Why are h.264 files so big?

[RaistlinMajere]

Never more than 175MB/24min ep if you ask me

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by JediNight

Anyone who is using a standard 640x480 or like 704x400 raw at 175mb with Xvid and then making a 233mb H264 with the same raw, is either a bad encoder if they think they need it that large, or wasting filespace for no reason.

Well, I'm one of these bad encoders then. See the TYPE-MOON show from a few months ago, which was pretty much bitstarved in the 183-megs xvid version. Here, especially in those episodes with alot of hi-motion, there was a noticeable difference between the 183- and 233-meg versions in h264 (I made occasional unreleased test encodes in the lower bitrate to see for myself). Much less ringing, and much less susceptible to artifacting in the darker background parts.

So, if you mean that a source which leads to a good xvid encode in 175 doesn't gain much with a 233 h264-encode, you have a point. But there are enough examples where 175 xvid is borderline - and there, 233 h264 may be perfectly justified.

(Reminiscent of the HQ/SHQ fansub files years ago which were released as bloated 250-300mb files, yet looked the same as ones I could do at 175mb)

If you mean that there were examples of unnecessarily bloated files which could have been achieved at lesser bitrates too - fine, of course. Nevertheless there were enough (e.g DVD) sources which you could NOT do at 175 in a quality which reached 250-300 meg encodes. It all depends on the filtering of the sources anyway, and 175 h264 puts constraints especially on sharpness and dark background dithering which could NOT be addressed in a universally satisfying way. Especially in the x264 versions from a year ago.

[JediNight]

So, if you mean that a source which leads to a good xvid encode in 175 doesn't gain much with a 233 h264-encode, you have a point. But there are enough examples where 175 xvid is borderline - and there, 233 h264 may be perfectly justified.

That's exactly what I meant. If the Xvid encode looks good/great at 175mb already, there isn't a reason to make the H264 233mb using the same raw ... you would already be gaining against the Xvid theoretically, just by keeping the same size.

The HQ/SHQ comment was referring then to the H264 233mb encodes of my above statement.

[DryFire]

Originally Posted by JediNight

If the Xvid encode looks good/great at 175mb already, there isn't a reason to make the H264 233mb using the same raw .

The point is, most 175MB xvid encodes are simply acceptable.

[TheFluff]

A somewhat related topic... this is the output I got from x264 when encoding Night Head Genesis ep 10:

avis [info]: 704x400 @ 23.98 fps (35720 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities MMX MMXEXT SSE SSE2 3DNow!
x264 [info]: slice I:208   Avg QP:13.12  size: 264990:00:00
x264 [info]: slice P:7694  Avg QP:15.03  size:  5922
x264 [info]: slice B:27818 Avg QP:16.04  size:   708
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 25.5% 35.1% 39.3%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4:  6.2%  6.3%  3.0%  P16..4: 37.7%  7.2%  3.9%  0.3%  0.2%    skip:35.3%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.1%  0.1%  0.1%  B16..8: 10.7%  0.4%  0.9%  direct: 1.0%  skip:86.8%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform  intra:39.9%  inter:58.0%
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:96.0%  temporal:4.0%
x264 [info]: ref P  74.7% 11.6%  5.3%  1.9%  1.5%  1.0%  1.0%  0.5%  0.5%  0.4%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.3%  0.2%
x264 [info]: ref B  82.4%  9.6%  3.0%  1.4%  0.8%  0.7%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.2%  0.2%  0.1%  0.1%  0.2%
x264 [info]: kb/s:380.1

encoded 35720 frames, 4.64 fps, 381.08 kb/s

I think the stats speak more or less for themselves.
Full framesize (704x400), full framerate (23.976), not blurred to hell. Final output size (with ~19 MB of audio): 85 MB. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "compressibility".

[Quarkboy]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

A somewhat related topic... this is the output I got from x264 when encoding Night Head Genesis ep 10:

Spoiler:

avis [info]: 704x400 @ 23.98 fps (35720 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities MMX MMXEXT SSE SSE2 3DNow!
x264 [info]: slice I:208   Avg QP:13.12  size: 264990:00:00
x264 [info]: slice P:7694  Avg QP:15.03  size:  5922
x264 [info]: slice B:27818 Avg QP:16.04  size:   708
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 25.5% 35.1% 39.3%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4:  6.2%  6.3%  3.0%  P16..4: 37.7%  7.2%  3.9%  0.3%  0.2%    skip:35.3%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.1%  0.1%  0.1%  B16..8: 10.7%  0.4%  0.9%  direct: 1.0%  skip:86.8%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform  intra:39.9%  inter:58.0%
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:96.0%  temporal:4.0%
x264 [info]: ref P  74.7% 11.6%  5.3%  1.9%  1.5%  1.0%  1.0%  0.5%  0.5%  0.4%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.3%  0.2%
x264 [info]: ref B  82.4%  9.6%  3.0%  1.4%  0.8%  0.7%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.2%  0.2%  0.1%  0.1%  0.2%
x264 [info]: kb/s:380.1

encoded 35720 frames, 4.64 fps, 381.08 kb/s

I think the stats speak more or less for themselves.
Full framesize (704x400), full framerate (23.976), not blurred to hell. Final output size (with ~19 MB of audio): 85 MB. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "compressibility".

I'm curious of 2 things: What codec was the raw encoded in? (and original size) and What filters did you use?

[Zero1]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

A somewhat related topic... this is the output I got from x264 when encoding Night Head Genesis ep 10:

avis [info]: 704x400 @ 23.98 fps (35720 frames)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities MMX MMXEXT SSE SSE2 3DNow!
x264 [info]: slice I:208   Avg QP:13.12  size: 264990:00:00
x264 [info]: slice P:7694  Avg QP:15.03  size:  5922
x264 [info]: slice B:27818 Avg QP:16.04  size:   708
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4: 25.5% 35.1% 39.3%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4:  6.2%  6.3%  3.0%  P16..4: 37.7%  7.2%  3.9%  0.3%  0.2%    skip:35.3%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.1%  0.1%  0.1%  B16..8: 10.7%  0.4%  0.9%  direct: 1.0%  skip:86.8%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform  intra:39.9%  inter:58.0%
x264 [info]: direct mvs  spatial:96.0%  temporal:4.0%
x264 [info]: ref P  74.7% 11.6%  5.3%  1.9%  1.5%  1.0%  1.0%  0.5%  0.5%  0.4%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.3%  0.2%
x264 [info]: ref B  82.4%  9.6%  3.0%  1.4%  0.8%  0.7%  0.4%  0.3%  0.3%  0.2%  0.2%  0.2%  0.1%  0.1%  0.2%
x264 [info]: kb/s:380.1

encoded 35720 frames, 4.64 fps, 381.08 kb/s

I think the stats speak more or less for themselves.
Full framesize (704x400), full framerate (23.976), not blurred to hell. Final output size (with ~19 MB of audio): 85 MB. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call "compressibility".

Jesus christ! Does anything happen in that episode at all?

On the other hand, how low can you go? \o/ I'd be interested to see how small it would be at say an average QP of 18-20.

[Quarkboy]

Originally Posted by Zero1

Jesus christ! Does anything happen in that episode at all?

On the other hand, how low can you go? \o/ I'd be interested to see how small it would be at say an average QP of 18-20.

In that case the video track might be smaller than the audio...

[Zero1]

What a shame that not everything is as "lol compression" as this. One has to wonder if the average source we encode now will compress like this in a few years with H.265.

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Quarkboy

I'm curious of 2 things: What codec was the raw encoded in? (and original size) and What filters did you use?

The original raw was okeidokiTL's DivX 6.25 one. I don't remember exactly how big it was, but most likely somewhere between 150 and 180 MB. Not much filtering was used, the exact chain looked like this:

source()

removegrain(mode=1)
temporalsoften(3,3,5,15,2)
hqdn3d(2)
aa(edge=true)

Crop(4,2,-4,-2)
Lanczos4Resize(704,400)

"aa(edge=true)" is a sangnom-based antialias script, somewhat like the well-known AAA(), but with an added (optional) edge masking parameter so it only gets applied to actual edges.

I'd say the compressibility is mostly because 90% of the show is about the two brothers standing around and looking angstily at stuff. :>

[el]

Raw used was oki's NIGHT HEAD GENESIS 10 (BS-Nippon 704x396 DivX625).avi at 145 MB (153,018,368 bytes)

[Sylf]

^^; that original file size already shows how compressible that episode is. Thx for that info.

[RaistlinMajere]

Fluff, that's "not much filtering"? I often run a lot of filters myself, but HQDN3d is a pretty heavy duty denoiser.

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by RaistlinMajere

I often run a lot of filters myself, but HQDN3d is a pretty heavy duty denoiser.

... at strength 2? I wouldn't say so. It's great at removing fluctuations without killing detail, at least at low strengths (at >=4 or so it's much less nice in that regard, but I still like it a lot for general noise removal).

[Shounen]

Well then, semms that I have alot of tests to make then ^^

I'll post something nice when I have something to come with ^.-
say something under 100mb...

[DryFire]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

I'd say the compressibility is mostly because 90% of the show is about the two brothers standing around and looking angstily at stuff. :>

You mean at eachother?

I wouldn't consider hqdn3d(2) more then mild for most tv sources.

[Shounen]

EDITv3:
Mooooooo!

[ScR3WiEuS]

what i'm gonna say is maybe redundant, but the general level of replies (like always) is so low, that i won't bother reading the previous posts.

i think you can distinguish different cases.

- Good source ( for example DVD or decent HD sources ):
I would go for quality. that means, if people usually encode DVD/HDTV
sources at higher filesizes, for example 233meg, i would make the h264
encode bigger than the Xvid, so we can squeeze as much detail
out of the source as we can. Because if you want an xvid at the same quality,
you would need a larger filesize for Xvid than for h264.

- Decent source ( some digital TV sources etc. ):
I would encode at about the same filesize. Or bigger h264.

- Shitty source ( usually bad TV sources ):
Considering the fact that you can't really get any considerable advantage
from encoding at larger filesizes, go for the smaller size. H264 might be an awesome codec if used correctly, but it can't do magic, it can't save a shitty source.


This is however only true if, like me, you value quality over filesize.

[[darkfire]]

I found 140mb is good enough for my encode of Negima. Maybe I could have gone less. The xvid I made was 220mb and it still has blocking and doesn't look quite as good as the h.264

[Medalist]

I type(say) it once and I'll say it again, the encode will never be the equivalent of the source...even if you filter it up a lot and use h.264 it still will lose somewhere along the video. You can only manipulate with what you have. By gaining quality somewhere(if ever) you'll lose somewhere to.

Originally Posted by [darkfire

]I found 140mb is good enough for my encode of Negima. Maybe I could have gone less. The xvid I made was 220mb and it still has blocking and doesn't look quite as good as the h.264

That's totally bipolar and by that I mean to great polar extremes.