The Edius encoder Pepsi challenge :)

[David Harry]

Here is an Edius downloadable test project. Not to sure how far backwards compatibility is with the video files, but the EZP is good to go for all of the versions of 6 and definitely 6.0.7

If you start at the first frame and read the description. The results should hopefully help those who are questioning the upgrade to their system to go for Quicksynch . It may also help those who are wondering about just how good the MPEG exporter is.

Maybe those who try out the project could add their findings to the thread, the general consensus may well help others.

http://www.mediafire.com/?1b7os0dsp6q77s3

As for my findings, here is an edited copy of a PM with a forum member who helped me with the test.

Thanks very much for that. You've obviously got the point to the test. I have noticed a lot of talk about people wanting to spend money on massively changing their setups to go for Quicksynch for H264.

The big problem with investing in MB technology is that when it is superseded, which is very quickly, you generally have to change everything, CPU, RAM etc. to upgrade.

Using either add on video cards or GPU devices is a little different. You can have either superseded and only have to change the card if you have to, and not the whole base system.

Investing such money for the purpose of encoding, should really be for quality more than speed. In this case the Intel technology is not the best. If you want the best, use the most powerful machine you can afford, something that is good for other post video jobs to justify a heavy expence, editing, compositing, grading etc. and use X264 as it's the best H264 encoder and free.

On the other hand. If it's quick no nonsense encoding you need, then the MPEG encoder for HD is perfect. On a powerful system that runs quicksync, I have heared people say that it is faster than real time, but the MPEG encoder is faster than realtime anyway even on a powerful system with or without quicksync. Plus most Edius users will be using none quicksync systems. I don't use quicksync but have some very powerful HP workstations. On my systems, the MPEG encoder is something like 8 to 10 times faster than the H264 encoder.

I will be posting the test and hopefully give people a good reason to either save their money or invest into something more useful for their video productions. Or just put people's minds at ease over the whole quality issue, and let them know that they are not settling for second best. Just like you, I and many editors place quality at the top of the list for what we believe is important. Hopefully this test helps other like ourselves to not have to spend any more time on this particular issue.

[Jerry]

I still use MPEG. It is still a very viable codec to use when creating BD's.
Quick Sync is more of a tool for individuals that need to compress information into a smaller area, in a short amount of time.

Using Quick Sync makes it possible for those that are filling their BD's with MPEG, to be able to get more onto a disc with H.264 in a short span of time.

Personally, I can't see a difference between H.264 from Quick Sync, or Edius, when compared to the same file created with Mpeg from Edius.

The difference would be the time variable in creating H.264 vs MPEG without the use of Quick Sync.

My advice is, if you intend to use H.264, get a machine with quick sync. You can build a small micro-atx for a very cheap price.
However, if you have a reasonably fast machine, and you aren't filling your Bd's to the brim, MPEG should work for you. It is fast on my 980x. It uses all of the cores and threads.

[David Harry]

Hi Jerry.

Yes I get your points and understand them. I have just re-edited my first post to include some PM dialogue with a forum member. This goes into more detail over the whys and what fors of the test.

It may be a personal thing, but I personally try to avoid unnecessary spends or at least divert funds to where they are better felt.

Edius can do about 2.5 hour of BD MPEG encoding that matches it's own H264 quality. Anyone going above 2 hours should really be considering 50 gig discs. The problem with bit budgeting with the Edius H264 encoder, with or without quicksync or FCB for that matter. Is that if you start going down to increase the content amount above 2-2.5 hours, you are only going to start making the picture worse. I would have thought at this point, having a lesser picture, would somewhat conflict with the reasoning to spend more money on the fast technology. If bit budgeting is your only option, you really need to be using X264, or use it if your primary justification for spending a lot of money is to get the best quality.

Now, if Edius at some point employs the full implementation of X264, as so many others are doing. Then that would be just perfect, and then some way to accelerate that.

I still use MPEG. It is still a very viable codec to use when creating BD's.
Quick Sync is more of a tool for individuals that need to compress information into a smaller area, in a short amount of time.

Using Quick Sync makes it possible for those that are filling their BD's with MPEG, to be able to get more onto a disc with H.264 in a short span of time.

Personally, I can't see a difference between H.264 from Quick Sync, or Edius, when compared to the same file created with Mpeg from Edius.

The difference would be the time variable in creating H.264 vs MPEG without the use of Quick Sync.

My advice is, if you intend to use H.264, get a machine with quick sync. You can build a small micro-atx for a very cheap price.
However, if you have a reasonably fast machine, and you aren't filling your Bd's to the brim, MPEG should work for you. It is fast on my 980x. It uses all of the cores and threads.

[Jerry]

I understand where you are going with this. I agree that wasteful spending
is problematic at best.

That said, most of the users on this forum try to get by on the least expensive setup that they can. Also most can't afford 2 or 3 systems.

If the user is in this situation and can't afford a high end X58, X79 or Xeon setup, the Ivybridge setup will do them fine and along with this comes quick sync. It should be used as just another tool in the toolbox.

[David Harry]

I understand where you are going with this. I agree that wasteful spending
is problematic at best.

That said, most of the users on this forum try to get by on the least expensive setup that they can. Also most can't afford 2 or 3 systems.

If the user is in this situation and can't afford a high end X58, X79 or Xeon setup, the Ivybridge setup will do them fine and along with this comes quick sync. It should be used as just another tool in the toolbox.

Hi Jerry.

Again I understand what you are saying. But I will hazard a guess that the vast majority of systems out there do not comply with the accelerator technology anyway. For these people, the test just proves that you don't need to upgrade your whole system. If you where thinking that the H264 encoding route in Edius was going to give you anything better than what you already have for quality, when using proper bitrates.

Lesser experienced users of any particular technology, sometimes make unsound purchasing decisions based on the fact that they think they need something. It's always good to learn from other people's experiences, technical abilities and mistakes. It just makes for a more informed purchase, and increases ones knowledge of such matters.

If you are someone looking for a new computer or in need of an over due upgrade. Then one of these accelerated type systems, could be a good option, as long as the whole outweighs the sum of its parts. I would also read more into such matters, as there is always someone posting one thing or another about the difficulties of sitting the board and GPU drivers correctly and without any issue to the rest of your system.

Personally, if I was going down that road, I would take a serious look at David Clarke's posts, or visit his site http://www.dvc.uk.com/acatalog/EDIUS...ge_system.html . As someone who not only knows, but builds systems with this technology.

Using tools in your toolbox is the right way to go about things, but I think a better understanding of where, when and why you would use any particular tool. Is better practice, and will help your production work at the most fundamental levels.

Anyway. This project is all about showing the individual the actual reality of both the encoders. Based on the obvious outcome, the individual can better understand what's going on and how it applies to them. This in turn will allow for a more informed purchase or upgrade. Needles to say most of those who have PM'd or emailed me have so far, have come to the conclusion that there is no realistic visual difference. Except for that eagle eyed Aussie, Anton :)

In light of the lack of other similar real world video offerings, for the Edius user. I would have thought that these types of downloads would be seen as something positive by the forum, its users, and GV. The download should be seen as an Edius educational piece based on it's encoders.

[Jerry]

You have to get down to scopes to see the difference. I can A B the files and I can't perceive the difference. On the scopes there are subtle changes.

I think you get my point that Quick Sync is just another device to use when needed.

[David Harry]

You have to get down to scopes to see the difference. I can A B the files and I can't perceive the difference. On the scopes there are subtle changes.

I think you get my point that Quick Sync is just another device to use when needed.

Jerry. Yes, that's how I see it. Even on a 50" screen it's the same to the eye.

As you say, scopes will show a difference. But using layouter shows some interesting results, although not the right way to do it and not scientific. The MPEG encoder tracks things like noise in the picture better, the H264 evens it out. So the MPEG at this level retains a level of sharpness over the H264 compared to the master. Although that's just getting into silly territory, as at 1:1 on a big screen there is no difference.

I don't just get the point that Quick sync is just another device. If I had a system with it on, and it was faster than MPEG. I would use it over MPEG purely for speed knowing I am not gaining or losing anything against MPEG at around 20-25 and above. Further more. I would use which ever was best for speed on whatever system, and push the bitrate as high as possible at CBR using all the disk space available.

Bottom line. Which ever one is fastest on your system, is going to produce the fastest timeline to BD from all the NLE tests I have done in the past. Unless things have changed recently with other NLE's and Quicksync, CUDA etc. Edius is still probably the fastest out of all of them, in either mode.

BTW. What version of Edius stopped using MPEG for BD in the disc exporter, and are we definitely getting the option of either or, in 6.5.

Cheers.

dave.

[ajcvideo]

I could not tell the difference. Gave a slight edge to the mpeg clip. Just completed an 80 min. HD project, made an elementary stream file and brought into Encore. When all was said and done everything looked great. Client was happy and I was happy.

[David Harry]

I could not tell the difference. Gave a slight edge to the mpeg clip. Just completed an 80 min. HD project, made an elementary stream file and brought into Encore. When all was said and done everything looked great. Client was happy and I was happy.

Ara. The ability to get out of Edius and into your authoring program as fast as possible, is a real world bonus.

As in your situation, if the encode is good, then it just means you are able to reduce the amount of links in your workflow chain.

For what it's worth to anyone. If your main concern is to get a good quality picture at the fastest speeds. Then depending on which suits your system's speed better, MPEG or H264. Edius will produce an output for either its own authoring, or encodes for external authoring, that are at least as good as most other options. Most encoders, regardless of price, all start looking fairly much the same once you start going over 25Mbit. Remember that commercial Blu-ray movies usually average at least 25Mbit, and a lot average over 30Mbit.

If pure picture quality for Blu-ray is your concern, and you are prepared to take the hit on speed and convenience to achieve this, then look no further than X264.

The combination of Edius, a good GV video card and X264, will give you an encoding system that just can't be beaten at any price.