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. |
27th March 2013, 02:06 | #81 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
|
Quote:
What are these numbers? 1068 1815 2138 4276? Where explanation? Last edited by geoyo; 27th March 2013 at 23:22. |
|
28th March 2013, 05:56 | #82 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Santa Clara CA
Posts: 114
|
Quote:
|
|
10th April 2013, 14:24 | #85 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 21
|
couple HM 10 samples http://www.elecard.com/en/download/videos.html
SD - 563 kbps, average Y-PSNR - 39.60, UV - 43.5 720p - 1039 kbps, average Y-PSNR - 41.87, UV - 46 Original uncompressed: http://media.xiph.org/BBB/ HEVC Player sample for Windows (alpha): http://www.elecard.com/en/technology/researchlab/hevc-player.html Indepth analisys tool: http://www.elecard.com/en/products/professional/analysis/hevc-analyzer.html At the same PSNR as JM bitrate is lower then JM approx at 20% and 40% for SD and 720p respectively. Visually looks significantly better then AVC at the same PSNR. Would be glad to compare with the best possible encoding made by x264 at the same bitrates. GOP structure: IBBBPBBBP, Intra period 32 frames, open GOP |
10th April 2013, 18:57 | #86 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 197
|
Quote:
Lastly, there's already pre-made 360p/720p BBB versions off of the main Xiph Derf download page. Is it right to assume that the Elecard versions were made off of those instead of off the original 1080p uncompressed plus ad-hoc downscaling? Edit: to answer my own questions: elecard, i think; nope; dunno but the embedded logo makes it non-worthwhile to find out for more precise metric testing Last edited by xooyoozoo; 11th April 2013 at 00:04. |
|
11th April 2013, 01:30 | #87 | Link | |
Angel of Night
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Tangled in the silks
Posts: 9,559
|
Quote:
I probably should have filed a bug for it back when things were still in the early stages. Kind of late now. |
|
11th April 2013, 05:41 | #88 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 197
|
Quote:
The main problem is that the Elecard encode is more macroblock-friendly. These two pictures summarize the issue fairly well: (nevermind) x264 has its own issues. The hides of the animals sometimes 'shimmer', which I suspect is mostly from psy-rd overextending itself. However, it's much less noticeable and doesn't scream compression as much as blocky images. Here's a visually transparent (x264 10bit CRF10), arbitrarily chosen scene from BBB done in the style of the two snapshots above: (nevermind). The visual examples all used the "handicapped" x264 encode. Last edited by xooyoozoo; 17th April 2013 at 09:41. |
|
11th April 2013, 06:19 | #89 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
Sorry for logo, but I was going to do measurements by myself, just asking to prepare well done encoding with x264 |
|
11th April 2013, 06:21 | #90 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
|
|
11th April 2013, 06:33 | #91 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 197
|
Quote:
Code:
x264 2pass --preset veryslow --no-scenecut -b 3 --b-adapt 0 --open-gop -I 32 -B 1039 Last edited by xooyoozoo; 17th April 2013 at 09:41. |
|
12th April 2013, 11:01 | #92 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
Will upload new encodings shortly |
|
17th April 2013, 10:31 | #93 | Link | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 197
|
Quote:
Quote:
I've done some tests where the process is conceptually* along the lines of:
Haven't kept all the results, but here's two: (sintel) (lupo) (side by side cropping and composition made post-encode. Re-encoded CRF10 for transparency) First one is with HEVC-QP29 and matched MSSSIM+PSNRHVSM (+67% bitrate). Second one is with HEVC-QP35 and matched PSNRHVSM (+100% bitrate). The first clip clearly favors HEVC, while the second clip leaves more room for debate. However, I generally prefer artifacts that don't move of their own free will. *The process assumes x264 no-tunings has strictly better visual performance than tune-ssim, which should be true with these clips. Last edited by xooyoozoo; 17th April 2013 at 10:36. Reason: clarity |
||
4th May 2013, 23:24 | #98 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,315
|
Quote:
Overall the quality is good but there are visual blocks and scene detection isn't handled (as xooyoozoo have already mentioned). The picture is sharp and detailed, the details are a bit simplified but acceptably. |
|
14th May 2013, 16:25 | #100 | Link |
もこたんインしたお!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland / Japan
Posts: 512
|
ITU-T's Last Call only takes a month so ITU-T Recommendation H.265 is already published and available for buying since around middle of April. ISO/IEC's FDIS ballot takes two months, so the same specification should become available as ISO/IEC 23008-2 (MPEG-H Part 2 [HEVC]) around 22nd (?) of May.
So yeah, HEVC version 1 has already been "out there" for quite a while already. Even longer if you take into mention the point of time when the last draft was uploaded onto JCT-VC's document tracker By now you could even start grabbing the "Editors' proposed corrections to HEVC version 1" documents for an even newer version of the text.
__________________
[I'm human, no debug]
|
Tags |
hevc. h.265 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|