AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Related Topics > Fansub Groups

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2007-05-16, 22:00   Link #21
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Starks
6 hours seems so damn impractical for today's computers. I'm starting to get the impression is that x264 is a bit ahead of its time in terms of hardware.

If your encode messes up, that's essentially time wasted.

This is a really disturbing revelation. I expected x264 to be slower since it newer and supposedly more efficient but this ridiculous.

I can now actually understand why the transition from XviD has been so slow and many hold-outs remain.

So, is the "insane" profile really necessary? What do normal, and less anal encoders use?
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-16, 22:31   Link #22
Medalist
Infie
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Texas
HQ-Slowest or HQ Slower and in the very-very least HQ slow
Medalist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-16, 22:42   Link #23
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Starks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uchikatsu View Post
HQ-Slowest or HQ Slower and in the very-very least HQ slow
I hope those settings are more time-sensible. What's the difference between them?

Also, can I still use a first-pass multiple times?
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-16, 22:57   Link #24
Quarkboy
Anime Translator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to Quarkboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starks View Post
I hope those settings are more time-sensible. What's the difference between them?

Also, can I still use a first-pass multiple times?
Not with the way megui is setup by default. It defaults to deleting the .stats file after the second pass is done. You can set it up to not delete it, though, and then reuse the file for multiple second passes. But be careful, if you change settings too much you can get terrible results (I once used the wrong stats file by accident and the quality was impressively bad).

And if you think that x264 is slow, you should try Quicktime's "h.264" (quotes needed) encoder. It's crappy, implements a small subset of the true power of h.264, and something like 10 times slower than x264.

There are faster h.264 encoders out there, but they are commercial and generally not as high quality as x264. The ones that do rival x264 in quality are just as slow with high quality settings.
__________________
Yomiuri Television Enterprise
International Media Strategy Chief
Sam Pinansky
Quarkboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-16, 22:59   Link #25
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Starks
So, how do I encode a raw h264 stream?

I just wasted 2 hours to realize that a .264 file is not the same as a .h264 file... MKVmerge doesn't like .264 files.

>_>
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-16, 23:39   Link #26
Quarkboy
Anime Translator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to Quarkboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starks View Post
So, how do I encode a raw h264 stream?

I just wasted 2 hours to realize that a .264 file is not the same as a .h264 file... MKVmerge doesn't like .264 files.

>_>
Sure it does. .264 = .h264

You probably just need to make it show all *.* files so you can select it.
__________________
Yomiuri Television Enterprise
International Media Strategy Chief
Sam Pinansky
Quarkboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-16, 23:45   Link #27
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Starks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarkboy View Post
Sure it does. .264 = .h264

You probably just need to make it show all *.* files so you can select it.
Heh, I wasn't using the latest version. That was my problem.
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 01:17   Link #28
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Starks
Holy crap... I never realized how compressible video can be. The improvements in quality per megabyte are astounding.
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 01:55   Link #29
Quarkboy
Anime Translator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to Quarkboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starks View Post
Holy crap... I never realized how compressible video can be. The improvements in quality per megabyte are astounding.
And we have a convert. Halleluya, may your soul be forever saved.
__________________
Yomiuri Television Enterprise
International Media Strategy Chief
Sam Pinansky
Quarkboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 02:43   Link #30
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Starks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quarkboy View Post
And we have a convert. Halleluya, may your soul be forever saved.
I had a 265MB Divx640 raw and x264 only asked for 150MB in return. I'm pretty much sold.
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 05:57   Link #31
TheFluff
Excessively jovial fellow
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ISDB-T
Age: 28
As for the encoding speed, I have an Athlon X2 3800+ and with my settings mentioned in the earlier post, a 25min ep at 480p takes around 3-4 hours to encode from lossless. First pass 30-40 minutes, second pass 2-3 hours.
__________________
| ffmpegsource
17:43:13 <~deculture> Also, TheFluff, you are so fucking slowpoke.jpg that people think we dropped the DVD's.
17:43:16 <~deculture> nice job, fag!

01:04:41 < Plorkyeran> it was annoying to typeset so it should be annoying to read
TheFluff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 07:12   Link #32
Quarkboy
Anime Translator
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to Quarkboy
My spiffy Core 2 Duo 6400 takes the same amount of time to do 720p as TheFluff's computer does to do 480p.

Just goes to show you the power of the core duo 2 .
__________________
Yomiuri Television Enterprise
International Media Strategy Chief
Sam Pinansky
Quarkboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 07:21   Link #33
Zero1
Two bit encoder
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Age: 30
Well when we have quad core, or whatever AMD and Intel have up their sleeves, then we will see some reasonable encode times. However the current speed is not unreasonable. You can probably set your computer encoding when you wake up, and it might be done by the time you get home from work or school; or if you have a laptop, set it encoding, hide it somewhere and forget about it.

The slowest encode time I've had before is 0.13 - 0.17fps, this was a 1920x1080 PNG sequence which I encoded as lossless H.264. It was an interesting test...

The lagarith was around 9GB, and the H.264 was 5.5GB.

The project is http://www.elephantsdream.org/; the PNGs and lossless 5.1 can be found http://media.xiph.org/ED/

I remember years ago back in 2001 or so when I was getting into encoding, when I was messing around with DivX and stuff on a Duron 750. I forget the details now, but it must have gone about 5-10fps just encoding from QCIF MPEG-1. In fact one of these days I may drag my old rig out and see what goes. May even have a laugh and try to encode some pretty insane H.264 on it.

You really have to appreciate how much work x264 does over XviD - it's not simply the case that it's just slow; it's doing so much more.
__________________
Zero1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 07:26   Link #34
checkers
Part 8
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Western Australia
Age: 26
Send a message via MSN to checkers
again on encoding time, it's quite possible to get x264 encoding as fast as xvid, you just use low settings. The quality will still be > xvid. As saggitaire says "use of x264 is not obligation for use of high settings!"
checkers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 12:54   Link #35
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Starks
I still don't understand the aim of fansubbers using H.264... I see 3 distinct approaches.

Are we trying to beat XviD in quality at the same filesize?

Cram more quality into a larger filesize just for the hell of it?

Exceed XviD quality at substandard filesizes?
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 13:39   Link #36
jfs
Aegisub dev
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Age: 30
Yes, one of those three goals, which you pick is your own choice
Personally I would prefer one of the first or last ones. Sure, bandwidth and storage is getting cheaper all the time but that alone shouldn't be reason enough to make larger files.
jfs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 13:40   Link #37
Starks
I see what you did there!
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 27
Send a message via AIM to Starks
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfs View Post
Yes, one of those three goals, which you pick is your own choice
Personally I would prefer one of the first or last ones. Sure, bandwidth and storage is getting cheaper all the time but that alone shouldn't be reason enough to make larger files.
Which approach has the widest appeal? Why isn't there agreement on what the community wants to do with x264.
__________________
Starks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 15:08   Link #38
Narumi
Senior Member
*Fansubber
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Age: 27
For me, the first goal is the reason for using h.264- if you can achieve more within the same frame, it's usually preferable.

But some people also want to match quality with former xvid encodes but turn out smaller file sizes for easy distribution and transport.

Most of the time fansubs are from not great sources anyways, so there should never really be a reason to turn out larger file sizes in order to further increase quality.

It's all up to your personal preference towards such things.
__________________
Fate is something you don't toy with.
Narumi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-17, 22:17   Link #39
Unearthly
Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Quote:
Which approach has the widest appeal?
I think trying to match the Xvid quality with a smaller file size gets the best response from the general fan base, if that is what you are trying to appeal to.

Not everyone has eagle eyes for spotting noise or blocks and a lot don't even care (Youtube watchers, anyone?). But a lot of people care about their download times and the space it takes to store these encodes on their hard drive.

Quote:
Why isn't there agreement on what the community wants to do with x264.
Come on now, isn't this obvious? People fansub, encode, do whatever, for all different reasons. All the three goals you mentioned for using h.264 are quite valid so you'll find plenty of people following each one. There's no need for everyone to be homogeneous. That would be boring!
Unearthly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-05-18, 00:29   Link #40
Nicholi
King of Hosers
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 31
Copyright and patent the methods in fansubbing, form an International Fansub Police Agency, then control the direction of the community n_n. It's that simple folks!

*bang bang* This is the I.F.P.A., we have reports that you have been fansubbing using means other then those dictated by The Community. Turn over yourself and all your scripts and nobody shoots the catgirls!
Nicholi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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 -5. The time now is 23:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.