HD200 dropping frames with h.264

[jgscott987]

I'm new to SageTV and the HD200 extender, coming from 5 years with MythTV. I've noticed that my h.264 encoded DVD rips do not play smoothly on the HD200. In frames with a lot of action, the video is slightly choppy- like it is dropping frames. It is not noticeable in scenes with little motion, or even in slow, steady pans.

I've tried a number of the solutions previously posted in the forums, including setting up a custom timing at 24fps as detailed here:
http://forums.sagetv.com/forums/show...88&postcount=9

Unfortunately, none of the solutions I've found have helped at all.

I set up a test video and encoded it with Xvid and also with h.264. All other settings, bitrates, resolution, etc were the same. The Xvid video played back perfectly on the HD200, while the h.264 video had the same choppiness, dropping frames in heavy action scenes. I tried encoding without inverse-telecineing the DVD, but the choppiness remained the same. I even set the video resolution and bitrate on the encoder fairly low, but still got no relief.

Both test videos (h.264 and Xvid) play back perfectly on my PC in VLC and Windows Media Player.

I put the videos on a high-speed USB drive and played them on the HD200 in standalone mode (to rule out network problems), but the choppiness remained in the h.264 video.

Has anyone else experienced this or found a solution for it? I really like the simplicity of the HD200, but I have encoded my entire DVD collection in h.264 and the dropped frames are very annoying. I may have to return my three HD200s if I can't get this fixed.

My hardware setup:
Server: P4 3.2 Ghz, Win XP
Gigabit wired network
3 HD200 extenders
Extender Firmware: 20090903 0 (latest non-beta version)
Server version: 6.5.20.1
Tested on both S-Video and HDMI output

Video encoding setup:
FairUse Wizard used for DVD ripping and encoding
Inverse telecine: ON
encoded video resolution: 464 x 288
Video bitrate: 1080 Kbits/sec
Video container: .avi

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Taddeusz]

Are your H.264 encodes also in an AVI container? If so, that is probably your problem. AVI is old. The advanced features of H.264 are not compatible with the AVI container. If you want to use H.264 you need to put it in a different container. MP4, M2TS, or MKV. I use MKV.

[jgscott987]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Are your H.264 encodes also in an AVI container? If so, that is probably your problem. AVI is old. The advanced features of H.264 are not compatible with the AVI container. If you want to use H.264 you need to put it in a different container. MP4, M2TS, or MKV. I use MKV.

The container seemed like an unlikely culprit, but I re-ran the video encoded into a MKV container. The choppiness remained.

FairUse Wizard has an h.264 encoder built into it (x.264?). I'll try to use a different h.264 encoder to see if my results are any better.

I didn't realize that AVI was outdated- it seems like the most prevalent video container format. I'll start using MKV from here on out. Is MKV as widely readable as AVI is?

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by jgscott987

The container seemed like an unlikely culprit, but I re-ran the video encoded into a MKV container. The choppiness remained.

FairUse Wizard has an h.264 encoder built into it (x.264?). I'll try to use a different h.264 encoder to see if my results are any better.

I didn't realize that AVI was outdated- it seems like the most prevalent video container format. I'll start using MKV from here on out. Is MKV as widely readable as AVI is?

AVI is very outdated. You should not be using H.264 within an AVI container at all. And in fact it really does make a difference. Specifically, AVI is completely incompatible with H.264 b-frames and other more advanced features of the format. Back when I was originally playing around with converting movies I was doing H.264 to AVI. I was having the same kind of choppiness problems. After some back and forth with Sage it turned out to be the container. It really amazed me that it was the problem but it really turned out to be it.

What H.264 settings are you using and at what bitrate? In other words, how many reference frames are you using, etc. If you don't know specifically go download MediaInfo and post the text description of one of your videos.

[jgscott987]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

AVI is very outdated. You should not be using H.264 within an AVI container at all. And in fact it really does make a difference. Specifically, AVI is completely incompatible with H.264 b-frames and other more advanced features of the format. Back when I was originally playing around with converting movies I was doing H.264 to AVI. I was having the same kind of choppiness problems. After some back and forth with Sage it turned out to be the container. It really amazed me that it was the problem but it really turned out to be it.

What H.264 settings are you using and at what bitrate? In other words, how many reference frames are you using, etc. If you don't know specifically go download MediaInfo and post the text description of one of your videos.

Here is the output from MediaInfo on my test encoding:


General
Complete name : \\HOMESERVER\Media 2 (F)\Videos\Demo\Test Videos 02-2010\Test Clip MKV.mkv
Format : Matroska
File size : 20.3 MiB
Duration : 2mn 13s
Overall bit rate : 1 278 Kbps
Encoded date : UTC 2010-02-16 00:05:55
Writing application : VirtualDubMod 1.5.4.1 (build 2128/release)
Writing library : libebml-0.5.0 & libmatroska-0.5.0

Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Main@L5.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
Codec ID : H264
Duration : 2mn 13s
Bit rate : 1 124 Kbps
Nominal bit rate : 1 147 Kbps
Width : 416 pixels
Height : 352 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 1.182
Frame rate : 23.976 fps
Resolution : 8 bits
Colorimetry : 4:2:0
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.320
Stream size : 17.8 MiB (88%)
Writing library : x264 core 58 svn-736bm
Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=1 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x1:0x131 / me=hex / subme=5 / brdo=0 / mixed_ref=0 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / chroma_qp_offset=0 / threads=8 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / mbaff=0 / bframes=2 / b_pyramid=0 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / wpredb=1 / bime=0 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40(pre) / rc=2pass / bitrate=1147 / ratetol=1.0 / rceq='blurCplx^(1-qComp)' / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / ip_ratio=1.40 / pb_ratio=1.30

Audio
ID : 2
Format : MPEG Audio
Format version : Version 1
Format profile : Layer 3
Mode : Joint stereo
Format_Settings_ModeExtension : MS Stereo
Codec ID : A_MPEG/L3
Codec ID/Hint : MP3
Duration : 2mn 13s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 128 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Stream size : 2.04 MiB (10%)
Writing library : LAME3.97
Encoding settings : -m j -V 4 -q 2 -lowpass 17 -b 128


Thanks for checking this out. Let me know if you have any suggestions.

[jgscott987]

Well, I re-encoded a test clip once again, but used a different set of encoder settings. (FairUse Wizard has a number of presets to choose from.) In this case, FairUse Wizard put the video in an MP4 container.

The great news is that the video playback is smooth!

I'm still very curious about which of these parameters changed from the previous post to this one that made the video play back smoothly.

Here is the output from MediaInfo:


General
Complete name : \\HOMESERVER\Media 2 (F)\Videos\Demo\Test Videos 02-2010\Test Clip 2- MP4.mp4
Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : Base Media
Codec ID : isom
File size : 24.4 MiB
Duration : 2mn 51s
Overall bit rate : 1 195 Kbps
Encoded date : UTC 2010-02-15 06:20:03
Tagged date : UTC 2010-02-15 06:20:03

Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : High@L5.1
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 3 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 2mn 50s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 1 034 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 2 314 Kbps
Width : 416 pixels
Height : 352 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 1.182
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 23.976 fps
Resolution : 8 bits
Colorimetry : 4:2:0
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.295
Stream size : 21.0 MiB (86%)
Writing library : x264 core 58 svn-736bm
Encoding settings : cabac=1 / ref=3 / deblock=1:-2:-1 / analyse=0x3:0x113 / me=umh / subme=6 / brdo=0 / mixed_ref=0 / me_range=12 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / chroma_qp_offset=0 / threads=8 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / mbaff=0 / bframes=16 / b_pyramid=1 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=3 / wpredb=1 / bime=0 / keyint=250 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40(pre) / rc=2pass / bitrate=1034 / ratetol=1.0 / rceq='blurCplx^(1-qComp)' / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / cplxblur=20.0 / qblur=0.5 / ip_ratio=1.40 / pb_ratio=1.30
Encoded date : UTC 2010-02-15 06:20:03
Tagged date : UTC 2010-02-15 06:20:03

Audio
ID : 2
Format : AAC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
Format version : Version 4
Format profile : LC
Format settings, SBR : No
Codec ID : 40
Duration : 2mn 51s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 163 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 194 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Stream size : 3.33 MiB (14%)
Encoded date : UTC 2010-02-15 06:20:03
Tagged date : UTC 2010-02-15 06:20:03



Thanks again for looking this over. Please let me know what settings were 'deficient' in my previous post, if you see any.

[Taddeusz]

Can't completely explain it. The HD200 is supposed to be compatible with AVC Main and High profiles. I would ask why you're encoding to such an odd resolution? Since DVD's are 720x480, unless you are encoding for a portable device, it just seems odd to me to encode to such a low resolution.

Also, you might try out different converting programs. Handbrake is an excellent program and has a much more up to date version of x264. This means higher quality encodes at slightly lower bitrates. The latest SVN beta build is quite nice. The x264 FairUse has is quite old now and does not produce nearly as high a quality of encodes. Not even by a long shot. Plus, Handbrake is free.

For my own movies I use Handbrake with a slightly modified High Profile preset on a 2-pass encode at an average bitrate of 2500kbps. I also keep the original anamorphic resolution of the DVD so I'm not losing any detail in the conversion nor am I adding any smoothing due to oversizing the video to compensate for converting to a non-anamorphic resolution. I also keep the original Dolby Digital audio so I can keep the surround sound. If you encode surround sound into anything else (i.e. MP3 or AAC) it will get converted to stereo when it's played by the HD200.

My resulting conversions are virtually indistinguishable from the original on my 42" 1080p HDTV with the added advantage that they are easier for the HD200 to play back. I had been taking the MPEG2 video and AC3 audio straight from the DVD and putting that into an MKV. I found out, however, that the quite varying quality of flagging in the video produced a wide range of results during playback. Converting to a relatively high bitrate H.264 video gives a pretty good point of reference for playback and doesn't reduce the quality from the original a horrible amount.

[jgscott987]

I tried Handbrake, but the lack of decryption makes the process more cumbersome. FairUse Wizard decrypts and encodes a disc with just a few clicks. I'll see if I can update the encoder that FairUse uses.

Your comment on resolution brings up another question I've had for a long time... Does a extra wide-screen DVD (2.39:1) have 480 lines of resolution in the video itself, or are part of those 480 lines used up in the letterbox at the top and bottom of the screen?

The test clip's original format was 2.39:1, which has black bars above and below the video. If you crop out the black bars, you get a vertical resolution of ~357 lines.

I know that the anamorphic nature of DVDs may allow them to 'squeeze' the full 480 lines into a 2.39:1 frame while still maintaining the correct aspect ratio. The problem is that if I encode a 2.39:1 video as anamorphic, the aspect ratio in the resulting video is off.

I'd love to get a better understanding of anamorphic DVDs, and how to encode them for the best possible quality.

[Taddeusz]

I understand your complaint about Handbrake. I've had AnyDVD for so long I forget it's there. But what I actually do is copy the files from my DVD and queue a bunch up at a time. That way I can have it run all day non-stop while I'm at work without having to swap discs. Something that apparently FairUse won't let you do and requires you to run directly from the DVD. According to them it's because you're supposed to own the original DVD and so they won't let you run from a copied folder. Sure, it requires time up front to queue up all the DVD's on your hard drive but the result is a more hands off approach.

Yes, that's 480 lines translated to a 4:3 or 16:9 frame. The black bars are encoded into the video and only those two aspect ratios are supported on DVD's. My resulting videos are all cropped but kept to their original anamorphic display. They should look nearly identical to an uncropped video as far as aspect ratio is concerned.

As far as FairUse Wizard is concerned if it is capable of doing anamorphic video and it's not looking right they might not be doing the calculations properly. They are pretty involved and if they're not done properly or with the correct precision the result might not look correct. Apparently there's also some dispute about what the proper aspect ratio of 4:3 and 16:9 should be. The ITU uses values that don't exactly match the true values and as a result video can look wrong when using them. MeGUI was doing this when I was using it and I had to substitute the true values to get a correct image. Handbrake uses the correct true values for anamorphic encoding.

The only problem with using anamorphic video are players that don't properly support it. I assure you that as long as the calculations are done correctly, as with Handbrake, the video will look correct on the HD200.

My personal issue with not using the original anamorphic resolution from the DVD, even after cropping, is that either way you have a video that has lost detail or have made the video slightly fuzzy from being converted to a 1:1 pixel ratio. I would rather any transformations take place upon playback rather than being hard encoded into the video.

In reference to your videos, if you're going to convert to a non-anamorphic 1:1 pixel ratio then at least keep the width at 720 for original 16:9 video or the height at 480 for original 4:3 video. That way any detail loss is kept to a minimum.

[jgscott987]

Actually FairUse Wizard does allow you to do batch encoding. The program rips the DVD to your hard drive in 10-15 minutes. You put in your settings, crops, bitrate, etc, and then defer processing. You can queue up as many videos as you like this way. The DVD is no longer required after the original rip. (You can also run FairUse Wizard off of an .iso file.)

I've been a big fan of FairUse and have used it for years. I've never had any problems with it until I started using the HD200. The program hasn't been updated in a year or so, hence the old encoder that is included. I've tried a lot of other ripper/encoders, but all of them seem to require multiple programs and multiple steps. FairUse Wizard is just SO simple. I paid $10 for it several years ago-- some of the best money I've ever spent.

All that said, however, it may be time to take a fresh look at what's out there.

[Taddeusz]

BTW, what are you viewing these videos on? An HDTV or old SDTV?

I ask because I notice the aspect ratios of your videos don't really match anything a film would come in. Just curious if you're doing some cropping or something?

[jgscott987]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

BTW, what are you viewing these videos on? An HDTV or old SDTV?

I ask because I notice the aspect ratios of your videos don't really match anything a film would come in. Just curious if you're doing some cropping or something?

The cropping in the test videos is pretty random- I just made roughly a 16:9 crop.

Part of my challenge is that I watch my videos on both 4:3 and 16:9 screens.

When I'm actually working on a rip of a 2.39:1 movie, I'll generally crop off the black letterbox, and then crop off 16 or 24 or 32 pixels off either side. The side crop doesn't take much information out, but it does allow for a bigger picture without having to use zoom functions on the TV. Most movie directors use a 'shoot and protect' approach when filming, which keeps all of the important action within a 16:9 frame in the center of the larger 2.39:1 frame. This allows the video to be reasonably viewed on various aspect ratio displays.

I'm not sure if this still applies, but I remember from years ago that some codecs prefer (or even require) that the dimensions of the video be a multiple of 16. That's why I take off 16 or 24 or 32 (as opposed to 20 or 30) pixels from each edge of a wide video.

Anyway, moving back toward the original topic, I now need to decide between MKV and MP4 as my preferred container. I've read a lot of debate on the subject, and it seems pretty clear that MKV is the more capable container. My concern, however, is that like many open source formats (like ogg) it may lose steam and not be supported as widely in hardware devices. Since MP4 has already been adopted in the iPod and PSP, I feel much more confident that it will be widely supported.

I don't think I need any of the advanced features available in MKV, such as subtitles, multiple streams, chapters, etc. If I ever do come across a video where I need such features I may just use MKV for that one.

[Taddeusz]

Actually, H.264 prefers resolutions in multiples of 16. If the resolution is not divisible by 16 x264 will add buffer lines (or columns) into the video to make it fit. For example the vertical resolution of a 1080p video, whose resolution is 1920x1080, is not evenly divisible by 16. As a result the video's actual resolution is 1920x1088. When the video is played back the last 8 lines are stripped out to leave the actual image. But technically there is a black line encoded into the video to make it divisible by 16.

To me that's an odd practice of cropping. I suppose I am a purist when it comes to viewing movies. Sure, there's probably no important information in those areas of the film but it was blocked that way for a reason and was the way it was meant to be viewed.

The exception is Stanley Kubrick who preferred his films fit whatever screen size was available. This is the reason the DVD release of "Eyes Wide Shut" was presented in 4:3 but the Blu-ray release was in full 16:9. There was no 16:9 version on DVD. I believe it was shot in 1.85:1 and was presented at the theaters that way.

[Taddeusz]

Ok, let me correct myself. Stanley Kubrick actually preferred the 1.333:1 aspect ratio. That's apparently how he imagined all his films. So the original DVD version is actually the way he intended it to be viewed. But was viewed in the theaters at 1.85:1. The later widescreen version was a matted version of the original. Since Stanley Kubrick died shortly before the film he had no say-so in how those versions were produced.