CodeBlocks

Sunday 17 February 2013


x264 Settings Comparison Part : 2 - Presets - Draft

In this post I want to look at the various built in x264 presets and its performance. Although
Handbrake doesn't allow native support for the x264 presets. To enable them you have to pass the parameters in the console window found at the bottom of the Advanced Tab. Here is a list of the presets and the parameters required, placebo preset omitted.

Make sure that only the values down below are inside the console window.

  1. Very Slow 
    • ref=16: bframes=8: b-adapt=2: direct=auto: me=umh: merange=24: subq=10: rc-lookahead=60: analyse=all: trellis=2 
  2. Slower 
    • ref=8: b-adapt=2: direct=auto: me=umh: subq=9: rc-lookahead=60: analyse=all: trellis=2 
  3. Slow 
    • ref=5: b-adapt=2: direct=auto: me=umh: subq=8: rc-lookahead=50 
  4. Medium
    • Default Settings of handbrake with no parameters in the console window
  5. Fast 
    • ref=2: weightp=1: subq=6: rc-lookahead=30 
  6. Faster 
    • ref=2: mixed-refs=0: weightp=1: subq=4: rc-lookahead=20
  7. Very Fast 
    • ref=1: mixed-refs=0: weightp=1: subq=2: rc-lookahead=10: trellis=0
  8. Super  Fast
    • ref=1: mixed-refs=0: weightp=1: subq=1: rc-lookahead=0: analyse=i8x8,i4x4: trellis=0: mbtree=0
  9. Ultra Fast  
    • ref=1: bframes=0: cabac=0: 8x8dct=0: weightp=0: me=dia: subq=0: rc-lookahead=0: analyse=none: trellis=0: aq-mode=0: no-deblock=1: scenecut=0: mbtree=0

Preset Performance

Compression - Lower is better
Performance - Higher is better  

Futurama SD
Cartoons and animation are some of the easier content to process and compress, the following graph shows how each preset affected the filesize(in Kilobytes) represented by the darker area and performance(average frames per second) shown by the lighter area of the graph.
Click to enlarge

 As you can see the compression does not scale the same as the performance, with the performance scaling at a rather stable rate. And the filesize rises towards the medium preset then down again  to the very fast preset, then spikes very sharply with super fast and ultra fast more than doubling the filesize.

the very slow, slower and slow offered the best compression.Very slow had 6.43% more compression but 57% slower than slower preset.  Of course the file size would not be completely represent the image quality and visual artefacts that can occur with using faster presets.

Percentage difference in speed and compression compared to medium
The above graph shows a comparison of how much speed one loses relative to the compression gained in relation to medium. Huge performance loss with very minimal compression gained when using the slower presets and significant performanced gained with little compression loss up to the very fast preset.

The next section will try and discover if any compression artefacts were introduced with the faster presents, and how closely the other presets represent the original footage.

Image Quality

Open each image in a new tab then using ctrl+mouse Scroll to stretch image bigger.

Still Images

Very Slow
Slower

Slow






Medium








Fast
Faster








Super Fast
Ultra Fast










The average image quality is very consistent which is what you would expect using CRF, only closer inspection one can see that that there are some if very few compression artefacts around benders left arm on the faster presets, but not much.

Smaller Motion Detail

Very Slow
Slower






Slow

Medium








Fast
Faster








Super Fast
Ultra Fast










Again some noticeable artefacts are introduced with the faster presets, with medium retaining enough detail to make it difficult to distinguish it from the slower presets.

Real Steel SD 
When we take a look at the compression and performance of a standard definition file, the trends are similar to that of Futurama. With the slower presets having smaller file sizes but significantly slower, with super fast and ultra fast significantly larger. 

Click to enlarge

Percentage difference in speed and compression compared to medium
Same trend with the comparison as seen with Futurama, with the exception that a lot more speed is gained at the faster settings.

Image Quality

Open each image in a new tab then using ctrl+mouse Scroll to stretch image bigger.

Still Images

Original
Very Slow







Slower
Slow






Medium
Fast







Faster
Very Fast







Super Fast
Ultra Fast







Telling the difference between the still images are difficult, with the slower presets retaining some of the finer details and the faster presets blending of detail, however not very noticable.

 Smaller Motion Detail

Original
Very Slow










Slower
Slow

Medium
Fast
Faster
Very Fast

Super Fast
Ultra Fast









Sunday 10 February 2013

x264 Settings Comparison Part : 1 - Introduction

x264 Settings Comparison Part : 1 - Introduction

Introduction

x264 is one implementation of the H264 standard, it is also one of the best implementation of the standard, coming with a wide variety settings. Unfortunately not all settings are equal when it comes to compression, in the next series of post I want to determine how big of an influence most of the settings have.

Methodology

To do this I'll be using Handbrake video encoder v0.9.8 to conduct as series of video encodings each encoding will have one setting that differ from the default settings (The default Handbrake settings are also the Medium x264 preset settings), then see how that particular setting influences the compression and speed.

The settings that will be covered are:
  1. x264 Presets
  2. Subpixel ME & Mode Decision
  3. Motion Estimation Method
  4. Adaptive Direct Mode
  5. Adapative B-Frames
  6. Reference Frames
  7. Maximum B-Frames
    1. Fast
    2. Optimal
  8. Cabac
  9. 8x8 Transform
  10. Weighted P-Frames
  11. DCT-Decimate
  12. Partitions
  13. Trellis
In other words all the settings available in Handbrake, x264 as a lot more settings that can be accessible via the console in the "Advanced Tab", this will only be utilised when testing the presets of x264, as that is the only to apply them in Handbrake.

Further more all encoding will use a Constant Rate Factor(CRF) of 18. This ensure that all videos have a consistent quality, thus if a encoded file differ in size it would be as a result of the isolated setting. It is however important to note that CRF is not a perfect quality assessment tool and we will further be looking at 3 types of screen shots of the encoded file, to find out if any visual artefacts were introduced.
  1. Still images
  2. High motion
  3. High texture complexity
This process will be repeated on Standard definition(SD) Cartoons, SD life action motion and High definition(HD) live action motion.

Navigation
  1. Introduction
  2. Presets 
  3. Subme