Zarx264gui3 beta test
- mirkosp
- The Absolute Mudman
- Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:24 am
- Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃
- Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
- Contact:
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
There *is* an existing --device patch. Google brought me here, I'm not sure if it has the most up-to-date version of the patch, but I know that a while back Firesledge used a device patch in a x264 build he made and it worked as intended.
- l33tmeatwad
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:22 pm
- Location: Christiansburg, VA
- Contact:
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
I'm not suggesting settings for all devices as currently zarx264gui doesn't even have all the levels as options in that dropdown. What I'm suggesting is just an extra drop down that will set a few limits so that it will produce and encode compatible with most mainstream hardware devices with a small variety of choices. While it's ideal to be able to max out some settings, the PS3 from what I remember supports more reference frames than the 360, but if you encoded by the 360 specs it would work on both and most mainstream Blu-ray players. While you could probably squeeze a bit more quality out of optimizing for the PS3, the difference would be negligible. Using safe settings like HP@L4.1 w/ Ref=3 & bframes=3 would work on almost all devices that support 1080p. Most devices that only support 720p would be fine with just HP@L3.1 without any additional restrictions as I know for a fact that the original Galaxy S, iPad, & iPhone 4 support video encoded to this spec (iPhone 4 most likely gained support for HP through an update). Having like "PS3, 360, iPad 3/4, iPhone 5, New Android", "iPad 1/2, iPhone 4, Old Android" and then a "Legacy device" setting would probably be enough as a catch all if configured in the middle ground.
Software & Guides: AMVpack | AMV 101 | AviSynth 101 | VapourSynth 101
PixelBlended Studios: Website | Twitter | YouTube
PixelBlended Studios: Website | Twitter | YouTube
-
- Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:26 am
- Status: better than you
- Contact:
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
The issue wasn't that the settings were wrong, it was more they were unconfirmed. It was decided that "good guesses" were not acceptable for actual enforced restrictions. See IRC logs I guess, it wasn't in debate very long though. Most encoder GUIs have their own settings you can jack anyway.
- Zarxrax
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:37 pm
- Contact:
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
For the level 3.1, how many reference and bframes are to be supported?
- l33tmeatwad
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:22 pm
- Location: Christiansburg, VA
- Contact:
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
The limitation for bframes isn't really documented and tends to be device specific, but I know most devices don't like more than 3-6 for HD material...reference frames vary based on resolution as documented in the h264/AVC wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVCZarxrax wrote:For the level 3.1, how many reference and bframes are to be supported?
Software & Guides: AMVpack | AMV 101 | AviSynth 101 | VapourSynth 101
PixelBlended Studios: Website | Twitter | YouTube
PixelBlended Studios: Website | Twitter | YouTube
- Zarxrax
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:37 pm
- Contact:
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
Right. I was planning to limit to 3 reference frames and 3 bframes for the level 4.1 option.
For 3.0/baseline, bframes are not supported, and I have put 1 reference frame.
I'm not really sure what benefit there would be for a level 3.1 option. If I keep the references and bframes at 3, wouldn't this essentially be almost the same as the level 4.1 option?
I mean, I know the levels are quite different, but as long as x264 isn't strictly enforcing anything, then just so far as my own implementation goes I'm saying I dont think there would be any difference.
For 3.0/baseline, bframes are not supported, and I have put 1 reference frame.
I'm not really sure what benefit there would be for a level 3.1 option. If I keep the references and bframes at 3, wouldn't this essentially be almost the same as the level 4.1 option?
I mean, I know the levels are quite different, but as long as x264 isn't strictly enforcing anything, then just so far as my own implementation goes I'm saying I dont think there would be any difference.
- l33tmeatwad
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:22 pm
- Location: Christiansburg, VA
- Contact:
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
Devices read the level and won't play it if it is not flagged with the level "it supports", so adding 3.1 gives users the freedom to encode for devices such as the iPad 1/2, iPhone 4(S), and most older Android devices (for resolutions up to 1280x720). Level 4.1 added 1080p, that's the main difference between them (and also allows more reference frames and a higher framerate for 720p).Zarxrax wrote:I'm not really sure what benefit there would be for a level 3.1 option. If I keep the references and bframes at 3, wouldn't this essentially be almost the same as the level 4.1 option?
Software & Guides: AMVpack | AMV 101 | AviSynth 101 | VapourSynth 101
PixelBlended Studios: Website | Twitter | YouTube
PixelBlended Studios: Website | Twitter | YouTube
- Zarxrax
- Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2001 6:37 pm
- Contact:
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
Do you know if most of those devices support 3 references and bframes, or should I go with something more conservative?
- l33tmeatwad
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:22 pm
- Location: Christiansburg, VA
- Contact:
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
All of those support at LEAST that, so that would be a fairly safe setting (speaking generally, as I can't account for ALL andorid devices that support 3.1). It should also be noted, while some devices (such as the iPad 1 & iPhone 4) only mention supporting Main Profile in their specs list, they actually do support High Profile, so that should be safe to use as well.Zarxrax wrote:Do you know if most of those devices support 3 references and bframes, or should I go with something more conservative?
Software & Guides: AMVpack | AMV 101 | AviSynth 101 | VapourSynth 101
PixelBlended Studios: Website | Twitter | YouTube
PixelBlended Studios: Website | Twitter | YouTube
-
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:07 pm
Re: Zarx264gui3 beta test
Does zeranoe version http://ffmpeg.zeranoe.com/builds/ works with zarx