1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Which compression format?

Discussion in 'MSI AfterBurner Overclock Application Discussion' started by Octopuss, Feb 12, 2015.

  1. Octopuss

    Octopuss Master Guru

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    53
    GPU:
    -
    I've been using Lagarith for a long time, but lately I've realized it's a bit impractical if I want to capture more than like 15 minutes of video. Of course I could just do it in downscaled resolution, but I'd like to maintain decent quality (and Youtube simply butchers everything so badly that 720p is mostly pointless).

    Which of the other available codecs would you suggest to use for full frame recording when quality is a priority right after file size, and when there's - hopefully - enough CPU performance?
     
  2. De-M-oN

    De-M-oN Active Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080
    You should stay at lossless codec for capture.

    Later Filter & Encoder have to work with the material you give them.

    720p isnt pointless. In fact resolution is the most important thing at youtube.

    Higher resolution - higher quality levels available and the lower ones lose slight less quality within their bitrate.

    Best youtube quality would be 3200x1800 source video and watching the video at their 4k level, which is available at 3200x1800.

    4k runs at up to 25 mbit, while their 1080p has only 4000 kbit ;)

    And 720p runs only with 2000 kbit.

    http://www.letsplayforum.de/index.php/Thread/138529-MagicYUV-Ein-neuer-Lossless-Codec/

    lessens cpu, but a little bit higher filesize.
     
  3. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,391
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    I thought YT video 720p was 4000 and 1080p 8000
     
  4. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,738
    Likes Received:
    2,906
    GPU:
    2080Ti @h2o
    if 4k stream is 25Mbit, my internet download speed isn't even be sufficient :D
     

  5. De-M-oN

    De-M-oN Active Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080
    lol no. Even not at 60fps.

    At 60fps the 1080p is at 6000 kbit.
     
  6. Haldi

    Haldi Master Guru

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    R9-290 CF
    i prefer MJPEG 85% Quality.
    If you're gonna upload to youtube the quality is gonna be horrible anways....

    But for recording 5760x1080 that's the only way... i only have a 128gb SSD free for recording.... and 5minutes uncompressed is about 40gb in size.
     
  7. Octopuss

    Octopuss Master Guru

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    53
    GPU:
    -
    Yeah I think it doesn't matter for Youtube, it would look like Doom no matter what.
    The main problem is processing large files. Some 15 minutes long video in full frame is roughly 50-60GB in size, and that takes bloody ages.
    I reencode everything into x264, so the final size is perfectly fine, but the input is horrible.
    I think I will try recording 30 minutes of footage (if it fits onto my 500GB disk) and try to feed it into MeGui just for kicks.

    I don't understand this. What do you mean?
     
  8. De-M-oN

    De-M-oN Active Member

    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080
    And you REALLY seriously think a bad source wont worsen the quality at youtube?

    If so: Youre wrong mate.

    Multiple lossy encodes are bad for filter and encoder. They have to work with the precompressed material that you give to them - and that results in worse possible efficiency and worse quality.

    http://abload.de/img/crf252160p60fps.mp4_s4squk.png vs http://abload.de/img/crf302160p60fps.mp4_soeod3.png

    And the first image is just crf25. rather bad. CRF18 would be a good value

    So here a comparison CRF18 vs CRF26,5:

    http://abload.de/img/crf1802160p60fps.mp4_6auo6.png vs http://abload.de/img/crf2652160p60fps_2.mpxiu9a.png

    Compare her face, her left knee, the grey wall behind her legs and so on.

    And that are only the differences in the CRF values, all videos are captured lossless.

    Using lossy capture like mjpg or any other worsens the situation even more of course.
    And also your own later filter and encoder -> they have to work with your precompressed lossy material. Of course it ends up worse than possible.

    Audio filter as well - they have to work with what you give to them. The audio filter can work worse as well then.

    Multiple lossy encodes are always bad. This implies youtube.

    You dont need uncompressed. There are many lossless compression codecs, like MagicYUV, Lagarith, UTVideo and so on. And if you set colorspace to YUV 4:2:0 / YV12 you save even more space and cpu and beside of the colorspace still lossless coded.

    Remember that 5760x1080 isnt very pleasant aspect ratio to someone with single monitor setup. So if you plan to upload your videos to youtube, you shouldnt use that aspect ratio anyway if you dont want to force your viewers to watch a very thin video if they dont have 3 monitors like you.

    The bitrate given by youtube.
     
  9. Octopuss

    Octopuss Master Guru

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    53
    GPU:
    -
    What exactly is colorspace and what does it mean for me?

    Also, what about the other lossless codecs that are available in AB? I've only ever used Lagarith so I have no idea about the differences and advantages.
     
  10. Haldi

    Haldi Master Guru

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    R9-290 CF
    Oh... i never said that! You're absolutly right!
    What i'm implying is that video quality on youtube is THAT bad that even a lossy/crappy input file does NOT make it at first glance viewable worse than a lossless input file.

    In my case Youtube Maximum resolution is 4k So i encode all my videos in h264 CRF23 4090x720
    So there is absolutly no way the quality can be good :( therefore i'd rather upload a 1gb file than a 15gb file... i hate my upload!



    Gotta try that out! Thx.
    I've made a few Benchmarks with Metro Last Light (Benchmark scene) uncompressed, MJPG, RTV1 but never tried other lossless custom codecs.



    Well thats their own fault then, isnt it ? :flip2:


    Greetings
    Haldi
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2015

  11. Haldi

    Haldi Master Guru

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    R9-290 CF
    Okay... i've done some Tests. With Metro Last Light Benchmark Tool, 6048x1080

    I'm heavy impressed how awesome Lagarith works with YV12 and Multithreading on my System.
    Only 8.4 GB Filesize!

    [​IMG]

    i'm not sure if x264 truly works.... first time i tried it crashed after 80 seconds! 2nd time i got window poping up and instantly vanishing (ingame -.o) right after i was done recording.... so it did for this short 2minutes 45 seconds of Benchmark duration. The full video is working. 1.16gb is extremly small.

    But yeah. You can see all Metro Benchmark Tool generated files, the CPU load (gotta love Afterburner Log and Log reader :D ) and some picture quality comparison here:
    http://www.haldi.square7.ch/metro/
     
  12. Octopuss

    Octopuss Master Guru

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    53
    GPU:
    -
    Holy crap, I've just tried switching to YV12 (whatever that does) from RGB, and 5 minutes of footage is exactly half the size (24 vs 12GB)!! I think recording in full frame is going to be much less of a pain in the ass from now on!
     
  13. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,391
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    Im uploading winamp milkdrop visuals, but yeah I always get upset with poor YT output.. So far mov and mkv seem to have "the best" image after YT converted and uploaded to their servers..

    Im using intel quicksync and MSI AB mkv, best quality and 8-10k bitrate..

    How can I improve things here, or are those lossless codecs only solution? Im also trying to say ~300-500mb max for lets say 6-8min video @ 720p.
     
  14. Octopuss

    Octopuss Master Guru

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    53
    GPU:
    -
    This is nonsense, those are just container formats, and are absolutely unrelated to quality in any way. You're mixing things up I think.


    300-500MB in what way? Do you mean the size of the file right after you capture the footage, as in, unaltered by anything? If yes, then forget it. 6 minutes with lagarith downscaled to 720p is a bit under 10GB, and that's using YV12. Of course if you convert it to x264 afterwards, the size would be dramatically different.
     
  15. Haldi

    Haldi Master Guru

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    R9-290 CF
    Color space.
    RGB is 4:4:4 and YV12 is 4:2:0

    I've used 4:2:0 on MagicYUV, Lagarith and UtVideo, and yet Lagarith is still half the size of the others... they do a great job there.
     

  16. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,391
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    Mp4 compression format looks worse then mkv or mov, that's if I compare fraps raw file vs compressed later - using x264. For mp4 I have to use at least 2-4k higher bitrate to have less mini squares in it..


    I was thinking @ end result (compressed format), Im not gonna bother uploading 10gb file to YT, would take for ages. Thanks anyway :)
     
  17. Anarion

    Anarion Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,517
    Likes Received:
    308
    GPU:
    GeForce GTX 1070
    Ehm... Mp4 is a container like mkv. It makes zero difference to image quality. Mkv supports pretty much any video and audio format. (x264 is encoder that outputs H.264/AVC video.)

    I personally record in lossless RGB (usually MagicYUV) and then do encode it to h.264. I use crf 16 usually and slow preset, tune film (and I do the colour space conversion properly). For audio I use flac and mkv is my container of choice. 16 crf is overkill but in if the source material is not very "high frequency", the bitrate can be quite low.

    The latest file that I encoded was some Swtor stuff that was almost 1h and 30 minutes long. The encoded file was about 4,5GB and the quality was excellent. I used medium preset so it could have been smaller. With 17 or 18 crf it would have been even smaller but the quality would still be good.
     
  18. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,391
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    Well if I used AVC - any video converter and chose mp4 @ 8000kbits it looked like mkv @ 6000kbits..
     
  19. Anarion

    Anarion Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,517
    Likes Received:
    308
    GPU:
    GeForce GTX 1070
    Either the tool you use is **** and it does something wrong and uses different encoding options for some weird reasons. H.264/AVC video you encoded with same settings will look 100% the same in any container. They have the same video. What you are basically saying is that "this jpg looks worse in rar and better in zip."

    If you want constant quality I'd highly recommend ditching CBR/ABR mode in favour of CRF. CBR is pretty useless in anything other than real time streaming where bit rate must stay the same. CBR is also bad because it uses too high bitrate in situations where it's not needed and not too high when higher would be needed. When you use CRF the quality will stay consistent and the bitrate is not fixed. Two pass ABR mode would be the second best option (if you must know the final file size).

    By the way, VirtualDub with external encoders makes life easy.

    Also... Quicksync gives ├╝ber ****ty quality compared to x264. Not all encoders are equal.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2015
  20. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    16,391
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    GPU:
    Zotac GTX980Ti OC
    No, what Im saying is mp4 is like jpeg and looks worse then mkv or mov that looks like png.

    The program is perfectly fine, it used cuda gpu + cpu x264 and mp4 looked worse, by mkv its only cpu part doing x264. Guess I should blame nvidia ****ty encoder then..


    Then why is raw fraps file converted to mvk also smaller at higher bitrate if its exactly the same container as mp4?
     

Share This Page