Page 1 of 2 |
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 12:56 Post subject: 4K uncompressed video samples (natural images) |
|
 |
Hi guys,
I've got my latest x264 & x265 binaries together and wanted to do some testing & comparison between the two codecs.
Now I've been searching for good 4K source material, one which preferably doesnt have any visual artefacts from previous compression and basically found this:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/1506723-ultimate-4k-demo-material-information-thread.html
(high-bitrate 264 compressed video)
and..
https://media.xiph.org/
The later site has the movies in png & tiff and other formats aswell, meaning they store every single uncompressed production frame as images.
My problem here is that the only 4K movie they offer single-frames for is this "Sintel" movie, 4K pngs or 4K tiff's 8 bit, which is fine!
But, and now here comes the bummer, it's an 100% CGI movie.
For my comparison I would like to have something similar for a 4K natural images movie.
Can you guys please share whatever sites you know for good (uncompresses, raw, yuv, unprocessed, ...) 4K source material and hopefully I can find something that suites me.
PS: if any of you smartasses post YouTube 4K videos as "source material", I will report your posts for trolling.
NO YOUTUBE LINKS OR SOURCE MATERIAL!!!
UPDATE: Found some very good websites:
http://medialab.sjtu.edu.cn/web4k/index.html
http://ultravideo.cs.tut.fi/#testsequences
Last edited by paxsali on Wed, 10th Sep 2014 17:29; edited 2 times in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 16:04 Post subject: |
|
 |
Just a word to set your expectations. x265 is very work in progress. While work is progressing, it is nowhere near the maturity level of x264. Even with similar bitrates, x265 is not yet capable of properly compressing content, thus banding and other artefacts will occur. Give it another year or so.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 17:52 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:58; edited 3 times in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:09 Post subject: |
|
 |
"As far as you can tell" from a video playback is not good enough. Do a frame by frame comparison, by subtracting the resulting x264 and x265 encode frames each from the source frame (make sure the frames match, your first one doesn't!).
"Visually awesome" is a nonsense measurement. Some people see 2GB 1080p Xvid Yify crap and think it's "visually awesome".
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:14 Post subject: |
|
 |
paxsali wrote: | EDIT: just noticed ... the original images / frames dont "match", although the timing given is identical. I don't know what causes that ... unless I dont know how to get the identical frames I cannot fix it. |
Most likely framerate irregularity.
Also, picking frames is an art of itself. You need to pick frames where there are P slices and B slices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_compression_picture_types
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:14 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:23 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:26 Post subject: |
|
 |
I am not judging anything. I am not biased and I do want it to succeed. I've seen recent comparisons, and in many scenes there is a visible banding and artifacts. That is all. It's natural. I don't see the point of me running tests and getting the same results that many other people got. You know when I'll be convinced? When non-scene, quality torrent tracker encoders start feeling comfortable enough to start using h265 as the main codec. We are most definitely not there yet.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:27 Post subject: |
|
 |
paxsali wrote: | Plus, it is a pain in the ass specifically picking I frames with the kind of tools that I use, so I don't even bother. |
Linux? 
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:28 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:31 Post subject: |
|
 |
Or don't want to type commands, remember arguments by heart and live your life in shell scripts, but that's just a life philosophy. 
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:33 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:35 Post subject: |
|
 |
Yes, but I do it in style, in the GUI. 
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:35 Post subject: I have left. |
|
 |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:43 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:48 Post subject: |
|
 |
I don't think this is really that important. Playback performance, yes, but not offline encoding performance. x264 1080p encodes used to take a day back in the day, but still was worth it! 
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:54 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:58; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Sat, 6th Sep 2014 18:58 Post subject: |
|
 |
Theoretically, it should already be possible with OpenCL and CUDA. Just someone has to write the decoder that supports all needed features of the spec. It will take a while.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Wed, 10th Sep 2014 09:30 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Wed, 10th Sep 2014 14:27 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Wed, 10th Sep 2014 17:04 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2014 14:45 Post subject: |
|
 |
seen your pictures and 30% you can clearly see pixels /colour degradation/washing up/branding... identical my ass
your differences :
x264 --tune film --min-keyint 24 --psy-rd 1:0 --sar 1:1
x265 --no-open-gop --keyint 250 --scenecut 40 --wpp --lft --sao
use the same setting on x264 and you would get the same result as you get with x265
why not use scene standards of bdrips
cabac=1 / ref=5 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x113 / me=umh / subme=8 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=12 / lookahead_threads=2 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=2 / b_bias=0 / direct=3 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=2 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=23 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=50 / rc=crf / mbtree=1 / crf=19.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=0 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00
crf setting dictates how much you will get ... 15 is close to 4k , 17 is HD, 22 is for SD ... 25 to subDVD rip... this setting is the most awesome thing you have this codec

|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2014 15:25 Post subject: |
|
 |
lolwut 
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2014 18:34 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2014 18:36 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2014 18:53 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2014 19:52 Post subject: |
|
 |
Judging by those screenshots, H265 is definitely cleaner from artifacts.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
LeoNatan
Banned
Posts: 73193
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2014 20:13 Post subject: |
|
 |
I see more macroblocking in the white image on the "h265" labeled image.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2014 20:43 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
Posted: Thu, 11th Sep 2014 20:46 Post subject: |
|
 |
Last edited by paxsali on Thu, 4th Jul 2024 21:57; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Page 1 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |