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 > MPEG-4 AVC / H.264

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 19th June 2013, 15:57   #1  |  Link
deadrats
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 119
The gospel of x264

Quote:
Originally Posted by iwod View Post
I wonder why x264 folks hasn't shown any interest in HEVC. Are they going to making HEVC leverage some of their work in x264?
personally i would be surprised if they did show any interest. it's basic psychology really, x264 is their baby, they have spent 10 years writing code, DS has personally spent thousands of posts spreading the gospel of x264, brainwashing, i mean convincing, everyone that x264 is the greatest encoder ever, a few hundred post denouncing the competition or any alternative like QS or any gpu powered encoder, his diary of an x264 developer is basically one giant self aggrandizing blog, they've managed to get commercial licensing agreements for their software which puts money in their pocket, they would be stupid to abandon x264 to work on a h265 encoder.

i'll make a prediction right now, the divx h265 encoder will be out in a couple of months, i guarantee you that DS posts a "comparison" on his blog that "proves" x264 offers better image quality than h265, and i will further predict that there will be at least half a dozen members of this forum that are not x264 developers that spend the next 2 years denouncing any h265 encoder released claiming that x264 offers vastly superior quality.

apple isn't about to stop using OS X to use Windows, Microsoft isn't about to tell people to switch to Linux instead of buying Windows, Ford isn't about to admit that a Mercedes is a better car and the x264 developers are not about to slaughter their cash cow by doing anything to discredit it like suddenly stopping development and switching to a superior encoding technology.

can't say i really blame them either.
deadrats is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 16:16   #2  |  Link
phate89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadrats View Post

i'll make a prediction right now, the divx h265 encoder will be out in a couple of months, i guarantee you that DS posts a "comparison" on his blog that "proves" x264 offers better image quality than h265, and i will further predict that there will be at least half a dozen members of this forum that are not x264 developers that spend the next 2 years denouncing any h265 encoder released claiming that x264 offers vastly superior quality.

apple isn't about to stop using OS X to use Windows, Microsoft isn't about to tell people to switch to Linux instead of buying Windows, Ford isn't about to admit that a Mercedes is a better car and the x264 developers are not about to slaughter their cash cow by doing anything to discredit it like suddenly stopping development and switching to a superior encoding technology.

can't say i really blame them either.
it is very likely that x264 will beat first version of divx h265 encoder in the first version because of almost 9 years of developing against only 3 months.
Your example is silly. H264 specs are worse than h265 specs, period. Linux is better than windows that is better than OS X? You say so.
Better example:
Nuclear fusion is better than nuclear fission, more energy, cleaner, safer. But we still use nuclear fission to produce energy. Why? Because for now you need more energy to create the fusion reaction than the energy you get back.it is simply not worth it yet
phate89 is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 16:23   #3  |  Link
thebombzen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
personally i would be surprised if they did show any interest. it's basic psychology really, x264 is their baby, they have spent 10 years writing code, DS has personally spent thousands of posts spreading the gospel of x264, brainwashing, i mean convincing, everyone that x264 is the greatest encoder ever, a few hundred post denouncing the competition or any alternative like QS or any gpu powered encoder, his diary of an x264 developer is basically one giant self aggrandizing blog, they've managed to get commercial licensing agreements for their software which puts money in their pocket, they would be stupid to abandon x264 to work on a h265 encoder.

i'll make a prediction right now, the divx h265 encoder will be out in a couple of months, i guarantee you that DS posts a "comparison" on his blog that "proves" x264 offers better image quality than h265, and i will further predict that there will be at least half a dozen members of this forum that are not x264 developers that spend the next 2 years denouncing any h265 encoder released claiming that x264 offers vastly superior quality.

apple isn't about to stop using OS X to use Windows, Microsoft isn't about to tell people to switch to Linux instead of buying Windows, Ford isn't about to admit that a Mercedes is a better car and the x264 developers are not about to slaughter their cash cow by doing anything to discredit it like suddenly stopping development and switching to a superior encoding technology.

can't say i really blame them either.
Woah, woah. Don't go around calling people self-absorbed. Before you act like the only reason people think x264 is great is because DS said so, note that there's been many H.264 codec comparisons with x264 in the almost in the lead if not in first place.

Also, x264 developers aren't stupid and are fully aware that HEVC is a highly superior bitstream format to H.264, and also know that many HEVC encoders out there can already perform equally to x264 in terms of quality at lower bitrates (of course not half the bitrate, because that's the ultimate goal and x264 has had years and these have had months). Here's a quick comparison I've found from a Google search, (you've probably seen it) and note that x264 does perform better than HM but at almost twice the bitrate. x264 developers are fully aware of comparisons such as this one.

http://vcodex.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03...d-as-h264.html
thebombzen is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 18:15   #4  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
brainwashing, i mean convincing, everyone that x264 is the greatest encoder ever
Oh, you mean there're actually encoders that can achieve higher quality at a set bitrate. Please enlighten us, I have been searching for such thing for years (unsuccessfully, alas ).

The developpers do admit that proper HEVC encoder will beat x264 through the considerable format improvements. But there are no proper encoders, and making a proper encoder can take years (and judging by how many proper encoders there are for current formats... it is more of an exception for one to appear, it seems).
mandarinka is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 18:23   #5  |  Link
avih
Capture, Deinterlace
 
avih's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Right there
Posts: 1,967
Guys/gals, the discussion is a good one, but there's no need to get personal. Please keep it on topic. Thanks.
avih is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 23:07   #6  |  Link
deadrats
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebombzen View Post
Woah, woah. Don't go around calling people self-absorbed. Before you act like the only reason people think x264 is great is because DS said so, note that there's been many H.264 codec comparisons with x264 in the almost in the lead if not in first place.
if you have spent any time one Jason's "diary of a x264 developer" you will know that he has spent more time promoting his software than he has coding it. there are tons of posts on his blog where he goes on a rant about "incorrect" testing methodologies that failed to show his baby as the clear winner.

in fact, and this is one of the juicy ironies i really love, he has repeatedly said that PSNR and SSIM are poor metric by which to measure quality because they do not accurately correlate with supposed perceived video quality as seen by the human eye.

but, and here's the funny part, all the tests that "prove" x264 to be the best h264 encoder use SSIM and/or PSNR values as the comparative metric.

so on the one hand you have the lead x264 developer denouncing the 2 most commonly used metric of visual quality as compared to source material and on the other the same metrics that are supposedly poor measuring sticks are the very "proof" used to show that x264 is superior.

you have to love it.
deadrats is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 23:13   #7  |  Link
phate89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
if you have spent any time one Jason's "diary of a x264 developer" you will know that he has spent more time promoting his software than he has coding it. there are tons of posts on his blog where he goes on a rant about "incorrect" testing methodologies that failed to show his baby as the clear winner.

in fact, and this is one of the juicy ironies i really love, he has repeatedly said that PSNR and SSIM are poor metric by which to measure quality because they do not accurately correlate with supposed perceived video quality as seen by the human eye.

but, and here's the funny part, all the tests that "prove" x264 to be the best h264 encoder use SSIM and/or PSNR values as the comparative metric.

so on the one hand you have the lead x264 developer denouncing the 2 most commonly used metric of visual quality as compared to source material and on the other the same metrics that are supposedly poor measuring sticks are the very "proof" used to show that x264 is superior.

you have to love it.
Sure... And youtube, facebook, vimeo, hulu use it because DS says it's the best. They all read diary of a x264 developer.

Last edited by phate89; 19th June 2013 at 23:19.
phate89 is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 23:19   #8  |  Link
deadrats
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
And lots of the good things about x264 are quite applicable to HEVC. A lot could be done just by swapping out parts of the reference encoder with adapted x264 bits. It wouldn't be a fully optimized encoder, but it certainly wouldn't take years to have an encoder that reliably gives better quality than x264 at non-glacial encoding speeds.
everything i have read seems to indicate that this can't be done, as i understand it h265 does away with macroblocks and instead uses coding tree units; also the motion vector prediction and motion compensation is significantly different between avc and hvec.

what the x264 developers could do, because they do have extensive experience with hand coded assembler, especially as it relates with SIMD, they could just take the reference hvec encoder, apply their assembler expertise and port as much of it as possible from C to assembler and add some heavy threading as well as some MMX/SSE/AVX/AVX2/FMA3/FMA4 loving. that would take care of the speed issues with the reference encoder.

but as i said, it would be silly of them to do anything that would interfere with their cash cow, i don't see any financial benefit to them to optimize the reference encoder to the point where it's as fast as x264 because then their software isn't as compelling an option.

one of the cardinal rules of life is never do anything that jeopardizes your income; you never train someone else how to do your job, you don't share your client lists with competitors and you don't help improve a competing product.
deadrats is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 23:22   #9  |  Link
deadrats
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by phate89 View Post
Sure... And youtube, facebook, vimeo, hulu use it because DS says it's the best. They all read diary of a x264 developer.
if you go around the net and mention youtube video everyone invariably will say "crap", youtube video is known for being of poor quality, hulu is somewhat better and vimeo is just barely better than youtube. these sites use x264 because it's legally free, they don't have to pay the exorbitant per seat licenses that elemental, rovi, sony, cce and ateme charge.

if DS and friends started charging thousands of dollars for a per seat license for their encoder then we would see how many sites would still be eager to use it.
deadrats is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 23:23   #10  |  Link
thebombzen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
everything i have read seems to indicate
but as i said, it would be silly of them to do anything that would interfere with their cash cow, i don't see any financial benefit to them to optimize the reference encoder to the point where it's as fast as x264 because then their software isn't as compelling an option.
Do you realize that x264 is Free Software?
thebombzen is offline  
Old 19th June 2013, 23:24   #11  |  Link
thebombzen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
these sites use x264 because it's legally free
How is x264 a big moneymaker if it's free? You're contradicting yourself.
thebombzen is offline  
Old 20th June 2013, 00:14   #12  |  Link
benwaggoner
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,627
Deadrats,

Interesting arguments, but you have the decisive disadvantage of being wrong on all salient details. And while Jason may rant sometimes, he has the decisive advantage of being RIGHT about what he says. His criticisms of codec test methodology are on the nose and I've sent them to many a codec vendor who tried to shoe me how good their video looks via Excel spreadsheets.

Also, x264 does very nicely in double-blind subjective testing as well.

A really good codec developer can develop good codecs. I don't have any insight into x264 commercial licensing, but that opportunity would exist just as much with HEVC and other future codecs.
__________________
Ben Waggoner
Principal Video Specialist, Amazon Prime Video

My Compression Book
benwaggoner is offline  
Old 20th June 2013, 00:40   #13  |  Link
deadrats
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebombzen View Post
Do you realize that x264 is Free Software?
do you realize that they created a commercial license called x264 LLC and that they license their encoder to various ISV's such as Pegasys and Sorenson, as well as youtube, hulu and vimeo.

x264 generates some cash to the developers, obviously no one other than them knows how much but it's definitely putting money in their pockets.
deadrats is offline  
Old 20th June 2013, 00:42   #14  |  Link
deadrats
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebombzen View Post
How is x264 a big moneymaker if it's free? You're contradicting yourself.
x264 is free to private end users, such as the average joe that uses it to encode his own personal videos or open source projects like xmedia recode and media coder, but major ISV's and commercial users license the x264 LLC version, just ask DS.
deadrats is offline  
Old 20th June 2013, 00:50   #15  |  Link
deadrats
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post
Deadrats,

Interesting arguments, but you have the decisive disadvantage of being wrong on all salient details. And while Jason may rant sometimes, he has the decisive advantage of being RIGHT about what he says. His criticisms of codec test methodology are on the nose and I've sent them to many a codec vendor who tried to shoe me how good their video looks via Excel spreadsheets.

Also, x264 does very nicely in double-blind subjective testing as well.

A really good codec developer can develop good codecs. I don't have any insight into x264 commercial licensing, but that opportunity would exist just as much with HEVC and other future codecs.
2 things:

if his criticisms of codec testing methodologies are on the nose then it's ridiculous to use said tests as proof that your encoder is the best. you can't criticize using PSNR and/or SSIM as a quality metric and then turn around and point to tests your encoder won as measured by PSNR and/or SSIM.

with regard to commercial licensing of HVEC, while it's true that such a opportunity would exist, Jason and Co. would lose credibility; they and many others have spent so much time promoting x264 that to suddenly stop and say "oh wow, despite everything we have been saying for the past 10 years here's something that's just a few months old that's better, oh and by the way the multi-year licensing agreement you signed with us? well it sucks to be you, we now have something better for you to license".

that wouldn't go over to well.

they, to use a phrase i absolutely hate, have to stay the course, they have to do everything they can to discredit hvec and keep promoting x264 as the best possible option.
deadrats is offline  
Old 20th June 2013, 01:19   #16  |  Link
Rumbah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 474
x264 is free for everyone. You can use it in any commercial product you like, you just have to abide the GPL.

If you don't want that you have to pay. But then you have to pay anyway to the Mpeg LA in addition to that if you use H264 in a commercial product, using x264 GPL or LLC.
__________________
x264 full help - x264 --fullhelp r2345
Cuttermaran HCEnc provider - Support for HCEnc in Cuttermaran
DualDVDRB - Dual core support for DVD-RB free
Rumbah is offline  
Old 20th June 2013, 10:26   #17  |  Link
phate89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadrats View Post
if you go around the net and mention youtube video everyone invariably will say "crap", youtube video is known for being of poor quality, hulu is somewhat better and vimeo is just barely better than youtube. these sites use x264 because it's legally free, they don't have to pay the exorbitant per seat licenses that elemental, rovi, sony, cce and ateme charge.

if DS and friends started charging thousands of dollars for a per seat license for their encoder then we would see how many sites would still be eager to use it.
Di you think that it's in their interest to save money to the encoder or save space and bandwidth? If there was another encoder that beats by far x264 in quality over computation time at low bitrates they will still use it, because they will have to pay thousands of dollars but it will allow to use less time encoding, get smaller files saving space and saving bandwidth (saving more money than the cost of the license)
Seems to me you're answering what you want.
You said that what DS says about testing are bullshit since x264 wins with psnr and ssim but you don't say why they're actually wrong.
You say it's not telling the truth when he says thatx264 is one of the best, but you don't tell how can you prove this and what tests you did to actually sustain your theory (and how did you test them since they all costs thousands of dollars?).
You also ignore that all encoder's developers claim their software is the best (even the worse one) but in the end a lot of them to prove that do a comparison with x264.
I'm wondering if you actually try for real x264 for more than one time..
phate89 is offline  
Old 20th June 2013, 10:42   #18  |  Link
phate89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadrats View Post

with regard to commercial licensing of HVEC, while it's true that such a opportunity would exist, Jason and Co. would lose credibility; they and many others have spent so much time promoting x264 that to suddenly stop and say "oh wow, despite everything we have been saying for the past 10 years here's something that's just a few months old that's better, oh and by the way the multi-year licensing agreement you signed with us? well it sucks to be you, we now have something better for you to license".

that wouldn't go over to well.

they, to use a phrase i absolutely hate, have to stay the course, they have to do everything they can to discredit hvec and keep promoting x264 as the best possible option.
Why they loose credibility? X264 is an h264 encoder. Did you hear xvid claim they're better than h264? It doesn't seems to me. They claim for years they were one of the best h264 encoder, and until h264 is the best format means also best encoder in general. A new format is another thing.
Btw you're keep telling that hevc is better and all have to switch to it. But right now we have an encoder that takes a day or two to obtain a 1 min ad video. How could it be considered an alternative to h264? Until someone write an h265 encoder that get better quality at same size with acceptable slowdown (2 or 3 times slower) it will still not worth it
phate89 is offline  
Old 20th June 2013, 16:17   #19  |  Link
mandarinka
Registered User
 
mandarinka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 739
I see we are all feeding a troll, so I think we should ignore the baits.

To just throw some counters to the nonsense that has been posted:
DS stopped blogging *in 2010*. After that, there are just 3 posts announcing Google Code-in/SoC.
Nobody is forced to buy the commercial x264 license. There is the perfectly good GPL that most other free software projects swear by. Commercial license is actually something those commercial entities come begging for on their own...
You can use SSiM/PSNR to test objective tunings of encoders (for example, their motion search quality), as long as you turn off psychovisual stuff. DS sas that to anyone who asks, say on IRC. However, that is the only thing you can test mechanically/objectively. There is no way to test visual quality like this - he is totally right in that too.

In short, either you are dense and don't understand most of the stuff you posted, in which case you need to read more before joining this discussion... or you are just trolling and you should stop too (sorry, as much as I hate accusing people of trolling, your symptoms are too blatant).
mandarinka is offline  
Old 20th June 2013, 17:17   #20  |  Link
deadrats
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 119
the term trolling implies someone that is trying to start an argument, i have no desire to argue with anyone, not on the internet, not in real life.

what i was pointing out was what i have observed for years from those that swear by x264, it seems to have become like a religion to some, the cult of x264, and DS and Co have actively promoted it's worship.

i made the prediction that as soon as divx's hvec encoder is released within a month or two that despite what any encoding test shows that DS and those that are diehard x264 users will spend post after post denouncing divx's product and claiming that x264 offers superior quality.

i also offered the opinion that from the point of view of the x264 developers this would not only be understandable but also be the only financially rational course of action; this financial incentive is also what would bar them from working on a hvec encoder.

i don't see this as "trolling", i have enough stress in my life, i certainly don't need to argue with some anonymous encoder worshiper on some forum over a piece of software that is vastly over-rated and over-engineered and is destined to lose prestige and usage in the coming years.

i'm sorry if that comes off as "trolling", i'm done, i now leave you back to your regularly schedules prayer services at the alter of x264.

Hail DS. (does that make you happy?)
deadrats is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:53.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.