Best file format to use for amvs?

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:19 pm

Wheee_It's_Me! wrote:
Zarxrax wrote:
Doom9 wrote:All codecs were tested in a 2 pass setup using the settings suggested by the developers.
Yes but the developers are basing the settings on an all around average of encoding speed, quality, compression. Furthermore, I wonder how many of those developers would suggest OTHER settings if they knew they were being used in such a comparison. Again though, the point I made was about compression/quality capability where as that Doom9 comparison is an "all around" comparison and largely subjective (ie based on his personal observations rather than using software to grade the differences between frames). Further, the sources they used were already compressed into MPEG-2 which would have a significant factor on many of those codecs when it comes to yet a THIRD encoding. The best means of testing quality and capability would be to create CLEAN rendered animation sequences of various complexity, outputting in uncompressed RGB. And then rather than rely on human visual testing use a program to actually compare the differences on the pixel level and give a TRULY accurate representation of the differences.

MPEG-2 source was used for because it represents real-world usage for the purpose of the comparison that was being done. The developers of all codecs of course knew the purpose and significance of the comparison when they submit their settings for it (and I believe one of the goals in the comparison is to achieve a certain reasonable encoding speed, to reflect real-world usage).

VP7 may not have been using the very best settings, but neither were the other codecs. In particular, x264 was using some quite fast settings as well, and could have seen probably a significant gain by using much slower settings.

In addition, x264 has been updated often since the comparison originally took place, and has improved noticeably. VP7 has since only received one or two very minor updates.

But as it stands, your original assertion was that VP6 beats H264. On2 themselves make the claim that VP7 is 50% more efficient than VP6 was. If I were to be gracious and give you that VP7 is equivalent in quality to x264, then by extension, it shows that VP6 is clearly worse than x264.

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:30 pm

Scintilla wrote: Well, sure. If we're looking for highest-quality footage for AMVs, then where else are we going to get it besides MPEG-2-encoded DVDs (until the next-generation formats become more prevalent)? The anime companies would never give us uncompressed video, so we have to start with MPEG-2 or worse.

You're not looking at the future of AMV making though. One technique I'm working on building a sample of is taking an existing piece of anime footage and essentially retracing every line in Illustrator and then painting each frame from scratch on an uber level, using techniques like these (tutorials by Getty):
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_i ... r_Eyes.png
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_i ... r_Hair.png
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_i ... _Shade.png

Sure teh kiddies and the posers will still be clockin with shit grade captures and piss poor encodes off the DVDs, bumbling around in Windows Movie Maker singin the "I'm A Big Kid Now" song as they dribble along in their proverbial training pants editing program, but those who wanna stay on the cutting edge of AMV creation and who want to move beyond the already cliche flash bang style of synching...yeah, this is where it's going.

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:40 pm

Zarxrax wrote: MPEG-2 source was used for because it represents real-world usage for the purpose of the comparison that was being done. The developers of all codecs of course knew the purpose and significance of the comparison when they submit their settings for it (and I believe one of the goals in the comparison is to achieve a certain reasonable encoding speed, to reflect real-world usage).

Based on what? I mean, there's no such thing. What's "real-world" to you isn't "real-world" to me. For I all know you've got some Dell trash box, in which case, of course you aren't going to be using optimum encoding settings, cause it'll be too slow. Where as my primary machine is a dual Xeon box, so I can splurge a bit on teh settings and it doesn't really take very long.

VP7 may not have been using the very best settings, but neither were the other codecs. In particular, x264 was using some quite fast settings as well, and could have seen probably a significant gain by using much slower settings.

...so now you're claiming that the source of your own argument is flawed.

In addition, x264 has been updated often since the comparison originally took place, and has improved noticeably. VP7 has since only received one or two very minor updates.

So the more updates the bigger your codec-penis?

But as it stands, your original assertion was that VP6 beats H264. On2 themselves make the claim that VP7 is 50% more efficient than VP6 was. If I were to be gracious and give you that VP7 is equivalent in quality to x264, then by extension, it shows that VP6 is clearly worse than x264.

Even if your assertion in x264 being equal to VP7 is correct, you're forgetting THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THIS ARGUMENT...

http://www.backwater-productions.net/_v ... r_amv.html

...you lose...badly. Hell I could compare shit encoded Sorenson clips and they'd STILL be better than x264 simply because they can be directly embedded into a Flash file.

Niotex · Post by **Niotex** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:41 pm

So what your getting at is that completely retraced video's such as what your suggesting here will not be compressed proper with h264? If you pose the statement like that then I'd like to see what direct uncompressed original animation would look like compressed and compared. VP7 wouldn't have problems with 720/1080p video I'm assuming correct?

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:51 pm

Niotex wrote:So what your getting at is that completely retraced video's such as what your suggesting here will not be compressed proper with h264?

h264 will compress them just fine, for most people the encoding quality will seem identical to VP6/7, RV10 and various other codecs. To professionals like me there will be a difference in encoding quality and compression, VP7 is superior to h264 using the proper settings. Although even to a professional like me the difference isn't going to be HUGE. The POINT is this:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_v ... r_amv.html

You CANNOT DO THAT with ANYTHING but VP6 and Sorenson...those are your ONLY two choices. Using video embedded in a Flash file ensures the MAXIMUM level of cross compatibility and it is instantly web friendly and can be easily streamed.

If you pose the statement like that then I'd like to see what direct uncompressed original animation would look like compressed and compared. VP7 wouldn't have problems with 720/1080p video I'm assuming correct?

From nyah:
http://www.free-codecs.com/download/VP6.htm

Compresses high-definition (HD) material with no restrictions on the encoder. VP6 can play back 1920x1080 HD material on a 2.5 GHz PC and 1280x720 material on a 1.5 GHz PC.
Supports real-time encoding at full D1 resolution.

Scintilla · Post by **Scintilla** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:07 pm

There's just one problem. <s>We are no longer the Knights Who Say Ni!</s>

Kevmasterflashdeluxe was in here on page 2 complaining that it was a pain to convert videos in MP4 to other formats when he needed to. Is VP7 in .FLV files any better in that regard?

Also, did you ever put together that guide...?

Kevmaster · Post by **Kevmaster** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:13 pm

All Topics in which Wheee_It's_Me! posts are getting damned intersting..

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Scintilla wrote:There's just one problem. <s>We are no longer the Knights Who Say Ni!</s>

Kevmasterflashdeluxe was in here on page 2 complaining that it was a pain to convert videos in MP4 to other formats when he needed to. Is VP7 in .FLV files any better in that regard?

VP6 technically, you can't use VP7 in Flash files (yet). As far as converting FLVs to other formats...*shrugs*...not a problem for me, I just use Total Video Converter...but then it converts pretty much anything (including MP4s). The OP said he was having problems with system crashes when converting, which I suspect is more of a problem with shit grade hardware (probably he's got like some box brand pee cee) than it is a software issue.

Also, did you ever put together that guide...?

I'm busy procrastinating at the moment.

I'm so good at it though. I should run for the President of Procrastination.

Kevmaster · Post by **Kevmaster** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:53 pm

Wheee_It's_Me! wrote:but then it converts pretty much anything (including MP4s). The OP said he was having problems with system crashes when converting, which I suspect is more of a problem with shit grade hardware (probably he's got like some box brand pee cee) than it is a software issue.

The Thing is..Yes, I can convert some of the MP4's with Total video convertor, but about 75% of all mp4's just dont want to convert and my comp freezes on them..

Wheee_It's_Me! · Post by **Wheee_It's_Me!** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:59 pm

Kevmasterflashdeluxe wrote: The Thing is..Yes, I can convert some of the MP4's with Total video convertor, but about 75% of all mp4's just dont want to convert and my comp freezes on them..

I'd get better memory, make sure it says "EEC"...and make sure it's expensive...for the SLOWER sticks. Low grade, factory seconds, white label memory is usually the culprit when it comes to system crashes/freezing. Teh processor and mother board can also contribute to it though too.