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 21st October 2018, 07:23   #6461  |  Link
DotJun
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 14
I did a few more test runs with the same parameters I stated before using 50k frames test clip. Here are the results.

Normal Preset:
sse4 2.19fps
avx2 2.89fps
512 3.18fps

They all had the exact same kbps of 23463.

Slower Preset:
sse4 0.71fps
avx2 0.89fps
512 0.95fps

All of them ended up with the exact same kbps of 22868.

My previous test from the other day seems to be a failure since I didn't use correct the correct switches for --asm.
DotJun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2018, 13:21   #6462  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
AFAIK it works by reducing signaling overhead without changing actual pixels.
There is a quite clear difference in the frame, it was quite obvious in this flat area (zoomed in though). The filesize difference was about 5% (the optimized version was smaller).

Without the optimization:


Optimization enabled:


In higher detailed area, the optimized encode looked better. I think I need to find a scene with some still background like sky, and see which one looks better in motion. The banding in flat areas can be quite eye-catching once you notice it.
__________________
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 21st October 2018, 18:54   #6463  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder View Post
There is a quite clear difference in the frame, it was quite obvious in this flat area (zoomed in though). The filesize difference was about 5% (the optimized version was smaller).

In higher detailed area, the optimized encode looked better. I think I need to find a scene with some still background like sky, and see which one looks better in motion. The banding in flat areas can be quite eye-catching once you notice it.
Wow, awesome info! Thanks! I will iterate on further.

Was there any measurable perf difference?
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Instant Video

My Compression Book

Amazon Instant Video is hiring! PM me if you're interested.
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st October 2018, 19:37   #6464  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Wow, awesome info! Thanks! I will iterate on further.

Was there any measurable perf difference?
I just ran a longer encode to measure, and the difference is quite high. 4.95 fps for the normal encode and 5.22 fps for the one with optimization enabled. The normal encode is about 8% bigger.

I also checked how the optimization works in normal playback, and my eyes didn't like the result. The flat areas suffered a bit too much, there was a short scene with a nice, slightly noisy but flat coloured background which was lit by some flickering candlelight. The normal encode was slightly better looking there, there was not as much swimming blocks effect as there was with the optimized version.
__________________
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 21st October 2018, 20:35   #6465  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder View Post
I just ran a longer encode to measure, and the difference is quite high. 4.95 fps for the normal encode and 5.22 fps for the one with optimization enabled. The normal encode is about 8% bigger.
An 8% file size reduction for a 5.5% speed increase would be an incredible optimization. An optimization can that give 1% reduction for a 5% speed increase is a big deal.

Quote:
I also checked how the optimization works in normal playback, and my eyes didn't like the result. The flat areas suffered a bit too much, there was a short scene with a nice, slightly noisy but flat coloured background which was lit by some flickering candlelight. The normal encode was slightly better looking there, there was not as much swimming blocks effect as there was with the optimized version.
...but only if that 8% reduction doesn't impact quality, alas.

It would be interesting to see what the difference was in a stream analyzer. Or just looking at the log-level 2 csv files.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Instant Video

My Compression Book

Amazon Instant Video is hiring! PM me if you're interested.
benwaggoner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 04:07   #6466  |  Link
Boulder
Pig on the wing
 
Boulder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Hollola, Finland
Posts: 4,413
I ran the encodes again to produce the logs, if you want to have a look: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Ej...nsPbY8qyl6tFMA . The flat part scene I mentioned appears several times, for example frames 0-117 contain that one.
__________________
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
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 04:43.


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