[Lossless] Ut Video Codec

This forum is for questions and discussion of all the aspects of handling your footage. If you have questions about capturing/ripping footage, AviSynth, or compression/encoding/converting, look here.

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby Mister Hatt » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:24 pm

Silly mirko, you forgot that banding can be caused by over quantization too! CRF and decent AQ settings should make sure that doesn't happen though~
Mister Hatt
 
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Status: better than you

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby mirkosp » Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:26 pm

Mister Hatt wrote:Silly mirko, you forgot that banding can be caused by over quantization too! CRF and decent AQ settings should make sure that doesn't happen though~

Lol... somehow I didn't think of that while writing the post, wonder why it didn't cross my mind. :dino:
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby Johny-115 » Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:11 pm

i tried to encode with virtualdub, but it was same, slight banding
i did accidentaly one thing though ... encoded from "Uncompressed 16bpp. YUV 4:2:2" encode (that was 100% same as source visually) with virtualdub ...
and chosen matching color depth settings "4:2:2 UYVY" > "4:2:0 planar" or "4:2:2 planar" ... and exported this into UT Video ... and result was - finaly luma was okay, no banding, but instead chroma moved to more greenish
i tried did the same thing with AME to see what does it do ... ie "Uncompressed 16bpp. YUV 4:2:2" to UT Video ... but it was old color ok, luma not ok, banding

i think i wont be able to handle this kind of problem, iam just no expert or something, is it really bad edit it in RGB UT Video ? why could it be wrong ? it just uselessely makes it larger and slower, but otherwise quality should be untouched ? visually it looks 100% same every other encode
Johny-115
 
Joined: 15 Oct 2006

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby mirkosp » Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:42 am

Here's the thing. YUV and RGB are very different ways to represent colors. YUV is much like the human eye: the Y represents the luma (you could say a b/w image), the UV the chroma.
In the chroma red is opposite of blue and yellow is opposite of green. On the other hand, RGB represents colors by additively combining red, green, and blue information for each pixel.

What this means is that some colors that a colorspace can represent aren't necessarily standard or representable in the other colorspace. This then means that doing colorspace conversions from one colorspace to another will introduce VERY slight roundings in these values to represent valid colors, thus why colorspace conversion is not lossless. Of course, if kept to a minimum, this should be visually unnoticeable, but if you can go without converting colorspace entirely, it is for the better.

Of course, though, you'll have to convert YUV to RGB eventually. LCDs are RGB, for once, so in order to show the video on the screen you'll eventually need to convert these colors from YUV to RGB.
This means that you have to make sure as best as you can that the colors are being converted as properly as possible. The one thing that matters the most in this is the colormatrix. It basically is a matrix that says how colors should be weighted and represented in the conversion. Getting this wrong will introduce the green alteration you're noticing, for example.
The banding is introduced for similar reasons, namely if a conversion to rgb is not done properly, then you'll have steps in the luma (and possibly chroma too, but luma is obviously more noticeable to the eye).
As a rule of thumb for colormatrix, SD video is generally bt601, whereas HD video is generally bt709. Also, H.264 encodes generally do specify this in the SEI info as well (if it was properly set when encoding), so you can even check and make sure that what you're working with is of a given colormatrix just to be sure (though THORA encodes have the SEI zeroed, so the colormatrix info is prolly removed as well ─ and I don't see it in your screenshot, so yet again further proof).

As for virtualdub, you should be selecting "Fast recompress" under compression. If you don't do so, it will internally convert colorspace, afaik, and possibly colormatrix too, thus why you get the slight chroma change and slight banding as well.
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby HalOfBorg » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:27 pm

On at least two PCs I have had problems with Ut so far. Sony Vegas crashes/errors just as the render reaches %100, or rendered clips that won't play - MPC errors when the clip is launched.

Other than this, SV and MPC seem to work well with the codec, rendering and preview window playback is much smoother.

I have seen these problems when I use one of my Ut clips as the source for another render.
Help HalOfBorg fight his cancer - http://www.gofundme.com/21ygdk

ImageImageImage
ImageImageImage
User avatar
HalOfBorg
 
Joined: 14 May 2008

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby Mister Hatt » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:57 pm

We already told you MULTIPLE TIMES that your problem is not VirtualDub, IT IS YOUR INITIAL FUCKING CONVERSION WITH ADOBE. IF YOU STOP USING THAT HEAP OF CRAP YOU WILL STOP HAVING PROBLEMS.

[Kariudo: You can be angry, but don't start personal attacks]
Mister Hatt
 
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Status: better than you

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby Cannonaire » Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:05 am

To answer your question, it shouldn't be an issue to edit in RGB, just make sure you use the right matrix (use exactly the line I gave you before). AFAIK After Effects is 100% RGB anyway, so you'll have to convert at some point anyway if you're using that; better to do so with a competent program like avisynth. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about After Effects be all RGB.

HalOfBorg:
UTVideo is great for importing into and editing with in Vegas, but I also have problems trying to render out to it from Vegas. I render my footage/clips, etc. with UTVideo via avisynth/virtualdub then just render the final edited video in Lagarith, which I then encode with x264. This solution provides the faster speed of editing with UTVideo and never loses quality due to encoding issues.
Image Think millionaire, but with cannons. || Resident Maaya Sakamoto fan.
User avatar
Cannonaire
 
Joined: 05 May 2010
Location: Oregon
Status: OVERLOAD

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby mirkosp » Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:58 am

Cannonaire wrote:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about After Effects be all RGB.

Not sure about AE, but in Premiere Pro some effects are YUV and other are RGB, so my guess is that, depending on the effects you use, the whole process stays YUV without conversion.
I'd think that it'd be the same in AE as well.
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby Mister Hatt » Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:38 am

You're both still missing the point that his initial transcode itself is wrong, and what he does in AE/Premiere makes no difference at this stage. He needs to redo the rip to begin with. That or I've REALLY misunderstood.
Mister Hatt
 
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Status: better than you

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby HalOfBorg » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:41 am

Cannonaire wrote:HalOfBorg:
UTVideo is great for importing into and editing with in Vegas, but I also have problems trying to render out to it from Vegas. I render my footage/clips, etc. with UTVideo via avisynth/virtualdub then just render the final edited video in Lagarith, which I then encode with x264. This solution provides the faster speed of editing with UTVideo and never loses quality due to encoding issues.


I could do a lot of that (in fact I make my lossless clips with Xvid4PSP, so doing it with Virtualdub would be easy enough), but a lot of the editing I do involves adding elements, removing elements, so I usually render and re-render several times (though not always - 'Pump' was almost all scene selection).

I'm using Vegas 8, but I do have 10. Maybe it will render from Ut better. Would be little trouble to load my project into 10, render the clip in question and load that into 8.
Help HalOfBorg fight his cancer - http://www.gofundme.com/21ygdk

ImageImageImage
ImageImageImage
User avatar
HalOfBorg
 
Joined: 14 May 2008

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby Lirinis » Sat Apr 02, 2011 7:05 pm

I tried to run a little comparison and Ut didn't actually look any better than ffdshow Huffyuv. Haali timecodec showed 76,9:66,9 dfps in favour of Ut, but then I imported both in AE and tried to render a preview of a 30 second clip. It took 19 seconds for Ut and 18 for Huffyuv. Huffyuv encoding was also much faster and produced a 12,9 GB file compared to 15,8 GB by Ut.

How do you measure decoding speed? Timecodec shows some numbers but is there a way to see advantage in real world?
User avatar
Lirinis
 
Joined: 14 Jun 2006

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby Mister Hatt » Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:28 pm

You clearly don't know what you're doing so there is no point answering that question. Visually comparing lossless codecs, really.
Mister Hatt
 
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Status: better than you

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby TheRyuu » Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:52 pm

Lirinis wrote:Ut didn't actually look any better than ffdshow Huffyuv


I stopped here.
TheRyuu
 
Joined: 19 May 2010

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby Lirinis » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:18 am

Dear org elitists, yes, I know lossless codecs output identical image, if you mean that. Maybe my English is unclear, sorry.

I was wondering, why exactly do you all say that UT is so fast. Did you test in real projects? Under what conditions would I see that?
User avatar
Lirinis
 
Joined: 14 Jun 2006

Re: [Lossless] Ut Video Codec

Postby mirkosp » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:59 am

I've seen a couple tests. One was done by DeathWolf but I can't find a link for that anymore, another was done by Zarxrax and can be found here. They both shown that UTVideo is faster, and I personally found that to be true too, so that's fine with me.
I think I read somewhere that UTVideo might be optimized for intel CPUs, but I'm not sure about this and it might be a total lie, but if it's true then it's possible that on AMD CPUs the difference won't be quite as close.
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

PreviousNext

Return to Footage Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests