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 > Capturing and Editing Video > VirtualDub, VDubMod & AviDemux

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 23rd September 2018, 14:15   #621  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidhorman View Post
3. Centered, borderless. custom background colour

Tell me you don't find #3 just a little bit sexy...
Mock looks good, I will think
__________________
VirtualDub2
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2018, 19:49   #622  |  Link
imhh11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 61
which one is better ?

MagicYUV or Cineform?

cineform compress a lot more but how is the quality compared to magicYUV and uncompressed ?
imhh11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2018, 20:17   #623  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by imhh11 View Post
which one is better ?

MagicYUV or Cineform?

cineform compress a lot more but how is the quality compared to magicYUV and uncompressed ?
It seems there better places to compare codecs but at least what do you need it for in VD2?
__________________
VirtualDub2
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2018, 20:24   #624  |  Link
imhh11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 61
V210 capture
imhh11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2018, 20:59   #625  |  Link
LigH
German doom9/Gleitz SuMo
 
LigH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany, rural Altmark
Posts: 5,602
If any codec compresses "a lot better than" a lossless codec, then it is probably lossy. All lossless codecs will have a similar strength, and compared to uncompressed video with the same color space and depth, the ratio is hardly better than 1:5 in optimal cases, rather around 1:2.5 to 1:3.

The Ut Video Codec Suite is also very efficient and very versatile, supports many sample formats.
__________________

New German Gleitz board
MediaFire: x264 | x265 | VPx | AOM | Xvid
LigH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2018, 21:06   #626  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by imhh11 View Post
V210 capture
humble suggestions:
If you don't need lossless for some sensitive restoration, you can use near-lossless (cineform)

Also if you have enough cpu power, maybe you can get even better storage-quality ratio using x264-10bit (enable zerolatency)
__________________
VirtualDub2
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2018, 14:11   #627  |  Link
WorBry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by imhh11 View Post
which one is better ?

MagicYUV or Cineform?

cineform compress a lot more but how is the quality compared to magicYUV and uncompressed ?
I've never used VDub(2) for capture per se, but based on my experience transcoding uncompressed 10-bit 422 sources I'm confident that Cineform at 'Film Scan 2' quality would be way, way beyond 'visually lossless' and very close to arithmetically lossless.

What are you planning to do with your captures btw? IMHO, far more important is the compatibility of the capture format with the video systems you use, or are intending to use for subsequent processing. Does the import interface preserve high-bit depth transfer, assuming said system does support high bit depth processing? How does the system handle luminance ranges on import with that particular format - very important to determine the behavior, especially if the system does not have native (SDK implementation) Cineform support ? Process performance in/through said system ? And can you export in the same format, if that is desirable - in which case similar considerations apply with respect to bit-depth transfer and luminance handling at export?

My two cents.
__________________
Nostalgia's not what it used to be

Last edited by WorBry; 29th September 2018 at 05:21.
WorBry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2018, 19:05   #628  |  Link
imhh11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 61
thank you guys!!!

I don't think I see a difference in quality between the 2 codecs. Maybe when I zoom in, I can see that magicyuv is slightly better. So Cineform compression should be enough for me.

MagicYUV(766mbps) Vs Cineform(332mbps)
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=116034

MagicYUV(766mbps) Vs Cineform(183mbps)
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=116035

once encoded to hevc 25mbps:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=116040

Last edited by imhh11; 29th September 2018 at 19:08.
imhh11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2018, 19:49   #629  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by imhh11 View Post
There is small color difference, probably different matrix at some step (709 vs 601). Something to be aware of.
__________________
VirtualDub2
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th September 2018, 20:28   #630  |  Link
WorBry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by imhh11 View Post

MagicYUV(766mbps) Vs Cineform(332mbps)
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=116034

MagicYUV(766mbps) Vs Cineform(183mbps)
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp....php?id=116035
Out of interest, what Cineform quality settings did you use in the two shots ?
__________________
Nostalgia's not what it used to be
WorBry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 01:03   #631  |  Link
imhh11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by shekh View Post
There is small color difference, probably different matrix at some step (709 vs 601). Something to be aware of.
strange both were encoded x265 with the same setting in HDR BT2020 (DCI-P3).

after comparing with the source (untouched), the colors match magicyuv and cineform is slightly different. I wonder why, both are 422 10bit v210 capture of the same file.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WorBry View Post
Out of interest, what Cineform quality settings did you use in the two shots ?
film scan 1 & 3 but I'm not sure, I did the comparison a couple months ago and wanted the opinion of the doom9 experts :P

Last edited by imhh11; 30th September 2018 at 01:08.
imhh11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 02:54   #632  |  Link
imhh11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 61
Also, sorry if its a stupid question but could it be possible to add NVenc to Vdub ? my cpu can handle x264 encoding while capturing but at very fast or worse preset only and im mostly interested in HEVC for HDR.
of course my cpu cannot handle x265 in vdub but encoding h265 with nvidia should be fast enough ? or is it already possible and i dont know about it ?

Last edited by imhh11; 30th September 2018 at 02:57.
imhh11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 09:52   #633  |  Link
sneaker_ger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,090
You can use the "External Encoders" (see VirtualDub help) feature of VirtualDub (both vanilla as well as VirtualDub2) to use NVEnc while doing "normal" encodes. For capturing I think there is no solution for VirtualDub, currently.
sneaker_ger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 11:48   #634  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 543
NVenc: there is no way for capture now, and not coming soon.
__________________
VirtualDub2
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 17:26   #635  |  Link
WorBry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by imhh11 View Post
...both were encoded x265 with the same setting in HDR BT2020 (DCI-P3).
Ah, OK, so these are HDR captures ? I was hesitant about mentioning your shots looked rather underexposed

Quote:
Originally Posted by imhh11 View Post
film scan 1 & 3 but I'm not sure.
Filmscan 3 is way overkill. It's a 'special' mode that is not available with the (GoPro) Cineform VFW codec and, to my knowledge, in other native implementations of the Cineform SDK:

https://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php...4&postcount=45
__________________
Nostalgia's not what it used to be

Last edited by WorBry; 30th September 2018 at 17:36.
WorBry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 17:58   #636  |  Link
imhh11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by WorBry View Post
Ah, OK, so these are HDR captures ? I was hesitant about mentioning your shots looked rather underexposed



Filmscan 3 is way overkill. It's a 'special' mode that is not available with the (GoPro) Cineform VFW codec and, to my knowledge, in other native implementations of the Cineform SDK:

https://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php...4&postcount=45


yes HDR capture colors are triggered at x265 encoding. I captured a UHD-BD just to make sure I get proper colors/hdr etc.. now that I know that magicyuv works (at least when I compare 2 frames tone mapped with madvr), i can now capture my games in high-quality 4K HDR properly. Too bad cineform slightly change the colors, it would have saved tons of space(only have 1tb of capture space).

thanks for the filmscan 3 explanation, I didn't know that.

*sorry for my english

Last edited by imhh11; 30th September 2018 at 18:07.
imhh11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 19:31   #637  |  Link
WorBry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here, there and everywhere
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by imhh11 View Post
yes HDR capture colors are triggered at x265 encoding..... Too bad cineform slightly change the colors, it would have saved tons of space(only have 1tb of capture space)
I've no experience in that domain. Maybe others can help. It's surely color matrix related.
__________________
Nostalgia's not what it used to be
WorBry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 19:56   #638  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 543
I doubt it is cineform that is guilty in this case. What software was used to do the encode to x265? Because you said it is encoded with DCI-P3 I assume there was (different) color conversion. How it is possible:
1) magicyuv+avi has no metadata at all -> everything default.
2) cineform+avi has some metadata -> replaces defaults (not same).
Just guessing.
__________________
VirtualDub2
shekh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 23:18   #639  |  Link
imhh11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 61
ok, I did another comparison because the other one was 3 months old so maybe I did something wrong. This time, I don't see a difference in the colors, can you?

MagicYUV RAW VS Cineform RAW filmscan 2
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121674

once encoded with exactly the same setting/ software: x265 Staxrip the GUI (source is dci-p3, encode is dci-p3) :

MagicYUV VS Cineform
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121673

MagicYUV VS Source
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121672

Cineform Vs Source
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/121671



x265 2.8+19-bcdc610cf5f0:[Windows][MSVC 1914][64 bit] 10bit
/ wpp / no-pmode / no-pme / no-psnr / no-ssim / log-level=2 / input-csp=1 / input-res=3840x2160 / interlace=0 / total-frames=723 / level-idc=51 / high-tier=1 / uhd-bd=0 / ref=4 / no-allow-non-conformance / repeat-headers / annexb / aud / hrd / info / hash=0 / no-temporal-layers / no-open-gop / min-keyint=24 / keyint=240 / gop-lookahead=0 / bframes=4 / b-adapt=2 / b-pyramid / bframe-bias=0 / rc-lookahead=25 / lookahead-slices=4 / scenecut=40 / radl=0 / no-intra-refresh / ctu=64 / min-cu-size=8 / rect / no-amp / max-tu-size=32 / tu-inter-depth=1 / tu-intra-depth=1 / limit-tu=0 / rdoq-level=2 / dynamic-rd=0.00 / no-ssim-rd / signhide / no-tskip / nr-intra=0 / nr-inter=0 / no-constrained-intra / no-strong-intra-smoothing / max-merge=3 / limit-refs=3 / limit-modes / me=3 / subme=3 / merange=57 / temporal-mvp / weightp / no-weightb / no-analyze-src-pics / deblock=3:3 / no-sao / no-sao-non-deblock / rd=4 / no-early-skip / rskip / no-fast-intra / no-tskip-fast / no-cu-lossless / no-b-intra / no-splitrd-skip / rdpenalty=0 / psy-rd=2.00 / psy-rdoq=1.00 / no-rd-refine / no-lossless / cbqpoffs=0 / crqpoffs=0 / rc=abr / bitrate=22000 / qcomp=0.70 / qpstep=4 / stats-write=0 / stats-read=2 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / vbv-maxrate=160000 / vbv-bufsize=160000 / vbv-init=0.9 / ipratio=1.40 / pbratio=1.30 / aq-mode=1 / aq-strength=1.00 / cutree / zone-count=0 / no-strict-cbr / qg-size=32 / no-rc-grain / qpmax=69 / qpmin=0 / no-const-vbv / sar=1 / overscan=0 / videoformat=5 / range=0 / colorprim=9 / transfer=16 / colormatrix=9 / chromaloc=1 / chromaloc-top=2 / chromaloc-bottom=2 / display-window=0 / master-display=G(13250,34500)B(7500,3000)R(34000,16000)WP(15635,16450)L(10000000,1) / max-cll=0,0 / min-luma=0 / max-luma=1023 / log2-max-poc-lsb=8 / vui-timing-info / vui-hrd-info / slices=1 / no-opt-qp-pps / no-opt-ref-list-length-pps / no-multi-pass-opt-rps / scenecut-bias=0.05 / no-opt-cu-delta-qp / no-aq-motion / hdr / hdr-opt / no-dhdr10-opt / no-idr-recovery-sei / analysis-reuse-level=5 / scale-factor=0 / refine-intra=0 / refine-inter=0 / refine-mv=0 / no-limit-sao / ctu-info=0 / no-lowpass-dct / refine-mv-type=0 / copy-pic=1 / max-ausize-factor=1.0 / no-dynamic-refine / no-single-sei


here's the files:
https://uptobox.com/vs384dq3ssci

Format : CineForm
Codec ID : CFHD
Codec ID/Info : CineForm 10-bit Visually Perfect HD (Wavelet)
Duration : 30 s 989 ms
Bit rate : 426 Mb/s
Width : 3 840 pixels
Height : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 2.144
Stream size : 1.54 GiB (100%)


Format : M0Y2
Codec ID : M0Y2
Duration : 31 s 490 ms
Bit rate : 870 Mb/s
Width : 3 840 pixels
Height : 2 160 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 23.976 (24000/1001) FPS
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 4.373
Stream size : 3.19 GiB (100%)
imhh11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2018, 23:37   #640  |  Link
shekh
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 543
ok
ps. I don't get it, you ask which codec, and then show test which is 3 months old. Why
Out of curiosity, what hw you use for capture? From which source?
shekh 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 15:48.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.