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. |
![]() |
#1 | Link |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
x265 HEVC Encoder
We've made a number of substantial improvements to x265 in the past few weeks. x265 documentation can be found here... http://x265.readthedocs.org/en/default/
Tom MulticoreWare Last edited by x265_Project; 1st November 2015 at 06:46. Reason: Removing old link to Evaluator's Guide... documentation is now online |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 55
|
It seems there a typo on the latest evaluators guide...
The new option "rd" appears as "-rd" on changes and suggested settings, and as "--rd" on "Standalone Executable Options" later on the same guide. PS: only --rd works on x265.exe. Last edited by professor_desty_nova; 24th September 2013 at 09:21. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | Link | |
SuperVirus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Antarctic Japan
Posts: 1,351
|
Has anybody ever tested the following statement?
Quote:
Either you get the error message Code:
The procedure entry point InterlockedCompareExchange64 could not be located in the dynamic link library KERNEL32.dll. Code:
"Path-To\x265.exe" is not a valid Win32 application. Last edited by filler56789; 24th September 2013 at 13:02. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | Link |
Swallowed in the Sea
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aix-en-Provence, France
Posts: 5,191
|
Try this build...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | Link | |
SuperVirus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Antarctic Japan
Posts: 1,351
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | Link |
SuperVirus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Antarctic Japan
Posts: 1,351
|
Only indirectly, I'm afraid,
"stdin for video input in CLI app" is on their TODO list ( but that's a start, at least ![]() https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/x265/wiki/TODO Last edited by filler56789; 25th September 2013 at 07:46. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
We welcome participation in the project in every way, including help with better documentation (explanations of settings, etc.) and with any feedback on usage, etc. This has been challenging up to this point as x265 has been a moving target, undergoing fairly substantial fundamental changes over the past 6 months. We should be evolving to the point where we are doing more performance optimization of the existing algorithms, rather than replacing / implementing them, and to where we are able to focus on additional features and platforms. We continue to experiment to find the most optimal settings for different situations, and we expect to have x264 style presets at some point (slow, faster, fastest, etc.). But we also welcome feedback in this area. Thanks Tom Last edited by x265_Project; 24th September 2013 at 22:57. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | Link |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
More details on the state of x265 from our lead developer (Steve Borho)...
I've made a tag on the stable branch for 0.4.1. This email describes the state of the encoder at that tag. x265 can be compiled and run on Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows. Its cmake based build system supports MSVC 9-11, Xcode, gcc+gmake, MinGW/MSYS, and Intel C++ (both icl and icpc) x265 currently generates HM11 compliant bitstreams. = New features since 0.3 = 1. Frame parallelism * The GOP level parallelism and mini-gop cadence of the 0.3 release were removed and replaced with fine-grained frame level parallelism. * The memory requirements were drastically reduced, x265 no longer caches subpel planes per reference frame * Latency is drastically reduced, WPP + 5 frame threads is enough to saturate a dual socket 8 core Xeon. 2. New simple average bitrate (ABR) rate control * converges on target bitrate via frame level QP adjustments * algorithm was adapted from x264 for HEVC * safe for use in combination with frame parallelsim (new since 0.4) 3. New Lookahead * three complexity levels of slice decision with scene cut and flash detection * algorithm was adapted from x264 for HEVC * still missing bidir cost estimates, multiple refs, weightp, and MBtree = Disabled Features since 0.3 = * weightp and weighted bidir prediction are both disabled; they were broken when we stopped pre-generating reference (subpel) pixels * GOP parallelism is dead, hopefully to never return to the core library. It could be added above x265 if necessary. * many CLI options were added, removed, or renamed since 0.3. Consult the online help for the current set of options. = Known Bugs = * all intra encodes (--keyint 1) require --b-adapt 0 to avoid a lookahead bug * --no-sao-lcu-bounds cannot be used in conjunction with frame parallelism. The encoder will use incomplete reference pixels with predictable bad effects. * we have a report that our DPB signalling is potentially incorrect for decoders which respect max DPB size. This is under investigation. ABR and lookahead are very new and we will not be surprised to find bugs in those features. Please report any bugs you find to this mailing list. = Performance Characteristics = See https://bitbucket.org/multicoreware/...ki/Performance = Upcoming features = We are trying to make the encoder deterministic with -Fn for all values of n greater than 1. In other words, there will always be a slight benefit to having only one frame thread (unlimited motion search to reference frames) but -F2 and -F10 should output the exact same bitstream with CQP rate control. This is considered a debugging feature to validate our frame parallelism. We are also planning to swap out the HM's bidir search with logic adapted from x264 (for performance reasons) and to add estimation logic for this new bidir search to the lookahead (to improve lookahead accuracy). We plan to repair the weighted prediction features and re-enable its command line options. Lastly, the lookahead will use wave-front scheduling of the lowres CUs using the existing thread pool. This should lesson the bottlenecking effects of --b-adapt 2. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | Link | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Keep in mind that x265 is really a core video encoding library, designed to be integrated into other software applications. Video editing and transcoding applications add more powerful capabilities like opening different types of media files, demultiplexing the content, decoding the source video into uncompressed frames, scaling video, frame rate conversion, transcoding audio, and packaging up the result in a file like .mp4 or .mkv. Tom |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | Link |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
I'll let DS speak for himself... but I would point you to the x265 development mailing list to see all of the activity from all of the different contributors. The project is ramping up nicely, and we're psyched to see so many talented people writing and reviewing code, submitting bugs and responding to open questions.
Tom |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 128
|
For anyone interested, I did a quick SSIM-based comparison of the 1-pass ABR modes in x264 and x265 (take it with a grain of salt). Source is Elephant's Dream, from here.
Pretty graph here. Last edited by Daemon404; 27th September 2013 at 13:38. Reason: Grammar |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | Link |
German doom9/Gleitz SuMo
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Germany, rural Altmark
Posts: 6,781
|
That won't make much sense without specific testing parameters. Even though x265 is nowhere near "feature complete", it is already able to encode in visually transparent quality with a certain bitrate or quality level. And it will, of course, have compression artefacts with a lack of.
In such an early testing stage, there are not even comparable default values. You will certainly not be able to make up "similar-quality options" for both encoders. The default quantization level in x265 (=32) is very coarse, limits the pixel-bitrate to values where compression artefacts are not only obvious but even annoying. For a sensible comparison, one would have to find a quantization for x265 which gives a good result with still recognizable artefacts, and run x264 in 2-pass mode with the resulting bitrate as target; x265 does not even have a 2-pass mode, and 1-pass ABR is not optimal. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|