The H.264/AVC/MPEG4 discussion thread

[Shilar]

Originally Posted by Fatsobob

I have been trying h264 more and more and thus far I like it. I could see h.264 eventually replacing xvid, but for now xvid and 264 will just have to get along.

I give it at most another decade. It took that long for Divx/Xvid to gain popularity in even console/portable players, even with competition (Anyone remember 3vix?). Some CD-burning software support it I'm sure already, and many converters natively, so it's a good sign. Same thing with the MP4 container, despite it being around for awhile. iPod and PSP'll push it up, maybe even Zune (Re: BSOD ). At least they do get along well, easily convertible between formats.

[Shilar]

As I said, I'd post a screenshot of a vid encoded in H.264 natively, and the converted Xvid. Both are 640x480, running 29.97 fps. The H.264 has audio that is in AAC, the Xvid: MP3. Here you go:

http://www.immortalmusic.net/snapsho...073428.bmp.jpg The h.264 file
http://www.immortalmusic.net/snapshot20061031074328.jpg The Xvid file.

What do you think? The only difference in the two files is size to me: Xvid's 2mb larger.

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Shilar

It took that long for Divx/Xvid to gain popularity in even console/portable players

No, it took about 6 years, and that's counting from the introduction of the then completely new standard MPEG4. MPEG4 was introduced in 1998, XviD started three years later (July 2001), and by 2004 (or possibly earlier) we had DivX-capable DVD players.

[Shilar]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

No, it took about 6 years, and that's counting from the introduction of the then completely new standard MPEG4. MPEG4 was introduced in 1998, XviD started three years later (July 2001), and by 2004 (or possibly earlier) we had DivX-capable DVD players.

Sorry, my mistake. Still, give x264 a decade at the most. It'll catch on (Long as Sony doesn't try to get it on their players ). I know it'd be really good for HD-DVD burning.

[DryFire]

x264 is an encoder, there are already HD DVD and Blu-ray players that support H264; they just cost more then a decent computer, and good luck finding burnable media.

[Shilar]

Originally Posted by DryFire

x264 is an encoder, there are already HD DVD and Blu-ray players that support H264; they just cost more then a decent computer, and good luck finding burnable media.

Actually, the media is available at Staples in my area, but like the drives are -way- expensive. Least Sony isn't trying to corner x264, instead liking VC-1 (I think, Fluff am I right?).

[[darkfire]]

The Sony blu-ray player and the ps3 support most of the HD formats. h.264 being one of them. The psp also had h.264 support. The blu-rays movies released by sony up to now use Mpeg2 i presume.

[Shilar]

Originally Posted by [darkfire]

The Sony blu-ray player and the ps3 support most of the HD formats. h.264 being one of them. The psp also had h.264 support. The blu-rays movies released by sony up to now use Mpeg2 i presume.

Supposedly, according to several Video fan sites (didn't see on VideoHelp, but saw this article on AfterDawn: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7067.cfm), Sony is doing similar to HD-DVD: multi-formats. Universal and WB will encode VC-1 on HD DVD and Blu-Ray, respectively. There are rumors that Sony also will encode to VC-1, but that rumor was shot down in that article, though the specs in Blu-Ray allow them the luxury. Who knows? I'll still wait for the price drops to see the winner there... anywho, dunno if HD-DVD supports x264, maybe some enlightenment?

[Sylf]

Originally Posted by Shilar

As I said, I'd post a screenshot of a vid encoded in H.264 natively, and the converted Xvid. Both are 640x480, running 29.97 fps. The H.264 has audio that is in AAC, the Xvid: MP3. Here you go:

http://www.immortalmusic.net/snapsho...073428.bmp.jpg The h.264 file
http://www.immortalmusic.net/snapshot20061031074328.jpg The Xvid file.

What do you think? The only difference in the two files is size to me: Xvid's 2mb larger.

What do I think? I think jpeg sucks for image comparisons for quality, since that's a lossy format by itself. Both look pretty fuzzy, and I'm not sure if that's from the video encoding, or from jpeg compression after the screen capture was taken. That being said, after a quick glance, I can see a lot more details around her question-mark badge thing.

[Musaran]

Originally Posted by Shilar

What do you think? The only difference in the two files is size to me: Xvid's 2mb larger.

1) Video codecs are designed for video (duh), they can not be evaluated on a single frame basis.

One reason being that obvious artifacts in a still frame may be acceptable if they go unnoticed when the video runs.
A better codec might look worse on a given frame if it is better at discarding details useless in motion.

Other reason being that 2 encodes can place key frames differently.
If one of your frame is a keyframe (or a frame close) and the other not, the comparison is biaised.


2) It is not exactly the same frame in your two examples.

If you still want to compare frames, the first frame of a scene is a good place as it is easely spotted and is most likely a keyframe.



If I remember well from my readings, AVC/h264(x264) over ASP(XviD) is:
-3% to 10% better in lossless data compression alone (CABAC).
-5% to 20% better in lossy compression itself.

But most important here, it deals much better with animated content (hard edges).
This alone should make it prime in anime fansubbing.

[Eeknay]

Originally Posted by Shilar

anywho, dunno if HD-DVD supports x264, maybe some enlightenment?

Some folks tried converting and burning x264 encoded media to homebrew HD-DVD DVD5/9s and it doesn't work. VC1/WMV9 doesn't either, only MPEG2. There's no reason why it shouldn't work since there are a number of h264 HD-DVD's (two in the US and a handful in Japan) that work perfectly on the HD-A1/HD-XA1. It's probably a limitation of the current tools avaliable.

There have been rumours on the Internets about PS3's media capabilities. MPEG2 transport streams @ 1920x1080 work fine, and supposedly h264/WMV9 will as well (on the hard disc/burnt media, not over a network IIRC).

[Shilar]

Originally Posted by Sylf

What do I think? I think jpeg sucks for image comparisons for quality, since that's a lossy format by itself. Both look pretty fuzzy, and I'm not sure if that's from the video encoding, or from jpeg compression after the screen capture was taken. That being said, after a quick glance, I can see a lot more details around her question-mark badge thing.

Heh, Possibly the encoding. Remember the vid is natively 640x480, so on even a 1024x768 monitor, jpeg can be a bit fuzzy, but if you tweak the settings in Jpeg, you can get a better image (grant you not as good as the larger formats, but great for sending via internet). Heck, if jpeg sucked so much, why do so many digital cameras use it? (Just kidding )

Are you talking about the badge on her chest?

[Sylf]

Originally Posted by Shilar

Heck, if jpeg sucked so much, why do so many digital cameras use it? (Just kidding )

OT: Because the storage medias (flash medias) are somewhat expensive (or they were just couple of years ago) that they needed highly compressible format - jpeg. Some cameras had options to save in png or bmp format too, but they ate up the storage space so fast, it wasn't funny at all. Many high end SLR cameras have options to save photos in their own native format, which can eat up 10+MB per image, especially in high res. They can afford to, since they often carry 4GB+ swappable storage. But those are usually for professionals. And those pros will NEVER use jpeg for their gigs. Jpeg is lossy, and you can't deny it. If you need to alter it to look it better, you're already filtering the source image that you're not representing the original quality of the image.

Are you talking about the badge on her chest?

Yes.

[Nicholi]

Well the issue of comparing video with still images aside, lets get two new screencaps. And this time instead of being smart and using some lossless image compression format (PNG) lets go all out and compare gifs! Also lets go ahead and make sure the frames don't match at all, for ultimate comparison purposes! n_n
We must be as unscientific as possible to prove our point to the masses. In the notes of the screencaps be sure to write about your feelings of which looks better, feelings always win.

[tritoch]

To tell you the truth, the awesome HD versions for almost every series makes me drool.. The quality is toop notch =p

move over xvid, the flexibility of the h264 reigns supreme right now =p

[Ronbo]

In regards to HD-DVD & Blue-Ray media; If you think that sticking an HD-DVD or Blue-Ray player in your current computer will give you H.264 playback capabilities, you should read this article. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/..._hdcp_support/
Even the current crop so called H.264 ready video cards will not support it.

[Starks]

Originally Posted by tritoch

To tell you the truth, the awesome HD versions for almost every series makes me drool.. The quality is toop notch =p

move over xvid, the flexibility of the h264 reigns supreme right now =p

It's quite amazing when you compare the spring and fall seasons...
Almost everything is now in true HD.

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Starks

Almost everything is now in true HD.

No, it's not. Almost everything "HD" is station upscales.

[Starks]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

No, it's not. Almost everything "HD" is station upscales.

Is there any clear cut way to whether something is upscaled or not? I'm pretty sure that some of the BS stations are doing a few series in true HD.

[Mentar]

The easiest way to distinguish true from fake HD are the small black lines. If the black outlines look consistently sharp and "solid" throughout all frames, the source tends to be true HD. If, on the other hand, the lines look "soft" and a bit "blurry", you usually have an upscaled raw.