H.264 vs. Sorenson3

[Stuart Brereton]

Apologies if I'm asking this question in the wrong place. I've heard a lot about H.264 and it's incredible quality. I've watched a number of film trailers encoded in this way, and the quality has been amazing considering the small file sizes. However, when I'm encoding my own stuff, H.264 doesn't seem quite as good, in fact I'm finding that good old Sorenson 3 has got the edge in a lot of ways.

 

I'm not the most computer-savvy person in the world, so it's probably something I'm doing wrong. Does anyone have any pointers for getting the most out of H.264?

 

Thanks.

[timHealy]

Stuart,

 

This may be the wrong place to inquire about this. Try forums on creativecow.com. I have used Sorenson 3 and like it alot but have yet to use the new codec but am impressed by what I have seen on Apples website. I am far from a professional "compressionist" but many of the movie trailers we see may be using top of the line computers and hardware compression tools that achieve far greater results than what you or I could do at home using just software compression tools.

 

Best

 

Tim

[Adam Frisch FSF]

For it's size, H264 is unbeatable. I'm re-recoding all my films on my website in H264 simply because they're so much smaller.

 

I'll give you an example: I used to encode Sorenson3 in 12 fps to save space. Now, even though I encode my new material in 25fps in H264, the file is less than half the size of the old Sorenson one.

 

My only gripe is that the sound compression has to be done using other algorithms. I'm currently using AAC (mp3) at 128kbit/s, which sounds pretty good (like most mp3 songs, basically). I used to use Qulcomm compression, but the sound often got tinny and bad.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

H.264 is the ITU-T designation for the ISO/IEC standard MPEG-4 part 10, so in essence. H.264 is MPEG-4. MPEG-4 is very clever indeed, continuing the progression from 1 and 2 (there is no 3) by adding still more ways to map old picture data into new picture data without having to store more than a few transform commands. Sorenson 3 works similarly, in that macroblocks are stored as the quantised long decimal result of a discrete cosine transform, but since Sorenson have long considered the internals of the codec to be a trade secret it's difficult to be more specific than "similar to H.264", as reported by dedicated reverse-engineers. In preference, the open standard would be more universally playable, especially now Apple have included H.264 in Quicktime 7, now available for Mac and Windows - previously the only thing to reccommend Sorenson was that it was the best codec available for the easily-deployed Quicktime architecture.

 

Phil

 

PS - Oh, by the way, the H.264 encoder in Quicktime 7 is abysmal.

[Stephen Williams]

PS - Oh, by the way, the H.264 encoder in Quicktime 7 is abysmal.

 

Hi Phil,

 

I was trying H.264 from QT7 and gave up as it was so bad. I am pleased I was not doing anything wrong!

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen

[Stuart Brereton]

I'm glad it's not just me that is having trouble with the Quicktime H.264 encoder. Any recommendations for a better software solution?

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

A lot of people are just sticking with Sorenson for this reason, Sorenson being based on what the MPEG-4 working group were proposing in the mid-90s.

 

There are many excellent MPEG-4 encoders. Windows Media 9 (which is sort of largely more or less MPEG-4) is superbly good, whatever you think of Microsoft, and a number of the free Windows AVI codecs (DivX, Xvid) are good, especially in 2-pass VBR. There are opensource solutions (of iffy, or sometimes downright black-hat legality) for both encode and decode. The problem is that none of these are as easily deployable as Quicktime, even Windows Media 9 is hidebound by obviously platform-partisan commercialist maneuvering and the AVI codecs, while excellent, often require manual installation since Microsoft refuse to make a codec that supports them available to Media Player via the automatic codec download mechanism.

 

This is one area of computing that is really being clobbered by the increasinly overt commercialism of OS manufacturers and the machinations of outfits like the RIAA as they try to influence the development of technology. The technology exists to do web video simply and very very well, but it's being tied up by politics and greed. Microsoft released Windows Media, er, was it 7 with the MPEG-4 codec locked out of making AVI movies - you could only create windows media format, with the resulting impression that Windows Media is great. Actually, they're standing on the shoulders of giants and pissing down the backs of their necks - MPEG-4 is great, but Microsoft didn't develop it; they just bound it up in proprietary drivel and tried to stop people using it for what they really wanted.

 

Computing in general has plummeted downhill in this regard since the release of Windows XP, and the trend looks set to continue. It's good to see that HD-DVD will (optionally) use the codec, though.

 

Phil

[Gordon Highland]

One problem is that not a ton of people are on QT7 yet, so I personally would avoid H.264 unless you know exactly who your audience is. I stick with Sorenson3 for this reason for now. Actually, if you're looking for the widest compatibility, forget both of them and create SWF movies, cuz Flash Player is on more browsers than either QT or WM.

 

I like On2 a lot, but it requires Flash8 Player (too new for many people) and right now I can only do single-pass with it. But it's extremely efficient when it comes to file size.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Flash video is Sorenson...

 

Phil

[Adam Frisch FSF]

One problem is that not a ton of people are on QT7 yet, so I personally would avoid H.264 unless you know exactly who your audience is. I stick with Sorenson3 for this reason for now. Actually, if you're looking for the widest compatibility, forget both of them and create SWF movies, cuz Flash Player is on more browsers than either QT or WM.

 

I like On2 a lot, but it requires Flash8 Player (too new for many people) and right now I can only do single-pass with it. But it's extremely efficient when it comes to file size.

 

This has always annoyed me to no end. QT7, or whatever media player one chooses, are FREE and can be installed in a second. I don't want to point the dirty finger in any specific direction, but it seems that Microsoft users are the main culprits in this area. Half of them are still on Win98 and then they wonder why they're QT7 doesn't play the latest trailers in HD? Seriously, how hard is it to install QT7....

 

I've now coded all my films on my website in H264 which needs 7. I know many people are not going to be able to access stuff on the site (yeah, like they'd die if they didn't see some crappy music video of mine...

:P ), but I can't cater to everyone.

[Gordon Highland]

Flash video is Sorenson...

 

Yes, you use the app Sorenson Squeeze to create the Flash video, but you can create an MOV or WMV with the Sorenson codec as well, so they're not really the same when you consider what's required to play them. FLV, SWF, MOV, WMV, etc all require different players on the user's end, yet are created with the same tool.

 

And to Adam's point, there are very good reasons why people don't have the latest version of Quicktime on any particular day. QT is in many ways the backbone of my media workstation, which is running like 15 different apps that rely upon it. But I'm not necessarily ready to upgrade every piece of software i have just to be on QT7 now (which I'm not). I upgrade to QT7 and suddenly ProTools doesn't work, or maybe an older version of Final Cut Pro, or I gotta go hunt down a bunch of drivers or something. I know that's not literally the case for all apps, and it's less of an issue in the post-OS X world, but it's a major problem if the business day stalls for something like this.

 

Also, some people work for large companies (or even small ones) where their system image is mandated or administered elsewhere, and they can't just make these upgrades indiscriminately (for good reason, including quality control). At my day job, my encoded clips go out to about 60,000 employees, and if I do them in Flash8, only a handful of people will see them, and they're probably the ones sitting next to me. Bandwidth limitations are what really chap MY hide. . .

[Guest Charlie Seper]

I personally will stick with wmv files for the time being. They look as good as anything out there and more people can view them than anything else. Even if they're using an older version of Windows, they still may have downloaded a newer version of IE, and MS has made IE able to integrate video into the browser for the past few years now. If my site stats mean anything, there's an awful lot of people playing movies through the IE web browser.

 

Also, I love working with Flash but I avoid incorporating movies in the Flash player simply because it just makes the movie take that much longer to start streaming, making it a nuisance to most people visiting a site. (Your web browser first has to tell your computer to access the Flash player, and the Flash Player in turn has to see the code for the video and decide what to do with it before it ever starts streaming). Better to just give an url for the video clip and let people stream with Media Player or via the browser window if they have that inabled. If its a wmv coded movie then most people will be able to view it fine and this is the fastest way to go for them.

 

I've always hated that crummy Quicktime movie player. Not only is it an amatuer looking eyesore but it's features are difficult for most people to get a handle on. WMP is a breeze unless you're trying to create a song list....

[barryagilbert]

H.264 is fantastic especially given the expansion of Broadband but I have found that many people do not have a current enough version of Quicktime to play it back. Same with Flash 8 - although I'm starting to offer versions in taht format because of its rapid adoption.

 

It's also rather tricky to set up an automatic version detector, which would be very helpful. A year from now life will be beautiful when most people have caught up.

 

I personally will stick with wmv files for the time being. They look as good as anything out there and more people can view them than anything else. Even if they're using an older version of Windows, they still may have downloaded a newer version of IE, and MS has made IE able to integrate video into the browser for the past few years now. If my site stats mean anything, there's an awful lot of people playing movies through the IE web browser.

 

Also, I love working with Flash but I avoid incorporating movies in the Flash player simply because it just makes the movie take that much longer to start streaming, making it a nuisance to most people visiting a site. (Your web browser first has to tell your computer to access the Flash player, and the Flash Player in turn has to see the code for the video and decide what to do with it before it ever starts streaming). Better to just give an url for the video clip and let people stream with Media Player or via the browser window if they have that inabled. If its a wmv coded movie then most people will be able to view it fine and this is the fastest way to go for them.

 

I've always hated that crummy Quicktime movie player. Not only is it an amatuer looking eyesore but it's features are difficult for most people to get a handle on. WMP is a breeze unless you're trying to create a song list....

[Guest Charlie Seper]

BTW, I'm assuming that most of the people posting and/or reading this post were referring to typical low-band Internet movies, however, there's an interesting, though not sciency, web page here comparing the WMV-HD and the Quicktime H.264 high-def versions of the these codecs. Their findings were based more around CPU lodes and Macs/PC's rather than a visual difference in the codecs (which they admit look about the same).

 

H.264 content on your PC

[Stuart Brereton]

There are many excellent MPEG-4 encoders. Windows Media 9 (which is sort of largely more or less MPEG-4) is superbly good, whatever you think of Microsoft, and a number of the free Windows AVI codecs (DivX, Xvid) are good, especially in 2-pass VBR.

 

I've seen some great looking WMV files (the BMW films, for instance, look great) but unfortunately I'm Mac based, and Microsoft has understandably not been too bothered with updating their Media Player for OS X. The H.264 encoder in QT7 is, as Phil points out, awful, and Cleaner 6 doesn't seem to know what to do about H.264. It recognises the CoDec, but returns errors every time I try to use it.

 

So, what are Mac users out there using to encode H.264? Is there any software for OS X that can do it well, or should I just stick with Sorensen until Apple get their act together and put a decent encoder into Quicktime?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

So, what are Mac users out there using to encode H.264? Is there any software for OS X that can do it well, or should I just stick with Sorensen until Apple get their act together and put a decent encoder into Quicktime?

 

First I don't agree that QT7 is a bad encoder in H264 at all. And secondly - Compressor is a very able program that can copmress any format. I love the speed and user-friendliness of Compressor, but the files QT7 produce are much slimmer.

 

Cleaner is dead as a software since Discreet bought it. It never was very good or fast anyway. Compressor blows it away in speed.

Edited November 14, 2005 by AdamFrisch

[Brian Wells]

Flash video is Sorenson...

 

If you weren't already aware, Flash8 also offers the VP6 codec from On2. It's important to think about all the new codecs and players from a user interface point of view. H.264 can look very good, but it requires the user to download a 20+ MB software program to view the files! Flash8 Player, on the other hand, is a 1MB download... which is one of the reasons I think it's a good choice.

 

Here is some info about On2/VP6:

http://www.on2.com/technology/vp6/

http://www.on2.com/technology/on2-vs-h264/

 

Also, FWIW, I have had only the most positive experience with H.264 using the QT encoder on a Mac (both progressive and interlaced). Based on what I've heard from Phil and other PC users, I wonder if the PC implementation may be a little different and not have as many customizations as the Mac?

 

I don't want to point the dirty finger in any specific direction, but it seems that Microsoft users are the main culprits in this area. Half of them are still on Win98 and then they wonder why they're QT7 doesn't play the latest trailers in HD? Seriously, how hard is it to install QT7....

Pretty hard unless they're using Windows 2000/XP. Quicktime 7 will not run on Windows 98! (I just checked Apple's specs to verify this, http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html)

[Stuart Brereton]

First I don't agree that QT7 is a bad encoder in H264 at all. And secondly - Compressor is a very able program that can copmress any format. I love the speed and user-friendliness of Compressor, but the files QT7 produce are much slimmer.

 

Cleaner is dead as a software since Discreet bought it. It never was very good or fast anyway. Compressor blows it away in speed.

 

Maybe I should persevere with QT7. Compressor doesn't work for me. All I get is an error 'Cannot connect to background action' or something. It's a well known conflict which Apple have done precisely nothing to solve, and it means that a large part of their flagship media package doesn't work- at all!

 

I always liked Cleaner, the presets return really nice results, but the fact that they still haven't produced a work around to deal with h.264 doesn't say much for their R&D. ho hum...

[Gordon Highland]

Compressor doesn't work for me. All I get is an error 'Cannot connect to background action' or something.

 

I used to have this problem, too. I believe it might've had to do with the install order. Did you install FCP before DVD Studio Pro? If I remember correctly, I THINK it has to be the other way around for Compressor to work properly.

[Brian Wells]

It's a well known conflict which Apple have done precisely nothing to solve

RTFM!

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93234

[Stuart Brereton]

RTFM!

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93234

 

 

Brian,

 

I don't call one webpage of work-arounds, which don't work for everyone, a satisfactory response from a major manufacturer. There are many, many people who have the same problem with Compressor, and Apple has had ample opportunity to fix this problem in one of their ProApp updates, but they haven't. Given the cost of their 'Professional' software, I would have thought the least they could do was solve problems like this...

 

Anyway, my original problem with the H.264 encoder in QT7 was not that it's bad, just that it's no better than Sorenson 3. I've tried re-encoding some of my promos, but found that, at the same file sizes, Sorenson seems to be just as good as H.264. So, all I can figure is: A. there is a knack to getting great results out of QT7/H.264, or B. Apple has been overselling the benefits of H.264....

[Brian Wells]

Given the cost of their 'Professional' software, I would have thought the least they could do was solve problems like this...

Oh, Apple already abandoned the professional community that got them where they are in favor of their new iCorporate model. I like my iPod; I wish I could say the same about FCP. There is a long list of bugs in FCP that will never get fixed. The most annoying, I think, is how the Scene Detection command does not work after Advanced Pulldown Removal. Apple requires a $799/year service plan (or $199 per incident) to hear about and diagnose problems with their Pro Apps, which they will promptly refund if a bug is discovered. My feeling is I shouldn't have to pay them to fix bugs in their software. So, the problem remains after two years!

 

A. there is a knack to getting great results out of QT7/H.264, or B. Apple has been overselling the benefits of H.264....

Here is what I do: I use progressive files at "medium" quality with resolution 320 x 240 (4:3) or 428 x 240 (16:9) as these are, to the best of my knowledge, exactly half the resolution of the NTSC-DV frame sizes (taking into account the differences in pixel aspect ratios). I always use two pass encoding and I also check the "frame re-ordering" box as was suggested for best results.

 

Are all these options available in the Windows version, Phil? Is the Main Concept encoder any better? How?

[Gordon Highland]

I use progressive files at "medium" quality with resolution 320 x 240 (4:3) or 428 x 240 (16:9) as these are, to the best of my knowledge, exactly half the resolution of the NTSC-DV frame sizes

That's actually 1/4 the resolution (307,200 pix vs. 76,800 pix), half as wide AND half as tall. It also probably goes without saying, but when it comes to compression for computer mointor viewing, progressive-scan sources look far better than ones that originated as interlace. I know that's not what you meant by "progressive," but still worth significant mention.

 

Hey, as bad as some of this compression looks, you might appreciate that I have to deliver some of the crap I produce en masse to cell phones in MP4 at 48Kb/s (176x144 @ 8fps)! Ugh!! I'll get to triple that data rate next year when EV-DO is more widely used.

[Brian Wells]

progressive-scan sources look far better than ones that originated as interlace. I know that's not what you meant by "progressive," but still worth significant mention.

Yes, I use the term "progressive" loosely. What I meant was "progressive scan" Err, 24P.

What other kind of "progressive" is there? I'm asking because I don't know.

 

Sincerely,

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

It's not a case of progressive sources looking better on a computer display - trying to compress interlaced video with a compressor that doesn't understand interlace is simply wrong, and will look horrible. Even worse is the situation where you have downscaled your video by some arbitrary amount to get it to 320 by whatever, and the interlace fringing has been screwed up by the resample. All common gotchas.

 

Phil