Categories

Discussion: 10-bit h264

(Pic not related)

Remember the transition from XviD to h264? Well, soon, 10-bit h264 will replace 8-bit h264.

Advantages
Without going into encoder speak, 10-bit h264 can achieve a same level of quality as 8-bit h264, but at a lower filesize.

Disadvantages
10-bit h264 is not widely supported yet.

More info on 10-bit h264 | More | More

This is simply a discussion your opinions of 10-bit h264.

810 comments to Discussion: 10-bit h264

  • “Disadvantages
    10-bit h264 is not widely supported yet.”

    plus it’s encoding speed is slower. From my testing (same settings used: CRF17 placebo etc):

    Megachu 01
    10-bit 8-bit
    encoding time: 3h 3m 3s 2h 18m 35s
    filesize: 106 mb 127 mb
    avg bitrate 450 kbps 535 kbps

    yesterday I encoded 1,5h video I filmed with my friends using 10-bit with placebo and it took ~25 hours using two-pass =P I only use two-pass with videos I’ve filmed, because they contain so much noise and I don’t want to bloat filesizes so much so I set a certain bitrate and the result’s good to me.

    and encoding time won’t be that bad if the encoder only has fast enough computer, and what I remember holo has core i7 @ 4 GHz if I’m right? I myself have C2Q Q9550 @3,4 GHz.

    but yeah ehe sorry my long talk, just continue like you always do I don’t have anything anymore^^

  • Rick

    Opensuse Linux with packman repo and Ubuntu with PPA repo, have the latest working versions of MPlayer,VLC, etc. I mainly use SMPlayer front-end for MPlayer, and never had a problem.

    On my main box with Opensuse 11.4, all the hi10p samples work great. The Dantalian hi10p m.3.3.w version given at the start of this thread looks great.

    Only “drawback”, is that uses uses 10~20% more CPU than plain conventional 8 bit h264 on high density-fast moving animation, like the beginning of Dantalian, but weights nearly half the size of the Commie version. That being 30~40% CPU on 8-bit h264 and 40~60% on 10bit h264 on a single core on a 2 year old PhenomII X4 810.

    I would love to see the Kore wa Zombie BDs released as hi10p.

    Size has grown uncontrollably in recent years, but the king is still Thora. jajja

  • OtaK

    It’s the best for anime, simply because 10b is way better for plain surfaces…that anime is almost exclusively made of.

  • Nipaa

    I’ve encoded Clannad AS NCOP from the BDMV, it’s half the size from Doki’s release and still looks better.
    Played just fine with MPC-HC v1.5.2.3363.

    See for yourself.
    http://www.mediafire.com/?7yhyoj86u1duu37

  • Mathew Todd

    from WD forum … “none of the current Sigma chips support anything beyond HP@L4.1… Decoding Level 5 and above and Hi10 and any higher profiles are not supported…”

    Which means that WD TV series, as well as all of the other media players currently sold on the retail markets based on these chips, cannot play back Hi10P encoded video.

    Can we wait until there is support in retail hardware, SVP?

    • tumdedumdedum

      The fact you’re even mentioning this means you’re starting to learn. Don’t buy those things.

      It’s always the same song and dance , it was the same with weight-P it was the same with divx , xvid et al.

      You know what you’re getting yourself into by buying those boxes , they have inherently short lifespans due to their nature. No salesperson will point to the flaws.

      It’s always a better idea to buy a small modular computer as a player , that way you have some manual control on what’s installed. For years to come you will be able upgrade it’s cpu or key parts needed to play new formats.

      Still appalled ? Go make some signs and stand in front of wall-mart telling people about the evils of those cheap revolutionary miniature players. Don’t try and halt progress.

  • tumdedumdedum

    For anyone wondering about places to get nightly build mpc-hc versions:

    http://www.xvidvideo.ru/media-player-classic-home-cinema-x86-x64/

  • Anon

    Above video is rickroll, but it is 10bit.. haha.

  • Jossie

    The Filesize DOES matter .. like you see I’ve already packed up over 500GB with anime I archive πŸ˜€ .. and it’s kind of inconvenient when some eps have over 500MB .. ofc there are 220MB 720p releases but the difference in quality is quite obvious .. so to express what I wanted to say originally πŸ˜€ .. if u’re able to keep the quality of a 500MB release while decreasing its size, It’s a good idea
    About those who can barely watch anime due to performance issues .. dunno but .. are there rly so many of them? .. my notebook is a 5 years old one with only poor performance (and it was hella cheap in addition) but it’s still able to play a 1080p vid so I don’t think that’s a real problem .. if they can barely watch a 720p vids I believe it’s about time they did something with their PCs, cuz even cell phones play 720p vids these days .. πŸ™‚

  • Interesting. m3.3.w. subs started releasing Dantalian no Shoka, probably the very first hi10p anime sub ever released. Also it was the first hi10p video I ever watched.
    I just watched it using CoreAVC, but because of that it wasn’t what it should be, mostly were errors at dark places. After that I installed the CCCP beta and everything worked perfect. (Of course you have to block CoreAVC in MPC-HC.)

    Because of the huge difference in filesize, I’m now totally for hi10p. I have 2 archives of anime with each a size about 600GB, so it’s a great advantage for me.

  • mosh

    All i care about is Quality. If hi10p is the best possible quality then im all for it. Add in smaller filesize and im already looking forward to it.

  • cloudsora

    Oh god this is going to be a pain in the ass, some people still haven’t moved on from Xvid being there primary release format over H264…

  • Miih~

    Btw if someone’s interested I took screenshot comparison from my Megachu ep 1 encode which I endoded in 8-bit and 10-bit.

    http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/68057

    The difference is quite noticeable. And I took the screenshots in fullscreen on purpose so that you’d see the difference better.

    No filters changed between encodes, the only difference between the encodes is the bit depth.

    • Daniel

      Its noticeable but not that much better, we’re talking about a very considerable compatibility lose.

      • tumdedumdedum

        No more artefacts in black areas.
        No more banding.
        20% size gain at same quality. or Huge quality game at same size.

        Sticking your head in the sand in denial won’t help.

        There is no compatibility loss , just update your software , for free I might add. Coreavc doesn’t have a new version yet but the codec included in cccp codec pack is just as fast these days.

      • Miih~

        Well if you’d want it to be alot better which it is already in my opinion, couple 10-bit with a little use of debanding filter and it’s somewhat better again.

        Compatibility issue is just a small thing (well not for everyone but for most…), because you can always just upgrade your CCCP and you’ll be fine. And many people are already encoding videos with settings that aren’t compatible with many hardware players or some software (VLC pfft), and CoreAVC will add support in 3.0 version, and Doki isn’t gonna move on to only the 10-bit encoding either… So you can just keep downloading the 8-bit versions for some time now.

        And if you can get smaller sizes with better quality then of course it’s a good idea to choose it ^^ Actually I as a encoder think if you just can get just somewhat noticeable difference not raising the filesize, then it’s worth it, if it looks good of course…

  • Rokudaime

    The hell? What’s with the huge thread this turned into? I don’t feel like reading 6 pages of comments…Whatever, I don’t really care which format you’l end up using anyway, since neither filesize nor compatability is a problem to me to begin with.

  • My computer about dies when playing 720p, let alone with captions. I would have to get a new computer that I cannot afford. Please no.

    • Selecao

      Same here. Too much moving captions w/ high framerate sections of video start raeping my video card & CPU. Got to get a new computer, but not until next year at the earliest. I got to vote no for 10-bit x264

      • DmonHiro

        …who said you, ANY of you, get a vote? This is a dissussion. The decision lies with Doki staff alone.

      • harble

        Actually you’re pointing at a much bigger evil there than 10-bitcould ever be. Soft-karaoke ok if you want so, but then keep it down with the silly FX on on it.

    • BOB

      My Commodore 64 doesn’t play any of this either.

      So I will do the sensible thing and try and deny everyone else the benefits a new format gives !

      NO to progress !
      No to quality improvements !

  • 1Logic

    if 10-bit is the next step up, then i support it.

  • I don’t doubt that 10-bit will eventually bring improvements in quality, but I have to be skeptical about the file size issue. Mainly because when h264 first came on the scene, everybody talked about how much more space-efficient it would be than XviD. And yet what’ve we seen over the last 5 years? Bloat, bloat, and more bloat. Granted, some of that increase is understandable due to higher resolutions and better sources. But that’s still no reason to use CRF 9 or w/e for the sole sake of preserving pointless/irrelevant details and grain, or preventing artifacts that you’d only notice in framestep or still image comparisons. There’s got to be a point of diminishing returns somewhere.

    Note: speaking in general here. I can’t recall any Doki releases I’ve DLed that felt bloated.

    • Miih~

      I agree with you on using low CRF’s… I just can’t understand people who use CRF 13-15… well 15 maybe if the source compressess really well, but even then it isn’t a good choise… I almost always do CRF 17 encodes and everything looks great and the filesize is quite small regarding the quality.

      And when using CRF it’s also good to filter the video well and reasonably, because if the source contains alot noise and you encode with CRF the filesize will bloat and all you see is noise, but when you denoise it (again, reasonably) and encode with CRF then it looks better and can be alot smaller… so many times when the filesizes are bloated it may also be that encoder just doesn’t know how to filter well and encode with good settings.

      But it’s true that some sources just bound to take much bitrate because it has so much detail, so the filesize will be large, but in many cases even I could just take the source, filter it properly and encode it with good settings and get alot smaller filesize for about same size than some other guy… I’m not encoding master or anything, I don’t know much, but I do know how to filter reasonably and well and get small filesizes with good CRF’s so that quality is good…

  • Gallows

    I’d say it’s still too early to use it as well. File size is actually an issue for me, Since I have 6TB+ of hard drive space, but I only receive a certain amount of internet a month. In my case, I only get 120GB. So I don’t want to download a 12-episode series and have it take up 6-7GB. I would say its’ a good idea depending on the difference in file size. If it’s not noticeable, it’s not worth it.

    > Why not release some test NCOPs from a show: one with a normal 720p 8bit encode, one with the new 720p 10bit encode, one with the normal 1080p 8bit encde, and lastly one with the new 10bit 1080p encode.

    That would be a good idea.

  • namednoob

    To be fairly honest I could care less about size all I really care is quality, if they can provide a better format that can do both, size and quality I would not mind if u guys pick it up. As long as quality doesnt drop I am all in for whatever u guys decided to go with πŸ˜‰

  • Anne Onymous

    I’ve been advocating CPU decoding for years now for exactly this reason. Hardware decoders are only tailored to support some specific subset of the current codec. If we want to move on to newer features because computers generally get faster and implementations get better… then hardware decoders always hold us back.
    So I bought a core i7 1.5 years ago when they were rather new and expensive. But i know that it’ll be fast enough to decode anything for years to come simply by updating codecs.

    So yes, i for one welcome our new Hi10p overlords.

  • arunin

    VLC seems to support 10-bit x264, so I say go for it. Less space per episode means more episodes per terabyte drive πŸ™‚

  • Sonosuke

    Ok…….. like 130 no and 120 yes…..

    I am for Yes.

    Can I have some Doki approved test-files now?

  • Tim F.

    I think that if you get equal or better quality for a smaller size than it is worth it in my books. Also it looks like it will make your releases even better quality which is what I like about Doki (their quality that is)!

  • jmaeshawn

    m.3.3.w is already releasing their series in hi10p, and it looks even better than the normal h264 version.

    And it’s not very hard to go to http://www.cccp-project.net/beta/ and grab the latest copy.

    Doki, hi10p GO!

  • 10bit H.264 is worthless. I have to admit back in 2007 anime fansubbing took the forefront with H.264 720p encoding of video, but 10bit H.264 seems to be a case of “fixing something that isn’t broken.” With the proliferation of netbooks and tablets, CPU decoding of videos seem like a relic of yesteryear. Why limit your audience just to achieve video quality that 99% of the population won’t care or notice?

  • yepperoni

    Offtopic: HINAGIKU!

    Doki should sub the Hayate movie and S3 when they come out.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

Archives