HandBrake and Palm thread

Discussion in 'Multimedia (Palm OS)' started by Varjak, Jul 16, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FireNWater

    FireNWater Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Hi All,

    I haven't figure out how to make the nice quote boxes so please forgive me for just texting. I also compose offline on notepad and then just copy over post. I've listed the Post # for reference.

    Post #30 excerpts from Razzy
    "In all four clips I selected "None" in the "anamorphic" box. "
    Razz's tests were of non-anamorphic from the first revision of this thread.

    "The main improvement is that the square blocks common to the XviD codec are nowhere to be seen. "

    Post #56? 08-03-2009 05:37 PM
    "how to identify if a video needs decombing (or de-interlacing) a priori?

    Or would it be best (in terms of time) to simply encode it without these filters, then evaluate the result and re-encode with filters again if needed?"
    ***********
    The artifacts supposedly indicate interlacing issues. However, if your new H.264 files do not have it, then I don't think you need to de-interlace/comb anything.
    Ask yourself the source of the video? If recording analog TV signal to begin with, then it is likely interlaced. If it was broadcasted, then likely interlaced.
    If your vid looks good then I wouldn't bother turning it on since the source is probably not interlaced to begin with and if they were, it seems that the higher quality H.264 is dealing with it w/o requiring decombing.

    Post #65: XviD yields better quality than FFMPEG
    yes, d'accord. HB's attitude is to value speed over quality hence their eventually dumping Xvid support.
    But like you said, we can still continue to use the older stuff.

    Anamorphic or not?

    If the source video says it's Anamorphic, then HB's anamorphic features could be used to advantage. This is listed on DVD specs now if it is. If it says Widescreen or Standard Widescreen, then the DVD is NOT anamorphic and its no use using the anamorphic HB features.

    Testing files: when I used to interview for production and had to submit videos, the interviewers said no more than 3 min and make it relevant, that is, skip the black lead ins which were necessary when broadcasting on web. If people are going to submit vids for review/testing, it might be a good idea to also keep to the 3Min limit even though your bandwidths Might accommodate more. Make it easy on both ends for review/test. That 3 min should count for whatever you are testing - motion, audio, colors, etc. There are free video editors to chop the sections you need if your file is too large.

    For HB, once it starts encoding, I found I could simply preview by waiting till a few minutes were encoded and saving that file under a different name.

    I could then take a look at with the VLC player or other to test if the sound/video was coming thru the way I wanted or if I even got the correct file to begin with.
    Hard to tell when everything is numbered hence the quick checks before letting the HB do ALL of the file. Even if a player told me which chapter and file, it didn't always correspond to the DVD files. IF it was the correct file, I'd let HB continue. If not, then I'd abort and go test another till I got something that played well on TCPMP.

    I think this is one way you can check for artifacts before encoding 30 plus minutes. If they are present, they would show for the first 3 min as much as the last 45 or 120 min of the movie.

    Maybe you already do this. Just listing that tip here in case for future newbies that this is how we check quickly in the beginning with HB files.

    That's how I figured out the various codecs/audio/video specs that would work for me.
    I did not know each codec in detail but guessed based on Pocket ENcoder and other video specs that were already completed and used them for reference. The rest I've learned from observing these threads and now thru HB's super detailed Wicki.

    My goal was simply to get a file that would run on my TX with the sound and video. Thanks to your specs I have some approach to getting something in H.264 to run eventually.:+)
     
  2. raspabalsa

    raspabalsa Brain stuck BogoMipping

    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    4,305
    Trophy Points:
    288
    480 kbps is lower than I think ideal for H.264. I encoded some samples down to 200 kbps, but I think I'll settle for 600 kbps, which results in much better quality than my 600 kbps XviD videos.

    Varjak, do know what the differences are between the profiles? I've using only the iPhone & iPod Touch profile. I think your test resulted in lower quality than MPEG4 partly because of the profile you chose. It must be labeled as "Legacy" for some valid reason, I think. Perhaps it disables some encoder features to allow it to be played on older devices?

    What bitrate did you use on the FFMPEG video you used as comparison? The same one (480)?
    Do you have any idea why this happened? Looks like 50 pixels were cropped both left and right, right?
    The bars you mention are someting I haven't seen in my encodings. As for pixelation and artifacting, I see much less on my H.264 than on my XviDs.

    Here's the detail of the settings I've used for what I consider are the best results I've got so far:

    Code:
    Profile: iPhone & iPod Touch
    Format: MP4
    Crop: Automatic
    Width: 480
    Height: Left blank
    Anamorphic: None
    Filters: None enabled
    Video: H.264
    Framerate: Same as source
    Grayscale encoding: Unchecked
    Two-pass encoding: Checked
    Turbo First pass: Checked
    Target size: Left blank
    Average bitrate: 600 to 800
    Constant Quality: I've never moved this slider. However, when I select 600 kbps, I later find that it's automatically moved to 59
    Audio: AAC
    Mixdown: Dolby Pro-Logic II (default, I haven't changed it)
    Samplerate: 48 kHz
    Bitrate: 128
    DRC: 1 (default, I haven't changed it)
    
    Under advanced H.264 Options:
    Reference frames: 2 (default)
    Mixed references: Checked (default)
    B-Frames: 2
    Direct prediction: Default (spatial)
    Weighted B-Frames: Checked
    Pyramidal B-Frames: Unchecked
    The other options at the right of the advanced tab are at their defaults. I don't know yet how to use them.
    Yeah, I'd like to know more about anamorphic, how it works and why it affects playback on our devices. Since the HB forum is not a friendly place I'm thinking about visiting CorePlayer's forum. They may have some answers, especially about the decoding and why it's hit so hard when enabling anamorphic.
     
  3. FireNWater

    FireNWater Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    and slightly off topic,
    Many DVDs now bundle with a Ipod playable version which saves having to convert for a PMP but they are in H.264, not Xvid/Avis that can run on our Tx/TCPMPs.

    I just saw on ARS that future DVD bundles will provide the movie on micro SD cards for about $11 US additional in future.

    Still, all of them are in modern formats so I think I still have to rip to TX/TCPMP friendly files.
    I got a DVD with a Ipod friendly file but still couldn't play it on TX.
    So I need to learn how to convert it myself but there are a lot of people out there who don't know how to convert and would go for the convenience.
     
  4. raspabalsa

    raspabalsa Brain stuck BogoMipping

    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    4,305
    Trophy Points:
    288
    Hi FNW! To create quotes, it's easiest to select the whole post(s) to be quoted. If you want to quote a single post, just click on the "Quote" button at the bottom of the post. This will open the advanced reply window. There you can edit the quote and there you will also see what code and format are used to create a quote, so you can start getting familiar with it.

    If you want to quote multiple posts (like you just did), then click on the small button with the " sign, right next to the "Quote" button. This is the multi-quote button. You can select several posts (by clicking on their respective multi-quote buttons), and you can even select posts from multiple pages (at least pn Firefox I can do that). Once you've selected all of the posts, click on the "Post Reply" button at the bottom left of the page. A new reply window will open where you will see all the quotes. There you can edit and compose your reply.
    Ah, that's interesting info. Perhaps I should try some encodings on PocketDivX Encoder, Fairuse, or Handbrake with the de-interlace options enabled, see if the output improves.
    Hmmm.... but what about DVDs? Is it sagfe to assume that DVDs of newer movies are more likely to contain non-interlaced videos (because they're likely to be played on LCDs, Plasmas, etc), while DVDs of older movies may be interlaced because back then only CRTs were used for playback?
    Yes, except that HB's manual recommends to keep "decomb" enabled for better quality. The problem is that encoding with decomb takes much longer than without it.
    But HB isn't dropping XviD. It's dropping AVI (the container). You can still use XviD in an MP4 container.
    The problem is that if we use anamorphic our devices can't keep up during playback. And I still don't understand what's the advantage of using anamorphic.
    That makes sense. You worked in video production?
    I've done the same when encoding with PDE. The problem is that you're seeing the output of the first pass, meaning output quality is lower than on the final video (second pass). It can give you an idea of how good the final will be, but it's not an accurate result. But it does help to verify you selected correct video or correct stream (audio, subtitle, etc).
     
  5. raspabalsa

    raspabalsa Brain stuck BogoMipping

    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    4,305
    Trophy Points:
    288
    But TCPMP can play H.264, that's the whole point of this exercise. I don't understand what you mean above.
    Interesting, but too expensive IMO, and may not be encoded at the settings one prefers.
    FNW, probably you haven't installed the AVC codec for TCPMP. Check with Filez or another file manager. If this codec is not installed on your TX, download and install it. I don't have a direct link, but search the forum's member list for jigwashere and see his profile. In his signature he has links for both the AVC and AAC codec for TCPMP.
     
  6. Varjak

    Varjak Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Raspy:

    1. Where is the- " sign, right next to the "Quote" button ? I don't have that next to my quote button, I do have 'multiquote' but I don't think that was there until recently. I know how to quote whole posts (and I sometimes manually delete irrelevant 'graphs); but I always wondered who to multi-quote.

    2. I don't know what the diff. is b/t the legacy iPhone and the iPhone. I just figured that the older iPhone settings would be closer to the Palm then the newer settings meant for the faster, upgraded iPhone.

    2. I deliberately chose a low bitrate to see if I could get a decent running file. As I recall, the original HB settings recommended bitrates as low as 250 for converting AVC files.

    3. You keep trying to compare MPEG4 bitrates to AVC bitrates. That's like comparing the clock speeds of a 286 computer to the latest Pentium. Not relevant. They are different standards.

    4. I'm reluctant to use b-frames; because I think it's been posted before that the basic form of AVC on the Palm doesn't support it. Until someone actually can explain to me what it does, I'll avoid it. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and it seems to refer to compression, which means it might slow down how the Palm processes video. It probably DOES make the file smaller though.

    5. I'm interested in the interlacing too. I would think that would only matter if the content CAME from an interlaced source (i.e. taken off the TV for example). I don't think sources like DVD's are interlaced in and of themselves. Interlacing relates to the DECODING and PROJECTION technology (such as the diff. b/t 'regular' DVD players and progressive scan DVD players). The same DVD would be read and displayed differently by each of these DVD players.

    6. Raspy, in your advanced settings, did your iPhone default put any kind of string of terms in the window at the bottom of the control panel?
     
  7. Varjak

    Varjak Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    FNW, can you write more about anamorphic? In my experience, most recent DVD's (even of older movies) are done in anamorphic video (I tend to avoid pan-and-scan versions of movies like the Plague). I think you're right about Standard Widescreen (which I haven't seen much of recently); but I think most things labeled 'widescreen' ARE anamorphic.

    My understanding of anamorphic (with regard to optics) is that a special lens is used when FILMING that compresses the image down so it fits on standard 35 mm film. To project the finished film, another lens re-expands the image for projections. How this relates to video and video encoding is beyond me. I thought it was about best achieving the original aspect ratio and dimensions of the original source film. The HB seems to express it is that all DVD's have standard frame sizes with a 'flag' that tells the device what aspect ratio to use when displaying that image. It's like a multiplier. So I don't know how, without anamorphic, the encoder will know the proper dimensions for the final product. With my reference sample, the non-anamorphic file came to 480x288. The anamorphic MP4 file encoded with MPEG4 (ffmpeg) was 480x256. Anything you could add would be VERY much appreciated.

    I disagree with your supposition that artifacts will just as likely appear in the beginning, as later. Not in my samples. I use a 9 minute reference sample and the artifacting appeared only in the most demanding parts. If you don't have an action scene or something else that might be demanding to the encoder until midway through the source material, you may not see artifacting.

    You mention blocky areas with XviD. That's what I got with AVC. I don't know if a higher bitrate will solve that; but that's next on the list of experiments.
     
  8. raspabalsa

    raspabalsa Brain stuck BogoMipping

    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    4,305
    Trophy Points:
    288
    There are three buttons at the bottom right corner of every post. From left to right: Quote, Multi-Quote, and Reply. The multi-quote has a " and a + in its icon. Just clic the multi-quote button on everty post you want to quote. When done, clic the Post Reply bottom at the bottom left of the page.
    Perhaps the Palms are not as obsolete as we think, as my TX is able to play videos encoded with the newer iPhone/iPod profile. Is there some place where we can find what are the differences between profiles?
    That bitrate may be good for slow movies (dramas, comedies) or movies not at widescreen, but I doubt you'll get good results for a widescreen action movie at such low bitrate.
    Not relevant? It was you who observed that my bitrate comparisons were unfair and suggested a differet (but still bitrate vs bitrate) comparison. Let me quote:
    What's more, in my opinion a bitrate comparison between H.264 and XviD (or FFMPEG) is very valid. It's true that both codecs handle video data in different ways, but the end result is a stream of data in a container. My comparisons aim to find an ideal balance between video quality and file size. By comparing against my XviD results I get an idea of how much I can shrink the final file without compromising quality, with the XviD quality (at the high bitrate settings I've used) serving as a floor value. In the end I don't care how or what the codec does to the data, I'm just interestend in the final result.
    Would be nice to have a confirmation about this. But even if Palm's AVC codec doesn't support B-Frames, I'll still use them, because my videos are not only used on the Palm, but on other devices as well, some of which do support B-Frames.

    My interpretation of B-Frames is that they are "partial" frames (meaning they don't contain all the pixels of a frame) that are interpolated between two actual frames, based on the encoder's analysis of the video data. In essence, the encoder predicts what the next frame will look like and create a B-Frame based on that. But I'm not yet familiar with all they do or how.
    Yes, for the settings I mentioned above this is what appears there:

    level=30:cabac=0:ref=2:mixed-refs=1:analyse=all:me=umh:no-fast-pskip=1:bframes=2:weightb=1

    Can you make sense of all of this?
    Not exactly. The image is not compressed, but stretched. 35mm film has an aspect ratio of about 4/3. This means that a widescreen movie will not use the whole height of the film and will have lower resolution than one that fully uses the whole height. The anamorphic lens stretches the image vertically so it will use the whole height of the film and thus the image will be full resolution. The projector will use other lenses that squash the image vertically to show it at the correct aspect ratio.
    There we agree completely. Further, my anamorphic and non-anamorphic videos look exactly the same on both my TX (disregarding the fact that the TX can't cope with the processor demand of the anamorphic version) and computer, so I don't get what the advantage is.
    I definitely get no blocky areas with H.264 even at bitrates as low as 200 kbps for the test video I've been using. But I do get some blocky areas with XviD, even at 450 kbps for the same video. They're not too marked and appear just a few times, though.

    Some of my older encodings with XviD do have lots of blocky areas, especially at the low bitrates (300, 350) I used when I started encoding, years ago.
     
  9. Varjak

    Varjak Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. I don't have those marks in my 'multiquote' button; and my multiquote button doesn't even function. It just turns greenish; but nothing happens.

    2. My point about bitrates is not that different trials aren't useful; but that you seem to equate a particular bitrate on AVC with a particular bitrate on MPEG4. I don't know what the 'equivalency' should be; but it's not to compare 600 AVC with 600 MPEG4. That's all. There's probably an optimum bitrate for each codec, and they are probably wildly different (maybe 2:1 or something). The two different codecs do give you tradeoffs in file size v. quality. You haven't done any (or maybe many) MPEG4 encodes, while I'm going to avoid XviD. You and I seem to have different experiences. For me, MPEG4 give noticeably better quality, and with ever-large SDHC cards, space is less of an issue than quality and playability. Not to mention encoding times, which are much longer for AVC.

    3. I don't know why all of a sudden you seem to be an expert on anamorphic; but anamorphic does not stretch the image (horizontally or vertically). First, with FILM, it squeezes the image down, and then the companion lens re-expands it for projection. You may be talking exclusively about anamorphic with respect to DVD anamorphic widescreen; but even then, it is using a similar technique to squeeze a widescreen image to a 4:3 frame and then when it is played, to re-expand it to its natural width. No stretching.

    FILM:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic#Lens_makers_and_corporate_trademarks

    DVD:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen

    I'm not looking for an argument, but I don't want to introduce flawed information into what's already a complicated discussion.

    4. Good point about b-frames. That was my initial thought as well, since I expected to get an iPhone. But if I remember correctly, the iPhone USED anamorphic, which is why I never really tried it without it. Does the 'new' iPhone setting NOT use anamorphic? I may have gotten the impression it did from the 'help' forums.

    5. I'm glad you could grab the 'advanced' line from HB. I tried to copy and paste it and it wouldn't work.
     
  10. FireNWater

    FireNWater Mobile Deity

    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Hi all, been busy with classes and out of the loop.
    turns out, there is always room to learn new stuff.

    wow , what a difference a year makes.
    I went back to the beginning of this thread and saw my own problems in having TCPMP run a file with a mp4 container using a H.264/avc Video codec and AAC audio codec last year.

    This year, I tried the config Raz listed.
    Added the AAC codec from Jig's sig. Did not add the AVC yet since I have to register for Treo site first.

    First couple of files, not smooth, not good. But Raz's success told me it's doable. Not so sure I want to overclock just yet.

    So back to a source DVD for video. Coded it w/AVC/AAC, stuck it in the m4v
    mp4 is HB's default.
    chose a Quicktime container m4v, v for video I think if your file has chapter markings.
    Found HB continues to code m4v (letter v) no matter if I pick mp4 default (letter p). It's another setting if you want to absolutely have the mp4 extension tagged on the file.

    * added the AAC codec. After more trial and error, it actually ran smooth!!!!! So yippeeee! Thanks guys!

    My experiment: only coded the shortest chapter possible from a movie DVD. I've coded half the movie and 30 min runs no problem and NO overclocking required for this file in mp4.

    digression: So yeahhhh, I'm thinking Wowza and of Woz the Oz the too cuz , well, just cuz. ok.

    Next experiment was some mp4 files from a youtube source.
    First downloads were choppy, only seeing keyframes, no motion, audio fine though. Looking at source, it was 780 px (desksize) so back to HB to resize it down to 480.
    At least the TX could try to play it and then got a new message - out of memory. Hence learning look at the file dimensions before putting it in.

    Learned to code a pre-set so I don't have to set it each time.
    After a few more experiments, got a 50,000 kb file down to 21,000 file and this 480 px wide file runs smooth on TX.

    It doesn't always work to try to size it down but when i can, I get to play it in the TX, no additional boosting or weird contortions required.

    And with Download helper updated on FF, high quality mp4s are now avail for download. no conversion required. If poster put them at less than 480 px to begin with, then the download can run immediately on the TX and like Razzy pointed at the revival, omg, the mp4s are really a step above in quality.

    I'm definitely saving in mp4 whenever possible from now on.

    At first revival, I thought it was impossible to play mp4s without overclocking. Now I realize from further research, that it's for files with a lot of action (Razzy's Alex) or for 780 size (desk size files). Some other poster mentioned he doesn't want to have to keep 2 versions (TX friendly versus desk size) and thus overclocks to view.
    Razzy's were sized for TX but I guess because of the action, it takes more oomph to run. Now I realize with low demand movies, TX size files will run just fine without overclocking.

    So thank you guys for a spirited discussion and motivating me to learn new stuff.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page