|
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Sep 1 2005, 10:58 PM |
 |
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | Its completely unthinkable that devs use test 10 second sequences like foreman, right?
Right?
Guess again.
It doesnt even matter if its a 10 seconds clip or a 1 hr clip, the difference will remain roughly the same. 20% deviation is just unacceptable. |
s. by this time i don't like they way you're arguing. you're switching the focus to totally irrelevant things.
do you want to discuss target bitrate 'respect' by different codecs now?
ok, open new thread.
but i dunno what will we discuss?
a knowledgeable person can do a excellent filesize predictability in 1pass, while 2pass can be used by anyone with excellent predictability.
so it beats me why would you wanna talk about that.
| QUOTE | | This not my standpoint at all. |
ok then. i apologize if i insulted you in that way.
| QUOTE | | Yes it is insulting. And someone who thinks 20% is not a big deviation cant possibly be a nit-picker. |
20% deviation of what exactly?
what are you talking about?
divx4/5 and xvid clips can't do target bitrate at 75frames clip?
yes, i agree:these are crappy codecs.
(why in the world you brought that one up?)
| QUOTE | | This is completely flawed logic... |
how come?
please explain.
| QUOTE | | P-frame only encode with 20% lower bit rate blurs and blocks more too. Fact! |
you mean p frame vs b on 800 on this source?
i dunno, i didn't do that test.
do you want me to do it?
p-only on 800?
| QUOTE | | If you want some PSNR results, here. If not, they are still here: |
please, please, quit making avc 3.5mbit/s 624x352 tests.
pretty please!
do you want me to do 9mbit/s mpeg tests?
well?
you think these hold some value, it seems?
send me the test clips u used and i'll do mpeg2 at 9mbit/s?
and?
will that make us any wiser?
psnr means exactly nothing, i would say. it's not detecting the artefacts at all.
i have made mpeg1 vs divx3 vs xvid vs x264 test (on same bitrate, mind you)where x264 has by far the highest psnr, and yet it looks the worse.
psnr didn't saw x264 blocking-silly.
looking at psnr, i get
-x264
-xvid
-divx3
-mpeg1
looking at video, i would put divx3 and mpeg1 on the top.
(and please don't mention dloading the clips again(as i discard the psnr and yet i don't wanna dload your clips). i'm not interested in avc on 3.5mbit/s. the highest i go is usually 2.5mbit/s.)
--------------------
my signature:
 |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Sep 1 2005, 11:28 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
http://i4004.net/i4004/b-frames[x264]/3_NO2b_800.avi
still less blocking than b-frames clip.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Sep 2 2005, 07:12 AM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
1.| QUOTE | | f you have non-b-frames and b-frames endcoding at (say) 700kbit/s, encoding with b-frames may look better than 700kbit/s with p-frames only. |
If you say this, I have no idea what we are discussing. You said before that b-frames never helped.
2.| QUOTE |
my experience is simillar; they don't really help. they can bring bitrate down, but with it the quality too. |
Now you are saying that at the same bit rate an encode with b-frames might look better. This is beyond me. If you had said the first sentence the very first time we discussed b-frames in this thread, we would have never had an argument.
But it is the same thing as with "constant quality". I guess.
Oh and about this
| QUOTE | | s. by this time i don't like they way you're arguing. you're switching the focus to totally irrelevant things. |
Don't even dare go there. You were trying to convince me that codecs have good rate control on short clips by showing me "1200 kbps" clips, where actually non of them even was close to 1200 kbps. Don't even dare go there. My comment for not using bit rate was just factual (you could have just agreed) and you proved it by providing the link you gave me. Thank you.
| QUOTE | please, please, quit making avc 3.5mbit/s 624x352 tests.
pretty please! |
ok... ill resize it to 256x144 and do a test at 1000 kbps. Ill bet youll say then that your not interested in such low resolutions. The result will be the same anyway. If you fail to grasp that there is no sense in doing this clip at 2500 kbps, then please stop arguing about it.
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Sep 2 2005, 02:25 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | If you say this, I have no idea what we are discussing. You said before that b-frames never helped. |
i said they help compressabilty, but not the quality.
my standpoint from a get-go.
| QUOTE | | Now you are saying that at the same bit rate an encode with b-frames might look better. This is beyond me. |
ok, then it is beyond you. it is a fair simple concept of higher-compression=>higher image deterioration i tried to explain. fcchandler and avery have (tried to, it seems as you surely didn't got it) done this in past too.
please note; b-frames=higher compression.
| QUOTE | | If you had said the first sentence the very first time we discussed b-frames in this thread, we would have never had an argument. |
i have been saying the both things since the beginning.
even the quote you gave here says it.
i guess you didn't grasp this;
the b-frame encoding on low bitrate looks worse than p-frame only encoding at higher bitrate.
it doesn't look "the same". it looks worse.
got it?
| QUOTE | | Don't even dare go there. You were trying to convince me that codecs have good rate control on short clips by showing me "1200 kbps" clips, where actually non of them even was close to 1200 kbps. Don't even dare go there. My comment for not using bit rate was just factual (you could have just agreed) and you proved it by providing the link you gave me. Thank you. |
i'll go wherever i like. what is the bitrate of nandub clip?
and what do you think this
| QUOTE | | in this case k = 1024 bytes, therefore the used bitrate is 1200 kpbs / 1.024 = 1172 kbps |
means?
(for the life of me i can't understand why did YOU go there. because you ...wanted another fight without ending the first one? and why did you turn this into a fight? you can't love b-frames THAT much?)
| QUOTE | | If you fail to grasp that there is no sense in doing this clip at 2500 kbps, then please stop arguing about it. |
yes, thers is sense in it, offcourse there is, only it never occured to you that lower bitrates (even too low bitrates tests) are ways more interesting than near-transparency tests you're trying to push.
one more thing is beyond me; essentially, we both have same results in our tests (only your tests is at higher bitrate so the visual impact should be less (less deterioration)when b-frames are used), ie results that prove what i've been saying all along. so why are we arguing?
i have told you that "how much b-frames deteriorate" is a good subject to some other discussion, BUT there shouldn't be (by now) arguing about "do b-frames deteriorate image or not". they do.
and the person that minds the banding problem in respect to cquality encodings is telling me "b-frames are ok"? person encoding lores at 3.5-4mbit/s is telling me "b-frames are ok"?
now what do you want to do for us to settle this?
do you want me to do the test with natural source(ie not toons)?
but you do understand that all i need (to prove my standpoint) is the b-frames clip looking 0.1% worse than p-frames clip on 20% higher bitrate?
as you are aware that during this thread, i was _never_ disucussing "how much deterioration b-frames bring", aren't you? i'm just saying they bring deterioration.
in other words, compressabilty interests me less and less, and quality more and more, so i go up with the bitrate(but not avc on 3.5mbit/s..hell no!), rather than trying to find ways to compress more...and lose more quality in doing it.
and oh yeah. calm down! our lives don't depend on this.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Sep 2 2005, 03:38 PM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
| QUOTE | | 'll go wherever i like. what is the bitrate of nandub clip? |
1167kbps, and dont say it got very close to 1172 then, because VirtualDub doesnt use 1kb = 1024 b. If you dont believe me substract overhead and do a calculation on raw data. 1167 is still quite a bit of from 1200.
| QUOTE | | i have told you that "how much b-frames deteriorate" is a good subject to some other discussion |
It is the only point of discussion, saying a quant 4 frame looks better than the same frame at quant 6 is so obvious that I thought we were already beyond that. That doesn't need any discussion.
The main question is what you just said, and I asked you before in this thread, to which you answered
| QUOTE | you mean "is the deterioration worth the bitrate savings?".
i say it's not worth it. i say savings are so small that it's just not worth it. |
And I disagree. It is worth it.
| QUOTE | | now what do you want to do for us to settle this? |
Since all you wanted to say is that a frame at quant 4 looks better than the same frame at quant 6 you don't have to do anything. I agree.
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Sep 2 2005, 06:43 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | And I disagree. It is worth it. |
ok, that's fair.
in a time of dvdrs i feel freedom not to save in such ways.
your standpoint is valid, my standpoint is valid.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Sep 2 2005, 08:53 PM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
| QUOTE | | in a time of dvdrs i feel freedom not to save in such ways. |
see, i still dont have a DVD burner...
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Sep 2 2005, 10:42 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
well, YOU should have said THAT at the beginning!
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
|
