Codec Speed vs Size Tests

[shijan]

Some tests done with Hybrid_dev_2021.09.11 to discuss here...

ORIGINAL 768x576 FFV1 8-bit 4:2:0 + Grain Factory = 902 MB
transcoded with Hybrid to:

FFV1 v3 4:2:0 8-bit = 260-270 FPS, 902 MB
FFV1 V3 4:2:0 10-bit = 180-186 FPS, 922 MB
ProRes 4:2:2 HQ 10-bit = 114 FPS, 936 MB
Cineform FS1 4:2:2 10-bit = 480 FPS, 732 MB
Cineform FS2 4:2:2 10-bit = 470 FPS, 1.16 GB
Cineform FS3 4:2:2 10-bit = 470 FPS, 1.24 GB
x264 Lossless 4:2:0 8-bit Preset Medium = 100-130 FPS, 942 MB
x264 Lossless 4:2:0 8-bit Preset Slow = 70-87 FPS, 940 MB
x264 Lossless 4:2:2 10-bit Preset Medium = 70-95 FPS, 1.74 GB
x264 Lossless 4:2:2 10-bit Preset Slow = 50-66 FPS, 1.73 GB

---------

ORIGINAL 768x576 FFV1 8-bit 4:2:0 = 768 MB
transcoded with Hybrid to:

FFV1 V3 4:2:0 8-bit = 280 FPS, 766 MB
FFV1 V3 4:2:0 10-bit = 195-205 FPS, 787 MB
FFV1 V3 4:2:2 8 bit = 240 FPS, 857 MB
FFV1 V3 4:2:2 10 bit = 160 FPS, 1.12 GB
FFV1 V3 4:4:4 8 bit = 180 FPS, 1.02 GB
FFV1 V3 4:4:4 10 bit = 123 FPS, 1.39 GB
ProRes 4:2:2HQ 10-bit = 119 FPS, 929 MB
ProRes 4:4:4 (only 10-bit supported by FFmpeg) = 93 FPS, 1.39 GB
Cineform FS1 4:2:2 10-bit = 505 FPS, 608 MB
Cineform FS2 4:2:2 10-bit = 480 FPS, 1.01 GB
Cineform FS3 4:2:2 10-bit = 475 FPS, 1.07 GB
x264 Lossless 4:2:0 8-bit Preset Medium = 130-140 FPS, 800 MB
x264 Lossless 4:2:0 8-bit Preset Slow = 70-92 FPS, 798 MB
x264 Lossless 4:2:2 10-bit Preset Medium = 74-99 FPS, 1.55 GB
x264 Lossless 4:2:2 10-bit Preset Slow = 55-71 FPS, 1.54 GB

...and just to compare to typical visually OK-looking compression:
x264 CRF 18.00 High4.1 4:2:0 8-bit Preset Slow + Tune None = 100-90 FPS, 43 MB
x264 CRF 18.00 High4.1 4:2:0 8-bit Preset Slow + Tune Grain = 75-69 FPS, 93 MB

[Selur]

Like I wrote before:

If you compare FFV1, ProRes,... you should look at these points:

• support for different color samplings/color spaces
  
• support for alpha channel
  
• availability of hardware encoding
  
• availability of hardware decoding
  
• encoding speed (for all the supported color options on sd/hd/uhd content)
  
• deccoding speed (for all the supported color options on sd/hd/uhd content)
  
• lossless or not
  
• encoded size (for all the supported color options on sd/hd/uhd content)
  

As a side note: FFV1 does also support 4:2:2, 4:4:4, Hybrid just doesn't offer to enforce a specific color sampling. Hybrid sticks with the color sampling it gets.

Cu Selur

[shijan]

At least we can see that FFV1 is fast and effectively reduce file size if there is no grain.
FFV1 is faster and more effective than x264 Lossless.
Cineform "Visually Lossless" is extremely fast and size vs quality may be adjusted in very large limits. FS modes are "Film Scan" they where introduced as maximum possible visually lossless quality modes that preserve grainy film and video structure.
ProRes 422HQ 10-bit is "Visually Lossless" but same time 1.8-1.9 less in size than x264 "Real Lossless" 422 10-bit
Upscaling bit depth and chroma sampling increases file size a lot.

By the way, as it was noticed earlier - standalone filter for Hybrid that allow to change bit depth and chroma sampling may be useful option.

[Selur]

Upscaling bit depth and chroma sampling increases file size a lot.

Naturally.

By the way, as it was noticed earlier - standalone filter for Hybrid that allow to change bit depth and chroma sampling may be useful option.

Not happening.

Cineform "Visually Lossless" is extremely fast and size vs quality may be adjusted in very large limits.

It's lossy and it's size is worse than lossless FFV1.

ProRes 422HQ 10-bit is "Visually Lossless" but same time 1.8-1.9 less in size than x264 "Real Lossless" 422 10-bit

Yes, if you throw away data you get smaller files. The main shame here is that it's way slower than other "Visually Lossless" and even "lossless" formats, only good point I see is that it's supported by most NLEs.
Other than that it seeems like the worst choice.

Cu Selur

[shijan]

Yep, x264 and ProRes are the most supported codecs in NLEs cameras and recorders. Original Apple ProRes transcoding is way faster than FFmpeg ProRes.

Avid DNxHD also more-less popular option in NLEs and hardware, but formally it use same block-based compression as ProRes. I personally don't like DNxHD due confused settings system when manually selected codec preset should strictly match to resolution and other specific video parameters.

[Selur]

Not x264, H.264.
One is an encoder the other is a format.

Original Apple ProRes transcoding is way faster than FFmpeg ProRes

Speed of H.264 encoding and decoding is also a lot faster if you use a hardware encoder.

Cu Selur

[shijan]

Done additional tests with new version of Hybrid and add them to first post:

FFV1 V3 4:2:2 8 bit = 240 FPS, 857 MB
FFV1 V3 4:2:2 10 bit = 160 FPS, 1.12 GB
FFV1 V3 4:4:4 8 bit = 180 FPS, 1.02 GB
FFV1 V3 4:4:4 10 bit = 123 FPS, 1.39 GB
ProRes 4:4:4 (only 10-bit supported by FFmpeg) = 93 FPS, 1.39 GB