View Single Post
Old 18th October 2019, 19:38   #20  |  Link
poisondeathray
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by kolak View Post
If you use relatively high bitrates (30Mbit+) Cinemacrfat can be better than x264. It has better quality distribution between I,P,B frames. At lower bitrates x264 is better. x264 can also produce nasty artefacts at high contrast edges as well (even at 30Mbit+), up to level which makes (otherwise very good encode) unacceptable
When you have a noisy, grainy source - that's difficult to compress. 35Mb/s might actually be considered relatively "low" in that scenario depending on how much noise and grain you actually have. 30Mb/s might not be "enough" for some encoders. 35Mb/s might not be enough. That's where a higher compression efficiency encoder helps. Watch out for splotchy ugly grain distribution in some of the other encoders.

Yes, x264 can have problems when using default settings. The AQ redistribution tends to generate a "halo" like effect of reduced grain around edges. When combined with higher psy-rd and psy-trellis, there can be artifacts not obscured by the grain. Also, there can be noticable I/B/P fluctuations. That's why the --tune grain preset has adjusted settings for --aq-strength and IP/PB ratios. You can adjust them farther if it's still a problem .

Quote:
As for bigger studio Cinemacraft has also plenty other features which can be useful (segment re-encode/replace, SDI preview, etc). It's also faster than x264 as in order to be at reference level you need to run x264 at slow or even very slow preset. In the same time you can make nice BDs with x264 as well
Yes, segment reencoding especially is sorely lacking for x264 . Supposedly it was going to get it for a separate special BD version, but never materialized


Quote:
Originally Posted by FranceBB View Post

Yep, x264 is my de-facto choice for H.264 encodes and official BD releases, not only 'cause it's open source, but because it's the best.
I say it also 'cause it has been proven to be better than closed-source encodes in terms of SSIM/PSNR/VMAF with tests I've made internally in the company I work for.
The problem with VMAF/SSIM/PSNR etc... they do not measure noisy grainy sources very well. VMAF is slightly better, but still has demonstratable problems in this 1st generation of models. Be careful not to rely on them to heavily, especially in the noisy/grainy scenario . Double check with your eyes as well

Last edited by poisondeathray; 18th October 2019 at 20:07.
poisondeathray is offline   Reply With Quote