Video encoding requires using your eyes
redvice.org
Video encoding requires using your eyes
1–10 of 53 posts
Re: Video encoding requires using your eyes
#2I don't see (or maybe don't recognize) any issues with the image that they're talking about (ringing, color shift, or fake details). It most certainly doesn't look awful to me, it looks exactly the same, only a bit sharper.
Re: Video encoding requires using your eyes
#3I don't see (or maybe don't recognize) any issues with the image that they're talking about (ringing, color shift, or fake details). It most certainly doesn't look awful to me, it looks exactly the same, only a bit sharper.
It’s mostly only visible in the closeup of the kid. There are hairs that have been unnecessarily accentuated, and his eye and eyebrow outline look hyper-sharpened, with rough edges.
The non-zoomed image looks fine to me, and I (to some extent) know what I’m looking for. Some private torrent trackers that pride themselves on having transparent encodes will look for this kind of stuff; you have to do multiple test encodes tweaking various parameters to ffmpeg, agonizing over A/B screencaps, only to inevitably be told you either missed some minuscule detail in a single scene, or that your encode is bloated.
Re: Video encoding requires using your eyes
#4Sorta related story.
I worked for a cable channel (TechTV) in the late 90s early 2ks (until Comcast bought it, laid everyone off and turned it into G4) this was the early days of cable VOD. At that time you had to pay a service by the minute to watch your video before they’d distribute it. That was the QA forced on you by the cable companies.
The fun note is that those services charged double for “adult” content.
Re: Video encoding requires using your eyes
#5I don't see (or maybe don't recognize) any issues with the image that they're talking about (ringing, color shift, or fake details). It most certainly doesn't look awful to me, it looks exactly the same, only a bit sharper.
You can see some ringing in the sky around the trees and on the line between the crow's beak/feathers if you look closely. (Alvin's?) fur goes much farther down his forehead as well. People who work deeply with codecs are usually hypersensitive to these sorts of issues that mere mortals like us need to try to see.
There used to be a legendary blog called "Diaries of an x264 developer" by Fiona Glaser [0] where she'd go on long rants about various ways to cheat in encoder comparisons [1], much like this.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/2012/http://x264dev.multimedia.c...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130215095527/http://x264dev.mu...
Re: Video encoding requires using your eyes
#6I don't see (or maybe don't recognize) any issues with the image that they're talking about (ringing, color shift, or fake details). It most certainly doesn't look awful to me, it looks exactly the same, only a bit sharper.
You can see some ringing in the sky around the trees and on the line between the crow's beak/feathers if you look closely. (Alvin's?) fur goes much farther down his forehead as well. People who work deeply with codecs are usually hypersensitive to these sorts of issues that mere mortals like us need to try to see. There used to be a legendary blog called "Diaries of an x264 developer" by Fiona Glaser [0] where she'd…
Appreciate this, I was feeling the same way as the original comment. It looks maybe over-sharpened, but I don't see anything as glaring as the text of the article makes it sound! (Of course, I'm not a video codec developer.)
It does remind me of how stereo & speaker manufacturers sometimes boost treble a little bit (rather than being perfectly "transparent" to the original signal) because it gives the impression of clarity. But ideally each step in the processing chain "colors" the signal as little as possible, because those little differences can add up.
Re: Video encoding requires using your eyes
#7I don't see (or maybe don't recognize) any issues with the image that they're talking about (ringing, color shift, or fake details). It most certainly doesn't look awful to me, it looks exactly the same, only a bit sharper.
Ringing is pretty obvious to me. It has a specific meaning in this context, it means edges are over-sharpened to the point that "fake" extra edges appear.
Re: Video encoding requires using your eyes
#8I don't see (or maybe don't recognize) any issues with the image that they're talking about (ringing, color shift, or fake details). It most certainly doesn't look awful to me, it looks exactly the same, only a bit sharper.
the fact that it looks different is the problem.
Re: Video encoding requires using your eyes
#9I don't see (or maybe don't recognize) any issues with the image that they're talking about (ringing, color shift, or fake details). It most certainly doesn't look awful to me, it looks exactly the same, only a bit sharper.
The ringing is most obvious in the striped shirt in the painting on the wall. It's added entire new stripes that don't exist in the original.
Re: Video encoding requires using your eyes
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can see some ringing in the sky around the trees and on the line between the crow's beak/feathers if you look closely. (Alvin's?) fur goes much farther down his forehead as well. People who work deeply with codecs are usually hypersensitive to these sorts of issues that mere mortals like us need to try to see. There used to be a legendary blog called "Diaries of an x264 developer" by Fiona Glaser [0] where she'd…
Appreciate this, I was feeling the same way as the original comment. It looks maybe over-sharpened, but I don't see anything as glaring as the text of the article makes it sound! (Of course, I'm not a video codec developer.) It does remind me of how stereo & speaker manufacturers sometimes boost treble a little bit (rather than being perfectly "transparent" to the original signal) because it gives the impression of c…
Yeah, audio response curves have always been a bit confusing to me. Like, they say that headphones should use a Harman curve because that sounds 'best' to listeners, but how valid is it as an objective measure? (E.g., will listeners 50 years from now find a different curve 'better', the same way that instrument tuning has changed over centuries?) And how much of it is responding to current practices in recording and mixing?
Of course, you won't get a sound as if you're in the same room (without a very fancy setup), so you'll generally want some sort of transformation to get an acceptable output. And artists often want to aim for a certain effect on top of that. But with how things currently are, many of the decisions going into the final sound are very opaque.