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 > High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 1st August 2019, 02:00   #21  |  Link
Ischemia24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder View Post
In a recent enough build, there's the new option --hme which is meant to improve motion estimation.

Personally I've also raised qcomp from 0.6 to 0.7 and set rd=6 and use --rd-refine.
I'm not sure I'm understanding why the qcomp setting is a benefit, other than capitalizing on a high lookahead (not sure what the 'P' in CQP stands for), but I will give these settings a try for sure. Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by brumsky View Post
First let me say, that I used to have a similar goal as you. I used to say the most quality per bit... I'd have encodes that took several days even on a 16c Xeon v4. Then I changed and figured a couple hundred megs more per file wasn't worth days of encoding.

But anyways...

Increase your --bframes to 16 which is the max HEVC supports while saying in spec. You can also use --bframe-bias to increase the likely hood the encoder will use a b frame. I'd say a sane range would be 0-10 for bframe-bias.

You might find --me sea or full will give a bit better compression and quality but with an increase in encoding time.

If you should consider dropping --subme 7 to 5. You'll find --me sea is more likely to provide better quality and possibly a smaller file size.


There is a relatively new setting for motion search --hme. It changes how MS is done. It is supposed to be better quality while being less computational intensive. I've found the settings below are about 7-9% slower while producing a file 1.5% smaller with about the quality as --me 3 --subme 5.

--hme --hme-search 1,2,3

This was about 2.2% smaller but a 43% longer encoding time. I found it noticeably better quality - subjectively of course.

--hme --hme-search 1,3,3



I would suggest trying lower values for --rc-lookahead 120, it is very high. I'm not sure your getting substantially better frame placement vs it set to 60. It'll improve your coding time with negligible difference in size.


You could also set --tu-inter 4 and --tu-intra 4. Those will allow the encoder to look for better compression opportunities.

FYI, I doubt handbrake will support the new HME settings. This was recently made available. You could try something like ripbot264 and download the latest x265 build from the HEVC thread on Doom9.

Good luck.
Well I do have limits on the amount of time I'll spend. I decided the placebo preset wasn't worth it, and I would rather leave frame-threads at default rather than minimize it. I did spend a solid 7 days encoding Serenity (2005) down to 4.76 GB (4k) on an i5-4430. I thought it looked great, but I think I could reduce the file size with equivalent subjective quality once I become familiar with these newer settings.

I think I will hold off on hme and hme-search until I see it supported in the standard Handbrake download. I would be willing to use the hme-search 1,2,3 setting once that happens though. I'd have to see what I think of hme-search 1,3,3 to decide if I would incorporate that one into my presets.

Taking your word on rc-lookahead=60. I think Ma's post referenced in my OP is probably the only place I've seen it set to 120. The tu-inter and tu-intra settings seem like no brainers, thanks for not letting me miss out on those.

Are there any settings here that would be significantly affected by the output resolution? Like are there settings that become more important as resolution gets higher, or any that are definitely no benefit at 480p or 360p output?

I'll have to search these forums for info on RipBot264. I could make use of the workload distribution its capable of, but the one time I tried to test that it crashed and I found the UI frustrating compared to what I'm used to (Handbrake).

I really appreciate all the helpful info.

Last edited by Ischemia24; 1st August 2019 at 12:07.
Ischemia24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2019, 05:52   #22  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ischemia24 View Post
I'm not sure I'm understanding why the qcomp setting is a benefit, other than capitalizing on a high lookahead (not sure what the 'P' in CQP stands for), but I will give these settings a try for sure. Thanks!
A higher qcomp basically means that the encoder will use more bits in the more difficult parts of the frame. This should prevent cases where things get too blurry in high motion etc.
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2019, 08:57   #23  |  Link
excellentswordfight
Lost my old account :(
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ischemia24 View Post
I'm not sure I'm understanding why the qcomp setting is a benefit, other than capitalizing on a high lookahead (not sure what the 'P' in CQP stands for), but I will give these settings a try for sure. Thanks!
Do note that both the qcomp and psy-rd settings is an double edge sword, the way you are tweaking it now goes against maximum compression and highly compressed encodes that you have discussed previously in this thread. It will give you higher quality output, but at the cost of bigger files, and if you are looking at achieving very low bitrates and will compensate the higher bitrate by increasing the crf value you might end up doing more damage then good with those settings.

Quote:
Well I do have limits on the amount of time I'll spend. I decided the placebo preset wasn't worth it, and I would rather leave frame-threads at default rather than minimize it. I did spend a solid 7 days encoding Serenity (2005) down to 4.76 GB on an i5-4430. I thought it looked great, but I think I could reduce the file size with equivalent subjective quality once I become familiar with these newer settings.
I think it's a good thing that you dropped the placebo preset, there is a reason why people reacted the way they did in the beginning of the thread. Preset 'slow' is usually a good starting point, it offers a good trade off when it comes to compression/speed.

Quote:
Are there any settings here that would be significantly affected by the output resolution? Like are there settings that become more important as resolution gets higher, or any that are definitely no benefit at 480p or 360p output?
I wouldnt say that these have no benefit at lower res, but lowering ctu and merange for low res (I guess you can even lower the default values already at 1080p) can have drastic effect on cpu utilization and that way it can also lead to an huge speed increase. I use --ctu 32 --merange 26 for 720p and bellow, which I would say will have an very negligible effect on something like 480p when it comes to quality/compression.

And tbh, I think you are overcomplicating this a bit, the presets are pretty decent in setting appropriate settings based on encoding time trade-offs. And all these settings you are picking up and adding etc, might not be great for your use case, and might not be great for your content, and would need tweaking etc to be appropriate. Its imo better to keep it a bit simpler, at least as a baseline, with the slowest setting you think is realistic for you to use for an real life scenario, then you can look in to settings that affects the specific charactaristics that you are not pleased with.

This is what I personally would use for 720p24 and 1080p24 rec709 SDR material if I would target a bitrate on the lower side (I would guesstimate a bitrate arround 2-3Mbps). I might play arround with the different AQ-modes, and if I were on a 3900x like you I might bump up 'slow' to 'slower'. I would recommend you to use something similar as your baseline to evaluate against.

--preset slow --profile main10 --ctu 32 --merange 26 --crf 22 --keyint 240 --min-keyint 24 --rc-lookahead 48 --bframes 8 --no-sao --deblock -1:-1 --colorprim bt709 --transfer bt709 --colormatrix bt709 --range limited

Last edited by excellentswordfight; 1st August 2019 at 18:27.
excellentswordfight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2019, 22:24   #24  |  Link
brumsky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ischemia24 View Post
Well I do have limits on the amount of time I'll spend. I decided the placebo preset wasn't worth it, and I would rather leave frame-threads at default rather than minimize it. I did spend a solid 7 days encoding Serenity (2005) down to 4.76 GB (4k) on an i5-4430. I thought it looked great, but I think I could reduce the file size with equivalent subjective quality once I become familiar with these newer settings.

I think I will hold off on hme and hme-search until I see it supported in the standard Handbrake download. I would be willing to use the hme-search 1,2,3 setting once that happens though. I'd have to see what I think of hme-search 1,3,3 to decide if I would incorporate that one into my presets.

Taking your word on rc-lookahead=60. I think Ma's post referenced in my OP is probably the only place I've seen it set to 120. The tu-inter and tu-intra settings seem like no brainers, thanks for not letting me miss out on those.

Are there any settings here that would be significantly affected by the output resolution? Like are there settings that become more important as resolution gets higher, or any that are definitely no benefit at 480p or 360p output?

I'll have to search these forums for info on RipBot264. I could make use of the workload distribution its capable of, but the one time I tried to test that it crashed and I found the UI frustrating compared to what I'm used to (Handbrake).

I really appreciate all the helpful info.

I consider Placebo to be the max setting I should use. So like subme 7 I wouldn't go above 5 because placebo doesn't even use it... You'll waste a lot of time for about .1% difference.

As other's have mentioned, you find your encodes will speed up if you drop some settings like these.
ctu32, me-range 26, qg-size 16

However, there is a small chance you could end up with larger files. It's a speed:size trade off.


I'd look into Analysis save and load. You can create a file that saves a lot of the decisions the encoder made during your first attempt at encoding a file. Then if you don't like the outcome and want to make minor changes like bitrate\CRF you can read that log file and it'll take hours to complete instead of days. There is a lot to it so you should read up on it first.

https://x265.readthedocs.io/en/defau...ision-analysis
brumsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2019, 00:25   #25  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by brumsky View Post
I consider Placebo to be the max setting I should use. So like subme 7 I wouldn't go above 5 because placebo doesn't even use it... You'll waste a lot of time for about .1% difference.
The one thing missing from placebo that I've seen be helpful in special cases is --tskip. Not much for natural images, but it can help with very sharp synthetic edges like text, graphics, or CGI-generated cel-style animation.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2019, 16:45   #26  |  Link
Ischemia24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by excellentswordfight View Post
Do note that both the qcomp and psy-rd settings is an double edge sword, the way you are tweaking it now goes against maximum compression and highly compressed encodes that you have discussed previously in this thread. It will give you higher quality output, but at the cost of bigger files, and if you are looking at achieving very low bitrates and will compensate the higher bitrate by increasing the crf value you might end up doing more damage then good with those settings.

I think it's a good thing that you dropped the placebo preset, there is a reason why people reacted the way they did in the beginning of the thread. Preset 'slow' is usually a good starting point, it offers a good trade off when it comes to compression/speed.

I wouldnt say that these have no benefit at lower res, but lowering ctu and merange for low res (I guess you can even lower the default values already at 1080p) can have drastic effect on cpu utilization and that way it can also lead to an huge speed increase. I use --ctu 32 --merange 26 for 720p and bellow, which I would say will have an very negligible effect on something like 480p when it comes to quality/compression.

And tbh, I think you are overcomplicating this a bit, the presets are pretty decent in setting appropriate settings based on encoding time trade-offs. And all these settings you are picking up and adding etc, might not be great for your use case, and might not be great for your content, and would need tweaking etc to be appropriate. Its imo better to keep it a bit simpler, at least as a baseline, with the slowest setting you think is realistic for you to use for an real life scenario, then you can look in to settings that affects the specific charactaristics that you are not pleased with.

This is what I personally would use for 720p24 and 1080p24 rec709 SDR material if I would target a bitrate on the lower side (I would guesstimate a bitrate arround 2-3Mbps). I might play arround with the different AQ-modes, and if I were on a 3900x like you I might bump up 'slow' to 'slower'. I would recommend you to use something similar as your baseline to evaluate against.

--preset slow --profile main10 --ctu 32 --merange 26 --crf 22 --keyint 240 --min-keyint 24 --rc-lookahead 48 --bframes 8 --no-sao --deblock -1:-1 --colorprim bt709 --transfer bt709 --colormatrix bt709 --range limited
I think I will get a baseline established without qcomp and psy-rd then. I will plan on lowering ctu and merange at least for 360p and 480p. Maybe with some testing I can convince myself to do so for 720p too. Looking again at the presets table, I think I should start using Slower. But -- why does limit-tu have a value of 4 for the Slower preset, but 0 for every other preset?

My aim for 1080p encodes is pretty much to reach a bitrate as low as ~1200 to 1500 kbps while still looking impressively good to my eyes. 700 to 760 kbps (maybe try pushing down to 650 kbps) for 720p. 340 kbps is often a struggle for some 480p content, and I need to do more testing to determine what range to target for 360p (guessing I can't go much lower than 300 kbps). Basically I want to end up with content that is both impressively small and impressively good looking, but I will sometimes go with "eh, it looks pretty good".

I don't disagree with you that I am overcomplicating it, but I do want to skew things toward maximum compression beyond what most consider a sensible compression/speed balance. Thank you for the suggested baseline. Is there significant efficiency to be gained in specifying the colorspace and limiting the range?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brumsky View Post
I consider Placebo to be the max setting I should use. So like subme 7 I wouldn't go above 5 because placebo doesn't even use it... You'll waste a lot of time for about .1% difference.

As other's have mentioned, you find your encodes will speed up if you drop some settings like these.
ctu32, me-range 26, qg-size 16

However, there is a small chance you could end up with larger files. It's a speed:size trade off.

I'd look into Analysis save and load. You can create a file that saves a lot of the decisions the encoder made during your first attempt at encoding a file. Then if you don't like the outcome and want to make minor changes like bitrate\CRF you can read that log file and it'll take hours to complete instead of days. There is a lot to it so you should read up on it first.

https://x265.readthedocs.io/en/defau...ision-analysis
Analysis save and load sounds like it would be worth my time to look into, and I had no idea about it. Thanks.

I'm convinced, I will lower subme to 5. I haven't been specifying qg-size (looks like it was defaulting to 32 in a recent test), so I will go with 16 as a sane value. What is your sense of the time and benefit trade-off if I were to go with 8?

Ctu seems content dependent, and like it could be lowered without efficiency loss for something like a complex computer generated scene where every part of the frame is busy and detailed for a vast majority of frames, but it would be beneficial to keep it at 64 for large numbers of frames with a focused subject and minimal to no detail (like a flat color with no gradient at all) in a large part of the frame. Do I have that right?

I'm thinking for my goals I should probably lower me-range to 26 for 480p and 360p. I'm undecided on 720p and I feel like I should leave it at the default 57 for 1080p. I can see how it could have a significant effect on speed when I'm using me=sea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
The one thing missing from placebo that I've seen be helpful in special cases is --tskip. Not much for natural images, but it can help with very sharp synthetic edges like text, graphics, or CGI-generated cel-style animation.
Sounds like it would come in handy for encoding something like Batman: The Animated Series, Bojack Horseman, Archer, or (maybe?) something like Looney Tunes. I will keep it in mind for an animation focused preset, thank you.

This is great, I've learned more about H.265 settings since starting this thread than I have in the past three years.

Looks like I need to compare a CRF 22 encode with the above suggested baseline with what I have as a best attempt for maximum compression settings:
rc-lookahead=60:bframes=16:bframe-bias=5:ref=6:min-keyint=24:me=sea:subme=5:tu-inter=4:tu-intra=4:qg-size=8:deblock=-1:-1:no-sao:colorprim=1:transfer=1:colormatrix=1:range=limited

And I need to determine how I feel about lowering ctu and merange in 720p. I think I'll use the Tears of Steel clip from the challenge thread.

Last edited by Ischemia24; 2nd August 2019 at 17:00. Reason: Handbrake -> H.265
Ischemia24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2019, 17:59   #27  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,562
In the faster presets than 'Slower', tu-intra and -inter -depths are both 1, so they don't cause excessive calculations. In 'Slower', the depth is changed to 3 and limit-tu 4 is set to restore some of the lost performance.

I think that --rect and --amp could be useful for your use case since they should help with edges. Just set --limit-modes and --limit-refs 3 to fight the resulting slowdown. I also recommend trying the new --hme --hme-search x,y,z instead of --me sea. You can lower merange to 26 if you use CTU 32 and use some other search method than hex. Based on the docs, the value 57 is calculated from CTU 64 (The default is derived from the default CTU size (64) minus the luma interpolation half-length (4) minus maximum subpel distance (2) minus one extra pixel just in case the hex search method is used.)
__________________
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the Moon...
Boulder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2019, 18:09   #28  |  Link
brumsky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
The one thing missing from placebo that I've seen be helpful in special cases is --tskip. Not much for natural images, but it can help with very sharp synthetic edges like text, graphics, or CGI-generated cel-style animation.
Nice, I'll have to check it out! Thanks.

What are your thoughts on --rskip? I tend to like it and leave it on...
brumsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2019, 18:36   #29  |  Link
brumsky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 111
When doing 4k encodes I set qg-size to 64. qg-size can help with compression, so I wouldn't go to low with it. You'll find a lot of people recommend ctu 32 qg-size 16 for 1080p content. I usually leave it at 64 and 64. better compression with it, with a very minor loss in quality.

My personal usage would be this.

4k - ctu and qg-size = 64
1080p - cut and gq-size = 64
720p - ctu and qg-size = 32
<720p - ctu = 32, qg-size = 16

To each there own. There are always trade offs...

CTU has to do with the number of pixels the encoder will look at. It can break each block down into smaller pieces based on your settings. --tu-intra and --tu-inter determine how far it can go. The larger the value the further down the tree it can go and the longer the encode can take.

Read this link about how HEVC and encoders work in general. It is a great read!
https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=167081

Quote:
rc-lookahead=60:bframes=16:bframe-bias=5:ref=6:min-keyint=24:me=sea:subme=5:tu-inter=4:tu-intra=4:qg-size=8:deblock=-1:-1:no-sao:colorprim=1:transfer=1:colormatrix=1:range=limited
What profile do you use again? Remember qg-size will affect compression levels. I consider 8 to be very small, unless you are doing video at 480p or less.
brumsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2019, 20:01   #30  |  Link
Ischemia24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by brumsky View Post
When doing 4k encodes I set qg-size to 64. qg-size can help with compression, so I wouldn't go to low with it. You'll find a lot of people recommend ctu 32 qg-size 16 for 1080p content. I usually leave it at 64 and 64. better compression with it, with a very minor loss in quality.

My personal usage would be this.

4k - ctu and qg-size = 64
1080p - cut and gq-size = 64
720p - ctu and qg-size = 32
<720p - ctu = 32, qg-size = 16

To each there own. There are always trade offs...

CTU has to do with the number of pixels the encoder will look at. It can break each block down into smaller pieces based on your settings. --tu-intra and --tu-inter determine how far it can go. The larger the value the further down the tree it can go and the longer the encode can take.

Read this link about how HEVC and encoders work in general. It is a great read!
https://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=167081

What profile do you use again? Remember qg-size will affect compression levels. I consider 8 to be very small, unless you are doing video at 480p or less.
I feel like a moron after having read the link. I did not have a comprehension level that would help inform my encoding settings. I will have to go over it a few more times. I always use 10-bit for H.265. I understand that CTUs determine the number of pixels considered at a time, but was I wrong about how I was thinking of CTUs in my previous post as it relates to compression gains to be had with different amounts of the frame with little to no detail? And am I to understand that a qg-size of 8 would result in that setting's highest image quality but lowest compression while a qg-size of 64 would result in that setting's lowest image quality but highest compression? If that is the case then I should probably go with values similar to what you've outlined above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder View Post
In the faster presets than 'Slower', tu-intra and -inter -depths are both 1, so they don't cause excessive calculations. In 'Slower', the depth is changed to 3 and limit-tu 4 is set to restore some of the lost performance.

I think that --rect and --amp could be useful for your use case since they should help with edges. Just set --limit-modes and --limit-refs 3 to fight the resulting slowdown. I also recommend trying the new --hme --hme-search x,y,z instead of --me sea. You can lower merange to 26 if you use CTU 32 and use some other search method than hex. Based on the docs, the value 57 is calculated from CTU 64 (The default is derived from the default CTU size (64) minus the luma interpolation half-length (4) minus maximum subpel distance (2) minus one extra pixel just in case the hex search method is used.)
Too much testing to do, I wonder how much performance I'll lose by enabling rect and amp. It's good to know about those though, thank you.
Ischemia24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2019, 21:44   #31  |  Link
brumsky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 111
Generally speaking, yes larger CTUs will be used for areas with little to no motion and static\flat images.

No smaller qg-size don't automatically mean higher quality.

This is taken from the docs.


--qg-size <64|32|16|8>

Enable adaptive quantization for sub-CTUs. This parameter specifies the minimum CU size at which QP can be adjusted, ie. Quantization Group size. Allowed range of values are 64, 32, 16, 8 provided this falls within the inclusive range [maxCUSize, minCUSize]. Default: same as maxCUSize
brumsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2019, 22:42   #32  |  Link
Ischemia24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by brumsky View Post
Generally speaking, yes larger CTUs will be used for areas with little to no motion and static\flat images.

No smaller qg-size don't automatically mean higher quality.

This is taken from the docs.


--qg-size <64|32|16|8>

Enable adaptive quantization for sub-CTUs. This parameter specifies the minimum CU size at which QP can be adjusted, ie. Quantization Group size. Allowed range of values are 64, 32, 16, 8 provided this falls within the inclusive range [maxCUSize, minCUSize]. Default: same as maxCUSize
I looked that option up on the command line options page when I saw it mentioned earlier. I took that to mean that as qg-size gets smaller, there are more calculations/comparisons happening because of more opportunities to make adjustments to improve image quality. It sounds like when qg-size is larger, you're missing out on some potential refinements. Am I incorrectly assuming that the QP adjustments equate to better image quality?
Ischemia24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2019, 23:17   #33  |  Link
excellentswordfight
Lost my old account :(
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ischemia24 View Post
I think I will get a baseline established without qcomp and psy-rd then. I will plan on lowering ctu and merange at least for 360p and 480p. Maybe with some testing I can convince myself to do so for 720p too. Looking again at the presets table, I think I should start using Slower. But -- why does limit-tu have a value of 4 for the Slower preset, but 0 for every other preset?

My aim for 1080p encodes is pretty much to reach a bitrate as low as ~1200 to 1500 kbps while still looking impressively good to my eyes. 700 to 760 kbps (maybe try pushing down to 650 kbps) for 720p. 340 kbps is often a struggle for some 480p content, and I need to do more testing to determine what range to target for 360p (guessing I can't go much lower than 300 kbps). Basically I want to end up with content that is both impressively small and impressively good looking, but I will sometimes go with "eh, it looks pretty good".

I don't disagree with you that I am overcomplicating it, but I do want to skew things toward maximum compression beyond what most consider a sensible compression/speed balance. Thank you for the suggested baseline. Is there significant efficiency to be gained in specifying the colorspace and limiting the range?
If you want to go as low as 1200-1500 for 1080p you have think a bit about the settings you are applying, some (most?) people around here when discussing settings are aiming at retaining as much detail as possible, this will most likely not be possible for your case with such a low bitrate target, were you might get better results with a softer image than a sharp one. So for example, turning of SAO (no-sao) increase detail retention, but for those low bitrates the compression gains from SAO might be something you want. To be able to achieve good looking video at such low bitrates, noise and fine detail will have to be sacrificed. This is why the rips you discussed earlier most likely used a denoiser as part of their pre-filtering, making the material easier to compress. x265 and hevc in generell is really good at low bitrates and will soften and blur the image instead of breaking apart, but some of the tuning like deblock, qcomp and psy-rd, and others might not have the effect you are after.

Having that baseline might be a good thing either way, cause then you can make decisions if the aim of a lowering bitrate is worth the trade off in image quality.

No the flags are not there for compression reasons, it's imo best practice to specify them, especially for HEVC since the codec is used for such big range of different color formats.

Last edited by excellentswordfight; 2nd August 2019 at 23:25.
excellentswordfight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2019, 01:19   #34  |  Link
Ischemia24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by excellentswordfight View Post
If you want to go as low as 1200-1500 for 1080p you have think a bit about the settings you are applying, some (most?) people around here when discussing settings are aiming at retaining as much detail as possible, this will most likely not be possible for your case with such a low bitrate target, were you might get better results with a softer image than a sharp one. So for example, turning of SAO (no-sao) increase detail retention, but for those low bitrates the compression gains from SAO might be something you want. To be able to achieve good looking video at such low bitrates, noise and fine detail will have to be sacrificed. This is why the rips you discussed earlier most likely used a denoiser as part of their pre-filtering, making the material easier to compress. x265 and hevc in generell is really good at low bitrates and will soften and blur the image instead of breaking apart, but some of the tuning like deblock, qcomp and psy-rd, and others might not have the effect you are after.

Having that baseline might be a good thing either way, cause then you can make decisions if the aim of a lowering bitrate is worth the trade off in image quality.

No the flags are not there for compression reasons, it's imo best practice to specify them, especially for HEVC since the codec is used for such big range of different color formats.
Well there're two different scenarios, really. In what I've already mentioned, when I aim to reduce the bitrate as far as possible, I want to retain an acceptable level of quality, but the first priority is the lower bitrate. But there are times when I want to emphasize quality over a lower bitrate for some higher profile movies, and that is when I think I should use the constant quality slider, and some settings that do increase quality at the cost of maximum compression like no-sao, deblock=-1:-1, psy-rd (is what is supposedly set when tuning to film, 1.0:0.15, a generally good choice?), and qcomp and rd-refine as Boulder has suggested. So I think I will create presets intended for the constant quality slider which will target perceived quality, and presets intended for targeted bitrates.

Currently testing with a couple high profile movies. I will do a bunch more testing with Tears of Steel as well and submit my CQ and bitrate focused settings for feedback.

Last edited by Ischemia24; 9th August 2019 at 01:21. Reason: incorrect user reference
Ischemia24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2019, 18:16   #35  |  Link
Stereodude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Region 0
Posts: 1,120
Then learn how to pre-filter the content since your priority is size with acceptable looking quality, not extreme fidelity to the source.
Stereodude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th August 2019, 04:38   #36  |  Link
RanmaCanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 73
You do realize with the amount of time you are wasting attempting this, and the amount of energy, it would still be just far cheaper and easier to build a bigger system than your ITX system. You're eventually going to run out of space, then what will you do? Upgrade your server now, save yourself the hassle, as it's pretty obvious you still have no idea on what you want and what you will find acceptable, as you're going to have to encode movies MULTIPLE times before you get a visual level you deem acceptable as one command line will not work across the board for your desires.

Sorry, but that's what I'm getting from all this. It's futile.
RanmaCanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 14:54.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.