, based on which one handles aspect ratio correctly after a crop.

[Avenger007]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

so: my video is
- 720x480 NTSC (black bars top and bottom)
- pixel shape is (4:3) 10:11
- interlaced
- 29.97fps

after crop
- 704x268

my screen is 1650 x 1050

In nero, i don't resize. (i did the same in x264 and mainconcept)

the encoded video from recode scales correctly when viewed full screen from any player.

the encoded video from x264 and mainconcept has blocked and clearly is not scaled correctly when viewed full screen.

what i am doing wrong? Solve this and i may be able to make a better assessment on usability :-)

For "pixel shape is (4:3) 10:11", in MeGUI click Config->Zones and type "--sar 10:11" without quotes in Custom Commandline Options.

MeGUI is THE GUI for encoding with x264, end of story.

[Stingrey]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

Others, i am not concerned about the audio. I use LC 192kbs 2pass for audio and HE 128kbs 2pass for movies. produced in foobar2000 or recode.

Watching a Movie is only fun when the audio is good too!
Use VBR one-pass with foobar und you will get a faster and bether result!
look here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=44310

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by Stingrey

Watching a Movie is only fun when the audio is good too!
Use VBR one-pass with foobar und you will get a faster and bether result!
look here:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=44310

Stingrey, i may have miss lead a little. i actually use LC q .55 which approximates to 200kbs for my audio.

all my movies done with recode 2 use nero's inbuilt encoder with the default settings which is HE for recode 2 and LC for recode 3.

I only use foobar->nero for DTS audio or, sometimes when recode cracks the sh.ts with a movie's audio.

My problems are purely with video. i tried again mainconcept last night and still can't get a decent f.cking picture from it after croping. i will try avenger's recommend with MeGUI on the weekend.

But i can already see what will happen. by the time i ever get this sh.t working, recode 3 will have fixed their current bugs and i will end up continuing to use recode having spent bloody hours trying to get a decent encode from x264 and mainconcept.

at least mainconcept lets you do a small sample, so i can try different configs much easier.

[check]

avisynth also lets you test small samples: selectrangeevery(), or trim()

[gwaitsi]

i'm giving up!

I managed to get StaxRip to produce a decent quality encode but without cropping. Mainconcept is not producing a decent file and MeGUI just ain't happening! It crashes when getting to the profile import file during the update and can't get it to do anything re encoding.

Here are two short theatrical trailers 1 PAL and 1 NTSC
http://www.dvdloc8.com/dolbydtsclip.php?clipid=10
http://www.dvdloc8.com/dolbydtsclip.php?clipid=1

Both of the above encode perfectly in recode 2/3 with cropping and no resize. playback fullscreen on mt 1650x1050 is perfect.
i use 1.56m/bps 2pass for my encodes in recode 3

I challenge anyone to show me an encode that has been cropped and not resized that is better than nero. If you can do it, then please provide the settings and app used to do it and i maybe convinced if i can duplicate ;-)

[check]

http://www.dvdloc8.com/dolbydtsclip.php?clipid=10

Now I'm convinced the reason for your suboptimal results are lack of knowledge on your part. These two video are not interlaced, they are telecined. You don't process these with a deinterlacer, you process these with an InVerse TeleCine tool.
Here are the steps I did:

Install Avisynth 2.5.7 from avisynth.org
Install MeGUI from x264.nl
Change MeGUI update servers from stable to development
Download all updates in MeGUI
Use d2v creator in MeGUI to create a d2v index from the vob
Use the avisynth script creator to create an avs script from the d2v. Manually tell the creator that the video is telecined because it's too short for the automatic detection to work with.
Encode with x264, HQ-Slow preset, automated two pass, bitrate 1500.

This gives you an encode of brilliant quality. You can in fact encode this file with a bitrate of 500 and they will still be using too much bitrate.

[gwaitsi]

hey check, cool - thanks.

I will give this a bash and see how i go.

Obviously, recode can automatically identify (which is my setting) and take the correct action but how can i tell if it is interlaced or telecined with megui/mainconcept?

Am i better to use constant Q rather than 2 pass, if i want a general setting that will produce excellent video indepent of size? what is the best Q setting to use as a general rule to achieve excellent quality? How can you tell what is the best bit rate to use to maintain quality without overkill as you mentioned above?

Thanks for taking the time...

[check]

how can i tell if it is interlaced or telecined with megui/mainconcept?

Open the raw source in a media player that does no post processing, and step through frame by frame.
Progressive has no combing, Interlaced is all combed (although be aware this combing is less visible in low motion scenes), and Telecined content is a mix of interlaced and progressive frames (ratio 3:2).
Content that is a hybrid of some or all of the above frame types exists, but it's reasonably rare if you deal with normal western hollywood DVDs.

Am i better to use constant Q rather than 2 pass, if i want a general setting that will produce excellent video indepent of size?

This is the perfect use case for using constant quality, rather than constant bitrate.

what is the best Q setting to use as a general rule to achieve excellent quality?

As a general rule with x264, use CRF (Constant RateFactor/Constant Quality) instead of CQ/QP (Constant Quantizer), and values between 16-26. The lower the value, the closer the input will be to the output. The number does not have to be an integer. The same value will give different perceptual quality for different sources. What value range you use depends on your visual requirements and your display, don't just pick one value based on anothers' recommendation.

How can you tell what is the best bit rate to use to maintain quality without overkill as you mentioned above?

Varies depending on the source. Generally if you end up with quantizers under 16, it's a waste of bits, and over 26 is too low quality. Excessively low quality is easy to spot, but Excessively high quality can be harder. Remember the cost of too high bitrate is just output size.

[Jay Bee]

Seems to me posting one of the encoded files that don't work would make a lot more sense than trying to describe the problem over 3 pages.

[nm]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

Obviously, recode can automatically identify (which is my setting) and take the correct action but how can i tell if it is interlaced or telecined with megui/mainconcept?

Could you upload somewhere an encode of the NTSC Dolby sequence made with Recode 3? I'd like to see if it really did IVTC and not just deinterlaced the video (which will show up as wrong framerate and slight jerkyness/blurring on playback).

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by nm

Could you upload somewhere an encode of the NTSC Dolby sequence made with Recode 3? I'd like to see if it really did IVTC and not just deinterlaced the video (which will show up as wrong framerate and slight jerkyness/blurring on playback).

Here is the link
http://www.tempfiles.net/download/20..._AAC_LC_5.html

Movies definately come out in the same quality whether NTSC or PAL and interlaced, telecine or progressive.

[gwaitsi]

thanks to all who have contributed to getting me up and running.

I decided to remove one part of the equation and have been working with PAL progressive source and managed to get some decent encodes.

What have a found with my test encode of Fight Club - PAL DVD.

- I encoded with PS3-Xbox profile (except changed to crf - q18)
- can't tell visualy the difference between x264 crf q18 and recode 3 2pass 1.5mbps
- x264 takes 3hrs and recode 3 takes 2hrs
- physical size is about the same 1.7Gb (60Mg difference)
- recode 3 ND AVC profiles streams through TVersity to PS3 no problems
- x264 stutters with streaming through TVersity to PS3

In summary,
- i can't say either is better because x264 and recode 3 both look the same on my 1650x1050 display (full screen) and on SDTV
- recode 3 is much quicker
- recode 3 is requires much less work

Having said all of the above, i tested demuxing the nero video and remuxing with yamb.....PS3 doesn't stream without stuttering.
So it may not be x264 which is the problem but the muxing phase which is the problem.

both type play when copied directly to the PS3

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

- can't tell visualy the difference between x264 crf q18 and recode 3 2pass 1.5mbps
- x264 takes 3hrs and recode 3 takes 2hrs

So why not use faster x264 settings?

[nm]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

Here is the link
http://www.tempfiles.net/download/20..._AAC_LC_5.html

I have a problem downloading it. Seems to be an empty file.

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

So why not use faster x264 settings?

I tried q16, 17, 18, 19 samples and concluded 18 was the highest i could go without a noticable difference in quality.

i.e. at 19 you could see blocks in the dark colours.

i suppose i could try to 2pass 1.5mbps to make a more like for like comparison but in view of the other issues with streaming to the PS3 doesn't seem much point.

At this stage i can not fully test the x264 video because the mp4 wont stream properly. So until kurtnoise fixes/changes so i can remux a known good mp4 and have the remuxed version work the same, then i can't tell the difference.

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

I tried q16, 17, 18, 19 samples and concluded 18 was the highest i could go without a noticable difference in quality.

i.e. at 19 you could see blocks in the dark colours.

uh... CRF has to do with bitrate, not speed... (though lower bitrate is slightly faster, generally)

What about all the other settings?

Additionally, if you have blocks in dark areas, you need to use AQ.

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by nm

I have a problem downloading it. Seems to be an empty file.

try again
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7O4LX67N

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

uh... CRF has to do with bitrate, not speed... (though lower bitrate is slightly faster, generally)

What about all the other settings?

Additionally, if you have blocks in dark areas, you need to use AQ.

Sorry, i meant.
With MeGui I used the standard PD-PS3-Xbox360 profile
(only changed automated 2pass to ConstQuality Q-18)

to make a speed like-4-like speed comparison with Recode 3, i could try automated 2pass but i don't think it would make much difference speed wise.

As for quality, CRF Q18 is the highest i can go to give me the same quality i get from Recode 3.

i don't know about the encoder comparison results, but for my simple - every mans type job, nero is far quicker for the same result

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

i don't know about the encoder comparison results, but for my simple - every mans type job, nero is far quicker for the same result

You're using a slow profile on MeGUI, and comparing it to a fast profile on Nero. If the profile is unnecessarily slow and doesn't indicate so, its still not x264's fault; its MeGUI's fault. In particular, if you turn off the "RDO for B-frames" checkbox, x264 will get quite a bit faster

In other news, a Honda Civic in 4th gear is faster than a Ferrari in 1st gear.

[nm]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

try again
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7O4LX67N

Just as I suspected, Recode didn't do anything to IVTC the video (example: frame 268). It is messed up so that you can easily get a higher quality encode at the same bitrate even with an MPEG-2 encoder.

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by nm

Just as I suspected, Recode didn't do anything to IVTC the video (example: frame 268). It is messed up so that you can easily get a higher quality encode at the same bitrate even with an MPEG-2 encoder.

how do you get an individual frame like that? I would like to compare the samples i have produced with the different settings.

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

In other news, a Honda Civic in 4th gear is faster than a Ferrari in 1st gear.

Hmm...don't know about that ;-) but i would like the ferrari to give it a try.

[woah!]

i had 5 mins spare to have a go at this, heres the result:

http://www.filesend.net/download.php...ce51a423b20d25

see what you think...

[nm]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

how do you get an individual frame like that? I would like to compare the samples i have produced with the different settings.

I just used mplayer -vo png input.mp4, but many of the better video players allow you to play the video frame-by-frame and save individual frames (or just take a screenshot). I think at least MPC has these capabilities.

Originally Posted by woah!

i had 5 mins spare to have a go at this, heres the result:

http://www.filesend.net/download.php...ce51a423b20d25

see what you think...

That's deinterlaced. The source is telecined, so you should use a pullup/IVTC filter.

Here's my encode: Dolby Canyon (3680 kB, video: x264 crf=18, 663 kbps, audio: faac 128kbps stereo)

I used command-line tools to encode because I'm used to them and know them better than GUIs. I'm not suggesting that these tools are easier than Nero Recode for a beginner, but IVTC filters similar to MEncoder's pullup are available in many x264 encoding GUIs. You'll just need to know a bit more than the basics to make sure you do it right. And apparently doing it right for hard-telecined NTSC sources is not even possible with Recode.

By the way, Handbrake's CLI (and GUI) would be quite easy to use for this task, but unfortunately their pullup filter doesn't drop frames, so it won't work correctly for hard-telecined sources either. Avidemux seems to work, but it requires knowing which filter to use for IVTC.

Here are my command-lines for a reference (I copied some settings from the MeGUI PS3 profile, but used more reference frames and CRF instead of 2-pass. Not sure if it'll play on PS3):

# Encode video
mencoder -of rawvideo -nosound -ofps 24000/1001 -vf pullup,softskip,crop=704:344:8:70 -ovc x264 -x264encopts crf=18:frameref=5:mixed_refs:bframes=3:weight_b:nob_pyramid:brdo:bime:8x8dct:trellis=1:nofast_pskip:level_idc=41 dolbycanyon.vob -o video.264

# Decode audio
mplayer dolbycanyon.vob -vc dummy -vo null -ao pcm:file=audio.wav

# Encode audio
faac -b 128 --mpeg-vers 4 -o audio.aac audio.wav

# Mux to MP4
MP4Box -add video.264 -fps 23.976 -add audio.aac -new dolby_canyon_x264_crf18.mp4

[foxyshadis]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

Hmm...don't know about that ;-) but i would like the ferrari to give it a try.

50 mph or 80 kph is about where 1st gear maxes out on ferraris. They're fun, but I never want to give it a real spin, scared of that much power. My nerves freak out over 160 mph.

Anyway, yeah, megui has the failure of trying to have both speed/quality and compatibility in the same profiles. It should work like handbrake, where you choose a compatibility profile and a speed/quality separately, because they really are orthoganal. All compatibility profiles in megui are absolutely maxed out for whatever the hardware can support, they're a bad choice for normal encoding, but at least you always know you can disable whatever you want and remain compatible.

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by foxyshadis

50 mph or 80 kph is about where 1st gear maxes out on ferraris. They're fun, but I never want to give it a real spin, scared of that much power. My nerves freak out over 160 mph.

Anyway, yeah, megui has the failure of trying to have both speed/quality and compatibility in the same profiles. It should work like handbrake, where you choose a compatibility profile and a speed/quality separately, because they really are orthoganal. All compatibility profiles in megui are absolutely maxed out for whatever the hardware can support, they're a bad choice for normal encoding, but at least you always know you can disable whatever you want and remain compatible.

think part of the problem was, nero defaults to main profile and megui to high profile. When i set nero to high profile, it also took 4hrs.

I am now trying to work out the settings to you for megui that will give more like-4-like comparison.

current testing still indicates it is slower.

1st pass various between 60-120 fps for nero as compared to about 50fps for megui.

2nd pass is various between 20-30 fps for nero as compared to 14-22 for megui.

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

think part of the problem was, nero defaults to main profile and megui to high profile. When i set nero to high profile, it also took 4hrs.

Unrelated. The only major advantage of High Profile that either use is 8x8dct, which requires nearly zero encoding time.

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

t1st pass various between 60-120 fps for nero as compared to about 50fps for megui.

2nd pass is various between 20-30 fps for nero as compared to 14-22 for megui.

Paste the commandline MeGUI is using here and I'll tell you what to turn off in it.

[gwaitsi]

Originally Posted by Dark Shikari

Unrelated. The only major advantage of High Profile that either use is 8x8dct, which requires nearly zero encoding time.
Paste the commandline MeGUI is using here and I'll tell you what to turn off in it.

Hi Dark Shikari
I did a load of compares with 2000 frame on q24 - q19 and 2pass 1500 - 1100. I concluded that q21.5 provides about the optimal quality. or certainly i don't notice any difference with the source on a standard TV.

The settings are what i am using below. I am using yamb for the mux because of the previous issue with stuttering when streaming. I found by turning off "save file with all media data first" solves my streaming problem.

If i can get the encoding time down to a more reasonable time without noticable loss of quality i would be happy. size wise, i am very happy. by using crf q21.5 video and q.35 for audio i can get the overall size down to 1.1Gb from previous 1.4-1.6Gb.

My settings are below and grateful for your input.

"C:\Program Files (x86)\megui\tools\x264\x264.exe" --crf 21.5 --level 3.1 --ref 3 --mixed-refs --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --filter -2,-1 --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse p8x8,b8x8,i4x4 --threads auto --thread-input --sar 1823:1250 --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim --output "D:\DVDs\SYRIANA\VIDEO_TS\syriana_q21-5.mp4" "D:\DVDs\SYRIANA\VIDEO_TS\syriana.avs"

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

"C:\Program Files (x86)\megui\tools\x264\x264.exe" --crf 21.5 --level 3.1 --ref 3 --mixed-refs --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --filter -2,-1 --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse p8x8,b8x8,i4x4 --threads auto --thread-input --sar 1823:1250 --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim

1. Unless you're encoding for a Main Profile device such as a PSP/similar, add --8x8dct (Adaptive Transform) and check i8x8 partitions. There is no almost speed penalty for the former, and a small penalty for the latter, with a relatively large quality boost.

2. Remove --b-rdo (RDO for B-frames). The speed cost for this is unnecessarily high.

3. To increase speed if removing BRDO doesn't do enough for you, try the following in order:

1. Drop subme 6 to subme 5.
2. Drop subme 5 to subme 4.
3. Drop --ref to 2.

[gwaitsi]

dark shikari thanks for that.

it has made much difference time wise i.s. still around 17-18fps, but i am interested in quality and size, so i can live with a 3hr encode to get better quality at a smaller size.

i am still only working on progressive sources :-)

I will no doubt be back for the telecined and interlaced sources...

[gwaitsi]

i was right. so far so good with the progressive sources, but i do i setup up a telecined source?

[check]

you need to ivtc it. The easiest way would be to use MeGUIs feature. Run the analysis (if the video is long enough), and use it to determine the method required to turn it progressive.
The detection is not perfect, but is generally accurate for anything over 20minutes.

[gwaitsi]

all, thanks a heap. i am really starting to make progress with this.
so i've done a few videos now with dark shikari's recommendation.
used subme 5 and now my encode times approximate 2hrs per movie. i increased the crf to 22 and find the quality is pretty good.

i am curious however, i tried a few movies between 1.40hr and 2.20hrs and the there is a wide variation between the subsequent encodes with the result av bit rate.

they seem to vary from 700kbps and up to over 2.2mbps. a couple of the movies ended up with over 2Gb file size and one ended up with 700Mg.

Is this correct? What is the best way to handle this? take a few samples and then adjust the q for each movie?
i.e. the movie that was over 2Gb was much smaller with 2pass-1500mbps

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

all, thanks a heap. i am really starting to make progress with this.
so i've done a few videos now with dark shikari's recommendation.
used subme 5 and now my encode times approximate 2hrs per movie. i increased the crf to 22 and find the quality is pretty good.

i am curious however, i tried a few movies between 1.40hr and 2.20hrs and the there is a wide variation between the subsequent encodes with the result av bit rate.

they seem to vary from 700kbps and up to over 2.2mbps. a couple of the movies ended up with over 2Gb file size and one ended up with 700Mg.

Is this correct? What is the best way to handle this? take a few samples and then adjust the q for each movie?
i.e. the movie that was over 2Gb was much smaller with 2pass-1500mbps

The point is that some movies need more bitrate than others for an equivalent quality.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

they seem to vary from 700kbps and up to over 2.2mbps. a couple of the movies ended up with over 2Gb file size and one ended up with 700Mg.

Is this correct? What is the best way to handle this? take a few samples and then adjust the q for each movie?
i.e. the movie that was over 2Gb was much smaller with 2pass-1500mbps

If you are targeting for a certain level of quality, use the CRF mode!
Same CRF value will give you (approximately) the same quality for all movies.
Of course some movies will result in much bigger files than others (at same playtime and same CRF value).
Just think of a movie containing only black screen and another one containing only random noise.
How much bitrate is required for a certain level of quality totally depends on the contents of the individual movie!
That's why we have CRF mode. And that's why final size is un-predictable in CRF mode...

If you are targeting for a certain (average) bitrate or a certain final filesize, then use 2-Pass mode!
2-Pass mode assures the maximum quality for a given filesize (or a given target bitrate).
But you can not expect the same quality for any movie at a fixed target filesize.
While some movies fit on a 700 MB disc in near-perfect quality, other will look ugly at that size.
But that's not the fault of 2-Pass mode, it's just that some movies are more "compressible" than others.
Again CRF mode can help out, but won't hit any target filesize...

Which mode to use totally depends on what you want to achieve:
1. Get a certain level of quality and don't care much about the final filesize => CRF
2. Get maximum quality for a fixed target filesize (or fixed target bitrate) => 2-Pass

[gwaitsi]

it's been sometime since my last post on this.

I was happily cruising along with crf 22 and subme 5 until a number of videos ended up way to big. i.e. 3Gb i tried a view different crfs but around 26 i thought the quality was notably less.

This left me to try an auto 2pass at 1500kbps which is what i originally used in nero. well....this proves beyond all doubt how much more efficient recode 3 is.

the 1st pass in nero reads at between 90-120fps and encodes the 2nd pass at around 20fps. In other words a 3hrs movie is still encoded in around 3+ hrs.

x264 takes 4hrs for the 1st pass and 4hrs for the 2nd pass. both passes average 18fps. and i am not so sure the quality of x264 is any better than recode 3, indeed i may even go so far as to say it is worse with these settings.

The settings i used below were the same as my crf save for being auto2pass

--level 3.1 --ref 3 --mixed-refs --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --filter -2,-1 --trellis 1 --analyse p8x8,b8x8,i4x4 --threads auto --thread-input --sar 1823:1250 --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim

[Dark Shikari]

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

This left me to try an auto 2pass at 1500kbps which is what i originally used in nero. well....this proves beyond all doubt how much more efficient recode 3 is.

The only thing it proves is that you don't know how to use 2pass in x264.

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

the 1st pass in nero reads at between 90-120fps and encodes the 2nd pass at around 20fps. In other words a 3hrs movie is still encoded in around 3+ hrs.

x264 takes 4hrs for the 1st pass and 4hrs for the 2nd pass. both passes average 18fps.

You don't need to use the same settings in first and second pass.

Originally Posted by gwaitsi

--level 3.1 --ref 3 --mixed-refs --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --b-rdo --bime --weightb --filter -2,-1 --trellis 1 --analyse p8x8,b8x8,i4x4 --threads auto --thread-input --sar 1823:1250 --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim

Your first pass should be something like --level 3.1 --ref 1 --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --filter -2,-1 --subme 1 --analyse none --threads auto --thread-input --sar 1823:1250 --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim. There is no quality loss from using fast firstpass settings. Also, note that "--b-rdo" does nothing if subme < 6.