MPEG4-10 Encoding. Pretty Impressive

hmurchison · May 26, 2003 9:53PM

Maybe this is what excites Apple about MPEG4

The only problem is that Compressing a file that takes 60 Seconds with an MPEG4-2 Encoder take 2 Hours with MPEG4-10(h.264). As always you can never have too much power because there is always something that will eclipse the available power. Decoding isn't realtime yet as well. At any rate it bodes well for the future in anything involving Digital Video.

http://www.balooga.com/mpeg4.php3

EETimes Article on the possiblities.

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20020920S0049

fred_lj · May 26, 2003 10:04PM

All the more reason to look forward to the 970 and it's smash-bang FPU!

netromac · May 27, 2003 5:45AM

Here's a pic comparing the source and the MPEG4-10 file.

Very impressive.

hmurchison · May 27, 2003 8:51AM

The MPEG4-10 looks as good as the Source. Incidentally it looks like Microsoft does have a person on the H.264 Committee and can utilize the tech but since it's a fairly open standard Microsoft gains nothing really as their agenda is to push WM9.

kim kap sol · May 27, 2003 4:20PM

Well the lost quality is obviously the grass. I'm a little disappointed the grass looks that bad in the MPEG4-10 shot compared to the source.

kickaha · May 27, 2003 5:36PM

I suppose if your main priority was the grass, that *would* be bad.

Baaaaaaa. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

hmurchison · May 27, 2003 6:55PM

Yeah you can see the Codecs have problems with "fuzzy" textures.

But remember this is at a paltry 1.2Mbps and it's a still shot!

I don't see how someone could look at this and not be amazed. Even rounding up you're looking at 800MB for 2hrs of video at this rate. Not bad as it damn near looks like DVD quality.

very dangerous though. That means a feature length movie now would fit on one CD at good quality

bauman · May 27, 2003 7:10PM

You're disappointed in the grass?!? really, some people are just looking for things to complain about. The mpeg 4 -10 is almost identical to the source... apparently you've never suffered through a bad DiVX rip

hmmm.... mpeg2 brought CDs, mpeg3 DVD and mp3s, what will mpeg4 bring? We already have AAC audio, but will there be a physical medium?

bunge · May 27, 2003 9:27PM

The grass looks terrible and things like that can really stand out in a moving shot. I'll have to see a moving shot to know, but black areas in poorly made DVDs are like that now. It's not mindless complaining. It's just really distracting. I seem to have an eye for digital artifacts and they bother the crap out of me.

chucker · May 27, 2003 11:33PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bauman

hmmm.... mpeg2 brought CDs, mpeg3 DVD and mp3s, what will mpeg4 bring? We already have AAC audio, but will there be a physical medium?

Video CDs are MPEG1. Super Video CDs are MPEG2.

DVD Video is MPEG2, not 3 (I've never heard of an 'MPEG3').

MP3 is MPEG1 Audio Layer 3.

Maybe there'll be a DVD Super Video or something like that with MPEG4 video, but the quality would have to increase over what's shown above.

hmurchison · May 27, 2003 11:49PM

http://www.vinc.us/level2.asp?id=31&PID=16

Hot DVD Player right now is the Bravo D1. Primarily because it have DVI out which makes a visible difference but it also reads MPEG4 files. The first of many to come.

Quote:

Video Decoding:

? MPEG-2 MP@ML

? MPEG-4 Simple

? MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Profile**

Within 2 years MPEG4 Decoding from DVD or CD should be commonplace on most DVD playback devices. The trick will be upping the horsepower for MPEG4-10 which will take some time as it requires Pentium 4 class processing. Perhaps DSPs will be ready in a couple of years but at what cost?

netromac · May 28, 2003 1:11AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bauman

You're disappointed in the grass?!? really, some people are just looking for things to complain about.

Well, to some people grass is very important

I watch a lot of streamed soccer, and I get REALLY tired of the "waving-grass effect" that plages mpeg/wmv.

ghost_user_name · May 28, 2003 1:40AM

If we didn't have people nitpicking and complaining about things such as the grass, we would cease to advance the technology.

netromac · May 28, 2003 1:42AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LoCash

If we didn't have people nitpicking and complaining about things such as the grass, we would cease to advance the technology.

LOL

barto · May 28, 2003 3:48AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LoCash

If we didn't have people nitpicking and complaining about things such as the grass, we would cease to advance the technology.

QOTD!

xool · May 28, 2003 2:36PM

Is that a Stanfurd Cal Big Game I see? The Play perhaps?

hmurchison · May 28, 2003 2:56PM

No that's Cal against the Mighty Washington State Cougars.

wmf · May 28, 2003 10:22PM

I don't know if this is a good comparison, since the reference encoders tend to be pretty poor. And no one actually uses the reference encoders, either. So I'll keep looking for a comparison of a commercial H.264 encoder against a commercial MPEG-4 encoder.

BTW, Apple says they're planning to ship H.264 in the next few months.

bauman · May 28, 2003 11:12PM

\\me sinks quietly back into my chair

What's QOTD by the way?

Edit: Duh... Just figured it out. Quote of the Day for those who haven't

gardenofearthlydelights · May 29, 2003 8:07AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kim kap sol

Well the lost quality is obviously the grass. I'm a little disappointed the grass looks that bad in the MPEG4-10 shot compared to the source.

hmmm... maybe the grass is greener on the otherside... I'm going to sit on the fence on this one and see which way the wind blows. I don't want to put the cart in front of the horse and put my foot in my mouth, or I'll be eating crow again. Better safe than sorry, you know.

hairytroll · June 24, 2003 3:24AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wmf

I don't know if this is a good comparison, since the reference encoders tend to be pretty poor. And no one actually uses the reference encoders, either. So I'll keep looking for a comparison of a commercial H.264 encoder against a commercial MPEG-4 encoder.

"Poor" is relative. In this case, the "poor" reference H.264 encoder beat the more 'mature' MPEG4 encoder hands down.

And please bear in mind, the screenshots you see have been recompressed using an MPEG2 codec at a bit rate of 8Mbps in order to play from a DVD on a consumer DVD player. Therefore the MPEG2 codec introduced artifacts on top of those introduced by the H.264 algorithm.

The uncompressed, or 'pure' H.264 decoded video looks quite a bit better.

Also, the encoder I used for the evaluation was circa December of 2001. I have been using the latest H.264 encoder for a High Definition (1080i, or 1920x1080) test, and the results are quite incredible. The grass still gets hammered however. The algorithm tends favor movement over static backgrounds. But it does a great job of suppressing any breakup, even at low bit rates.

MPEG4-10 Encoding. Pretty Impressive

Comments