Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD Aims For AMF Decode In FFmpeg, Questioned Over Vulkan Video Commitment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    Then maybe don't go around claiming SVT-AV1 is soooo much better than QSV and AMD VA-API when you clearly have no data to back up that claim that's not manipulated to show whatever you want it to show.
    or don't be a retard. I already told you I used -preset veryslow @5000k for qsv and -preset 8 @5000k for svtav1 and this is preset 8 for svtav1 which is way faster then I would use for encoding something I would distribute. this is literally the best case comparison for QSV I could have done instead of just doing preset 9. FFmpeg doesn't expose lower QSV settings, vaapi is on average less efficient then QSV, doesn't expose settings like qsv does such as the proper presets.

    No matter what I post you would say it's bias and manipulated because you couldn't care less about the truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

    You can take it however you wish. This was for, more or less internal testing that I was doing. I don't really care if people think it's fair or not. It's simply the best I could possibly do with either one of them.

    However, when I'm distributing it to people for whatever reason, I definitely know which one I'm going to choose. It is most certainly not a minimal difference.
    Then maybe don't go around claiming SVT-AV1 is soooo much better than QSV and AMD VA-API when you clearly have no data to back up that claim that's not manipulated to show whatever you want it to show.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post

    Sorry that I expect websites to work properly without JS. Since even with SVT-AV1, image quality is considerably worse and it's questionable if you presets of choice are even comparable, it's very much questionable whether that's a fair comparison even in the slightest.
    You can take it however you wish. This was for, more or less internal testing that I was doing. I don't really care if people think it's fair or not. It's simply the best I could possibly do with either one of them.

    However, when I'm distributing it to people for whatever reason, I definitely know which one I'm going to choose. It is most certainly not a minimal difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

    slow.pics is working for literally everyone who tried



    left and right arrow to swap images, up and down arrow to swap comparisons
    Sorry that I expect websites to work properly without JS. Since even with SVT-AV1, image quality is considerably worse and it's questionable if you presets of choice are even comparable, it's very much questionable whether that's a fair comparison even in the slightest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post

    You may want to check your links again. There are only 3 links and I can only see 1 image per link. So if you expect 14 images to be there, something must have went wrong. While fixing that, you may want to use some more reliable host too, that doesn't refuse to load 90 % of the day.
    slow.pics is working for literally everyone who tried

    ...
    After uploading you can navigate between images by clicking on them, navbar or by using keyboard hotkeys.
    left and right arrow to swap images, up and down arrow to swap comparisons

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

    it's not 2 out of 3, it's 2 out of 14 pictures. the images on catbox are only to be compared against each other​ as one has significantly more degredation then the other
    You may want to check your links again. There are only 3 links and I can only see 1 image per link. So if you expect 14 images to be there, something must have went wrong. While fixing that, you may want to use some more reliable host too, that doesn't refuse to load 90 % of the day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Artim View Post
    Are you really that thick? 2 out of your 3 pics aren't hosted on slow.pics, which results in the impossibility of viewing them at that time was impossible due to the mentioned error message.

    And now that they do load, you've just proven me right. Yes, there's a difference, but it's impossible to notice without a side-by-side comparison.
    it's not 2 out of 3, it's 2 out of 14 pictures. the images on catbox are only to be compared against each other​ as one has significantly more degredation then the other

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post
    What kind of frame was this? if it's a key frame they can look drastically higher quality and more similar then other frames.

    but you are also working with a high bitrate in the first place for av1 5500kbps is fairly good for for av1 and thats before counting how badly it was overshot. vaapi over shot some, but svtav1 went wildly overboard
    I'm sorry, that was me missing the control key for copying the actual value. Using -b:v 5M and -maxrate 5.5M was the first trial. The pictures are actually from a second trial where I used -b:v 3.5M -maxrate 3.8M. And to what kind of frame it was: No idea. I didn't pick a specific frame. I saw that at that time code there was a view worth comparing due to all the grass and reflections in the water and had ffmpeg export a frame at that time code to png, only giving the time code in seconds with -ss 00:00:12.

    Leave a comment:


  • Artim
    replied
    Originally posted by Quackdoc View Post

    2 of the images are to be compared with eachother, the third link slowpics, contains a set of images. there are 4 comparisons taken at various times throughout the video, each comparison has 3 images. source, svtav1 qsv
    Are you really that thick? 2 out of your 3 pics aren't hosted on slow.pics, which results in the impossibility of viewing them at that time was impossible due to the mentioned error message.

    And now that they do load, you've just proven me right. Yes, there's a difference, but it's impossible to notice without a side-by-side comparison.
    Last edited by Artim; 15 May 2024, 12:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quackdoc
    replied
    What kind of frame was this? if it's a key frame they can look drastically higher quality and more similar then other frames.

    but you are also working with a high bitrate in the first place for av1 5500kbps is fairly good for for av1 and thats before counting how badly it was overshot. vaapi over shot some, but svtav1 went wildly overboard

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X