What program and codec are you using to encode H.264? Can you tell me what it is? Virtualdub dosen't show it, only H.263.
Can you point me towards a encoder download, or the codec to encode? Thanks.
I ask because the quality of Zombie Ate my Neighbors was really good.
Yeah I just found X264 from http://x264.nl/
Works great. I dunno if what you use is a Windows or Linux encoder, but this one works with virtualdub and windows ;P
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Does it automatically encode the file to avi by itself or do you have to manually encode it by each minute or so?
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
Actually I kinda hate this codec. If you take a resolution higher then 800x600 the framerate crashs and starts skipping frames. I look at my CPU load and it reads %100 on my 3.4ghz machine too.
Also I noticed everything looks more blurry, xvid has some pixelation but its far more sharp
XVID with a 1024x768 movie only shows %50 CPU use
I get the same result with 3 H.264 codecs (Element H.264 codec, X264 codec, FFDSHOW H.264 codec)
Small res's are fine, once you blow them up thou the comp can't handle it.
(Edit) Just ran the boulderdash movie which is 320x240 and I get %60 CPU use, I run a 640x480 XVID movie and I get %33 use.
I think I'm sticking with XVID, also the XVID's less blurry (But sometimes has artifacts)
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
It all depends on which media player you have (some media player needs/takes more cpu than a average media player) and what kind of ghz you have. If you have for example Intel Pentium 4 HT (Hyper thread-technology) then you should be able to play the file very well, although I have Intel Pentium 4 2,8 ghz and never had annny kind of problem or with my cpu.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
Try encodeing a 1024x768 video with H.264, its brutal on CPUs
(EDIT) I just did research on it, and now I know how it all works
Its a bi-cubic resampleing codec with XVID like compression. What happens when you play it back, its using a bi-cubic resampleing agent which is like Full Screen Anti-Aliasing, area's that are normally blocky are blurred in and match the pixels around them. Unfortunetly this also slightly blurs the whole image.
You know how much AA kills framerates in a PC game, this is pretty much the same thing
And yes I own a P4 with hyperthreading, and it still peaks at %100 if I run it at 640x480 H.264 (Something else the artical touched on, no current CPU's could handle high pixel count with h.264)
Which is why its awesome for our purpose :) (which is low res, 256x240 usually)
I'll try to convince DeHackEd to post some size info and comparison of xvid vs h264.
Okay, here's my (brief) investigation.
I encoded a short DVD movie segment. Athlon-XP 2500+, 850x510, 24 FPS. CPU usage is ~45%. I don't know what you're complaining about - this is a reasonable number to me.
As for the codec itself, here's a side-by-side comparison of a Rockman 2 clip.
XVID: 2 pass, bitrate target=300, bframes=2 (bitrate goes even higher without it), GMC
http://dehacked.2y.net/rm2-bubbleman-xvid.avi
3.7 MB (300 KBit target was basically ignored)
H264: 3 pass, bitrate target=300, no bframes, frameref=12, allow small motion blocks.
http://dehacked.2y.net/rm2-bubbleman-x264.avi
1.1 MB
Both AVIs come from identical input sources, and do not include sound.
Please don't use download accelerators to download these. The server only provides a maximum of 80 KB/sec and you can't go higher.
How are you getting the filesize so damn small? I try over and over again and it always comes up to 2.5MB with H.264 codec
(edit) Duh, I had the bitrate too high at 800.
I said it was fine at 320x240, blowing it up to 640x480 just blows away my CPU thou
(Edit2) After encodeing videos at various sizes etc, I have confirmed what I have experienced and what other websites have said. At 320X240 its great, bitrates are clean, framerates high and CPU use is low.
I encoded my own videos at 320x240, get the same CPU use and size as your video with different sources (Games, ads, porn) and when I goto 640x480 my computer chokes on the resolution and takes a nosedive.
I even took your megaman clip, resized it to 640x480 and encoded it with H.264 and the final clip choked.
I admit H.264 is better then XVID, but to me I see ALITTLE blurring, but its better then the "voids" I see in frames. But as soon as I make the movie bigger, it chokes.
My one source of a video at 1024x768 (Game movie recording) with XVID only peaks at %50-60 CPU, H.264 its showing only one frame every 4 seconds.
Remember that you shouldn't resize the input.
If you are recording a NES video (NES always outputs at 256x224 (NTSC) or 256x240 (PAL)), you should _not_ resize it to any other size prior to encoding.
If you resize it, you'll lose quality.
But, you _are_ encouraged to specify the aspect ratio (such as 4:3) to the AVI file.
The player can resize the movie to any size it wants (and if the aspect ratio is given, it'll take it into account) and it usually is done using the acceleration features of the display card, so it doesn't add any encoding/decoding overhead.
But I understand if you are encoding a movie of a 3D game which should be rendered at as high resolution as possible. But only if the original (the game) is indeed as high resolution.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Two-pass x264 (5.4 MB)
http://stud.cmd.hro.nl/0766400/zooi/x264_500KBS_2PASS.avi
Two-pass DivX (5.4 MB)
http://stud.cmd.hro.nl/0766400/zooi/DivX_500KBS_2PASS.avi
x264 looks better, with much less blockyness and more detail. There's not supposed to be sound in this movie. If I play the x264 movie back in Windows Media Player at 200% size, it results in about 10% CPU power being used (3.0GHz P4 with HTT). The DivX takes up about 4%.
Note that this obviously can't really be used to draw conclusions for game videos. :p
Playing the movie back at %200 size in mediaplayer dosen't do much, its resizing the pixel ratio of the movie ITSELF which eats up all the CPU power.
Try encodeing and playing back a 640x480 source, you'll see what I mean by CPU intensive once you play it back. I'll make a small 640x480 clip to show you.
Valagard, did you read what I posted? Did you understand it?
Bisqwit wrote:
Remember that you shouldn't resize the input.
If you are recording a NES video (NES always outputs at 256x224 (NTSC) or 256x240 (PAL)), you should _not_ resize it to any other size prior to encoding.
If you resize it, you'll lose quality.
But, you _are_ encouraged to specify the aspect ratio (such as 4:3) to the AVI file.
The player can resize the movie to any size it wants (and if the aspect ratio is given, it'll take it into account) and it usually is done using the acceleration features of the display card, so it doesn't add any encoding/decoding overhead.
But I understand if you are encoding a movie of a 3D game which should be rendered at as high resolution as possible. But only if the original (the game) is indeed as high resolution.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Valagard wrote:
Playing the movie back at %200 size in mediaplayer dosen't do much, its resizing the pixel ratio of the movie ITSELF which eats up all the CPU power.
Try encodeing and playing back a 640x480 source, you'll see what I mean by CPU intensive once you play it back. I'll make a small 640x480 clip to show you.
The movies I posted were 512x408 (the x264 one is 512x416 because x264 movies need to be a multiple of 16x16 and must be letterboxed to conform). I don't see how playing back a 640x480 movie in x264 would take much more CPU power than this one.
I don't see why you would want to change the pixel ratio of a movie, which distorts the image.
I got a video which I found there was a encodeing problem with the last one (It was 119FPS) which the H.264 codec coulden't handle
Anyways here's a XVID clip at http://members.shaw.ca/nezgreengoblin/Clipxvid.avi at 640x480 at 1022KBPS
And here's a H.264 clip at http://members.shaw.ca/nezgreengoblin/ClipH.264.avi at 640x480 at 1022KBPS
My CPU use with the XVID is average at %35, while the H.264 averages at %56. Still playable on my system, but on a 1.5ghz system I doubt the H.264 clip would be very playable.
But yeah, for our use with NES, SNES and GBA the codec is completely usefull.
Joined: 11/22/2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Valagard wrote:
I got a video which I found there was a encodeing problem with the last one (It was 119FPS) which the H.264 codec coulden't handle
Anyways here's a XVID clip at http://members.shaw.ca/nezgreengoblin/Clipxvid.avi at 640x480 at 1022KBPS
And here's a H.264 clip at http://members.shaw.ca/nezgreengoblin/ClipH.264.avi at 640x480 at 1022KBPS
My CPU use with the XVID is average at %35, while the H.264 averages at %56. Still playable on my system, but on a 1.5ghz system I doubt the H.264 clip would be very playable
XviD was 4% - 12% for me.
x264 was 10% - 24%. I use a 3.0GHz P4 with HTT.
I know, the original clip I was using from a anime was at 119FPS. 119FPS with XVID was about %50 use, encoded with H.264 it ate up all my speed and was choppy as hell.
But yeah at 23.976FPS is completely playable with H.264
If we record a 60FPS source at 640x480 I am sure it would kill the H.264 codec
So unless we start makeing 640x480 vids at 60FPS I doubt we will have a problem ;P
My arguement is that with the two clips I posted, the H.264 clip is smaller and has more quality, but eats up more CPU time
(EDIT) From research I have done, it was apple that developed that codec. Cool huh? But yeah like I said its a Bi-cubic nearest sample codec like Full Screen Anti-Aliasing and looks a HELL of alot better then XVID's "voids" as I call them (You see them in the MegaMan clip in black space easily) but to -me- I notice the image is de-sharpend just the slightest bit.
Oh if anybody wants the h.264 codec goto that website I posted earlier. Its -ALOT- easier to encode with then XVID.
I find it funny that people complain about encodeing time with H.264 compaired to XVID, when XVID I have to often make 3-4 encodes of a movie to find a decent quality that works throughout the WHOLE video, while H.264 I can do sample test clips, and once I find what I like I can encode the whole video in one try.
The H.264 codec thou is ALOT better.
Also I remind you that they update the H.264 codec daily
(Edit2) Also anybody know of encodeing apps for Windows? Mplayer is just for linux (Bleh ;P) but I want to see if the apps influence encodeing speed, like it does for MPEG4 encodes
But yeah like I said its a Bi-cubic nearest sample codec like Full Screen Anti-Aliasing
I believe that's only the deblocking filter you're describing.
This page explains the actual H.264 standard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H264Valagard wrote:
Also I remind you that they update the H.264 codec daily
I believe you're referring to x264, which is just one implementation of H.264 encoder&decoder.
xvid : 26 to 33%
h264 : 79 to 91%
athlon 1 ghz cpu (yeah, those still run :( ) with media player classic.
as for the quality, I dont see any "drastic" difference... could someone explain ?
I usually have problem watching any video with 800x600 or more resolution ; typic killing codec is wmv9... so my case might be very special :)
I never sleep, 'cause sleep is the cousin of death - NAS
I know, the original clip I was using from a anime was at 119FPS. 119FPS with XVID was about %50 use, encoded with H.264 it ate up all my speed and was choppy as hell.
119 FPS!? Why would you encode something at 119 fps. No source would ever be like that (I guess a game might be) because our eyes register that quickly. Anime would DEFINATELY not be drawn at that speed either, can you imaging drawing 119 images for each second? Anime tends to be pretty low FPS.
(Edit2) Also anybody know of encodeing apps for Windows? Mplayer is just for linux (Bleh ;P) but I want to see if the apps influence encodeing speed, like it does for MPEG4 encodes
I use mplayer in windows, so it must not be linux only.
Oh we arn't compairing quality really since the source is a XVID.
I just made two clips of it to show you it done with XVID, and one with H.264 and how CPU extensive the two of them are.
The H.264 codec will indeed pack in more quality, but like I said its murder on CPU's
(Edit) Yes the video was indeed 119FPS, just checked with GSpot
