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. |
12th September 2018, 04:14 | #1 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 3
|
Any advice on --tune grain ?
Hello,
I plan to encode a pretty high grain BR source (1080p) in HEVC, usually since 2.4 my "go to" settings are : Quote:
So I try to figure if adding that --tune grain will give me better results and if I should combine it with other CL ? Also should I mess with --aq-strength when encoding a grainy source ? Thanks. |
|
12th September 2018, 08:54 | #2 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 184
|
Quote:
--aq-strength 0.6-0.8 depending on grain density and consistency --qcomp 0.7-0.75 --bframes 6-10 --ipratio 1.2 --pbratio 1.1 --weightb --no-cutree --qg-size 8 --deblock -2/3:-2/3 --rdpenalty 1 I sometimes mess about with psy-rd and psy-rdoq tunings too but never deviate far from the defaults. I'd also use --rd 6 across the board if I could afford the time AQ strength, qcomp, ip-pbratio, no-cu(mb)tree, psy-rd and deblock settings are the same base tweaks I always made using x264 really. |
||
12th September 2018, 14:37 | #5 | Link | |
Herr
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Europe
Posts: 556
|
Quote:
What in x265 equals that 2nd value, is it really just an inbuilt in --psy-rd as one value? EDIT: OK, thanks RainyDog. Last edited by Forteen88; 12th September 2018 at 21:06. Reason: thanking |
|
13th September 2018, 04:06 | #7 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 3
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by DocWhiplash; 13th September 2018 at 05:43. |
||
13th September 2018, 07:59 | #8 | Link | |
Herr
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: North Europe
Posts: 556
|
Thanks RainyDog.
Quote:
EDIT: This is when you're doing encoding at like CRF 20 and under. CRF at 25+ might have more usage of more bframes. Last edited by Forteen88; 13th September 2018 at 11:29. Reason: thanking |
|
13th September 2018, 08:49 | #9 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 89
|
Quote:
I simply encode in preset slow, CRF 17-19 and add --no-sao, everything else deault. I was always very satisfied with the results, even on grainy sources. With extreme grain, an encode is not worth the hassle imho. That was even true for x264. It's not really worth the time bringing a 30gb source to 25gb. With x265, those videos will come to maybe 18gb and still look good, but you will see the difference to the source. Using --tune grain, even with a (grain-)sensible preset like medium or fast, you just end up at 25gb again and it won't be closer to the source than slow/no-sao. At least in my experience. |
|
13th September 2018, 10:42 | #10 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 3
|
Just a better grain retention overall, each build makes it better but HEVC is still struggling a bit whith that.
Quote:
After messing around with it a little I can agree, --tune grain does not seems to be the right approach at all here. |
|
15th September 2018, 13:13 | #11 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
|
Quote:
The whole issue of creative intent with grain is quite complex. Battlestar Galactica was presumably mastered with relatively small CRT professional reference monitors. Grain just isn't as apparent on those as on a big LCD panel; CRT itself is a bit of a low-pass filter . That was the issue with a lot of the first wave of Blu-ray discs; they got approved on $30K professional HD CRT monitors, which didn't show all kinds of imperfections (particularly grain and low-luma blocking) that were glaring on a typical consumer 1080p panel of the era. There was a massive rush in Hollywood authoring studios to get consumer monitors into the rooms so that mastering and QA could be done on a professional AND consumer monitor at the same time. Same with movies. Things more than 10-15 years old were absolutely approved in projection on a perf screen, which also obscures a lot of fine detail. So the director signed of on something that showed a lot less grain than can be projected by a modern 4K projector on a non-perf screen. I'm all for preserving creative intent, but spending TONS of bits saving grain that the creatives never approved doesn't seem appropriate. Figuring out how much grain they would have picked is pretty speculative unless the original creatives have done a recent remaster. Big picture, some well done degrain can actually make the picture MORE like it is meant to be, as well as simplifying encoding a bunch. But knowing how much is "right" is a complex question that will never yield a clear specific answer. |
|
16th September 2018, 07:55 | #12 | Link |
ангел смерти
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
Posts: 9,558
|
Aside from that, I don't understand why FGM is the red-headed step-child of AVC and HEVC. It's in both standards, it's just never implemented outside the reference encoder (very non-optimized, naturally). It's a very good formula that was tweaked to be even better in HEVC, could potentially save huge bitrate to still represent grain faithfully, and would have saved HEVC from being consigned to the "use it for low bitrate, but use x264 for anything with film grain" ghetto that's been the default non-professional opinion since x265 first appeared. Sure, the big studios can just throw stupid bitrate at content, but you'd think Netflix, Amazon, and DTV broadcasters would have pushed for it.
|
16th September 2018, 13:16 | #14 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,752
|
Quote:
Correct. I can’t think of anything other than HD-DVD players that shipped with FGM working, and even then I don’t thing any titles ever used it. I don’t know what it isn’t a priority. Maybe because it doesn’t help PSNR and falls into the whole “PSNR at fixed QP” metric that so much bitstream work is based on. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
24th September 2018, 13:08 | #16 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 118
|
Hi
After a long time I am again looking at x265 as the standard encoder. In 2015 and 2016 I stayed with x264 because x265 took away all the detail grain/noise from my BluRay sources. The result was an encode that looked nothing like the original in most of my sources. Today I did some tests and it looks a lot different! Even Preset "medium" and CRF 17 does retain a lot of detail and in my quick and dirty test I failed to see an additional detail with the option "no-sao". So what is the most all day practical option to get high bluray encodes that keep the original picture aspect? Is no-sao still needed and what is option "grain" actually good for? Do I need deblock -1/-1? So if anyone could shed some light on my questions that would be really cool! |
24th September 2018, 18:02 | #17 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 118
|
Quote:
I found your encoding presets in another thread, very interesting. However after I have taken a look here: https://mattgadient.com/x264-vs-x265...-vp9-examples/ I am not so sure about x265 as the is quite some detail lost in faces - especially the close up ones if I compare x265 crf to x265. I know that this comparison is from 2016 but the other one available on that site is newer and there I notice similar changes from x264 to x265 |
|
24th September 2018, 21:41 | #19 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 118
|
Quote:
What does "(SW:TFA" mean? My sources are standard bluray which I did encode in x265 10bitMAIN - as suggested by some ppl here it might give less banding artifact compared to 8bit |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|