Hands On Hardcore (DDFProd)

[Gonzales]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'll try anyway.

The other day I joined Hands On Hardcore, after having read several good reviews of them at various adult review sites. It appears to be some really good stuff there, they have several of the euro babes that I like.

However, there's a problem. I've downloaded a few of there DIVX HD videos and when I play them there is some heavy interlacing issues as soon as there is any movement.

The videos are without question not de-interlaced before encoding, which is usally a really bad idea. (Or a good one if you like crappy videos.) But since the DIVX encoder and decoder have some support for interlaced video, I'm wondering if the problem is with there videos or with something on my computer.

So my question is, does anyone here have an account on Hands On Hardcore (http://www.handsonhardcore.com/)? Or any of DDFProd's other sites? If so, do you have any problems with interlacing artifacts when playing the DIVX HD videos?

I'm using the latest Divx Pro codec for decoding the videos.

If the problem is with there encoding, then it's unbelivable that they would go through all the work of filming high quality video, with good lighting and makeup. And then just throw all that quality away with a severly flawed encoding process.

[sbando]

I'm moving this to the main section, so that it can have more visibility.

I don't have playback problems on my pcs using ffdshow and BSPlayer.

[Steve]

What are the specs of your PC? Sometimes the interlacing effects are more noticable on a PC that may struggle to decode, and play scenes that are higher resolution.

I have run an analysis of one of the movies on HoH and its returned the following data.

Codec used to encode - DivX 5.0.5 Beta (Tahanea) (MPG4)
FPS - 29.90 (NTSC Formatting)
Bit Rate - 4,000kbps
Interleaved every half second (or 0.497ms (to be accurate)).

However, I cannot get information regarding if its interlaced Top, Bottom or Progressive.

Try playing this on VLC media player and then on Windows Media Player. Do you notice less distortion on WMP as this utilises Hardware Acceleration which smooths out interlacing. In fact, is your Hardware Acceleration switched on correctly for video playing (not sure what OS your using, so cannot say how to get to this).

Ultimately, it should be smooth and no interlacing noticable. However, I have noticed a strange glitch when using TMPGEnc on a HOH HD conversion which I have still to isolate. That should not effect you though in anyway

(Note: I am a video technology addict so examine all codec styles and uses in detail. That is why I would use TMPGEnc, MainConcept, GSpot, etc on vid streams, not for anything more dubious).

[Gonzales]

Good call on using VLC... I tried that and it didn't make any difference.

I've downloaded a few more movies and some of them show only very little interlacing artifacts, such as Emanuelle 2007-08-15 and Simony 2007-08-10. So little that it's fully acceptable. Yet there are other videos that looks terrible. Perhaps I was unfortunate to download those that are bad?

One example of very disturbing interlacing artefacts can be found in the Stefani movie, 2007-08-01, file name 8016bisv1.avi. Just jump in a bit where the action starts and those boobs jiggle around.

Opening that movie in Virtual Dub and then taking a look at the file information shows,

1280x720, 29.970 fps
Divx 6.6.1 Codec (2 Logical CPUs) (HyperThreading)

Also if I open the movie in GraphEdit I can see that it picks the Divx codec and the FFDShow audio codec. If I enable Divx in FFDShow, that codec is picked instead, but the result is the same.

I've tried to play in Windows Media Player 11 and the Divx Player.

I'm using a P4 3.4 Ghz computer with an Nvidia 7800GTX gfx card, with the latest drivers. Full hardware acceleration is enabled and I'm fairly sure that DXVA is used as well.

If I disable hardware acceleration I start to get performance issues, but it doesn't alter the appearance of the interlacing artefacts.

As a side note, I sent a message to customer support and were a bit supriced to get a response, and fairly quickly too. Not sure what it will result in, but at least I've told them my problem and also sent them a snapshot grabbed from the Stefani video, showing the interlacing issues.

The other movies that I downloaded aren't that bad in comparison to the Stefani movie. But it does seem to be a bit varying in consistency between the movies, some are really good while other are less good.

Edit: I'm running on Windows XP SP2. And I have Divx Postprocessing set to auto. Also if I enable Film Grain, the interlacing is less distracting, it hides it somewhat, which is an improvement.

[Steve]

Wow, interesting stats... I think I need to rejoin HoH and check out those movies. I am shocked at this

1280x720, 29.970 fps
Divx 6.6.1 Codec (2 Logical CPUs) (HyperThreading)

Thats stating that its using a 720p codec in HD. Are you positive thats the stats? Gspot is better than Vdub for codec and file info. I think Vdub might be using your stats (although you state you have a P3.4 and that codec is stating a Dual Core).

I have a x3400 Athlon Clawhammer lying around somewhere and I'll have to download and check how they play on that. That system should be close to what your using and if I remember back, my clawhammer did suffer with 720p files and it was not smooth.

My main system atm is an Intel x6700 Quad Extreme with twin SLI 8800GTX, so its not being slowed at all so I am not able to correctly test on this platform.

A thought though. Drop VLC into OpenGL mode and see if that removes the problem. OpenGL is a better accelerator than Direct X acceleration.

Only other real alternative is to drop the movies into VDub and recode using progressive. TMPGEnc is far better for that though (express 4.0) as Vdub is a tad slow (Vdub is better for filter overlays though).

Just thought. Easiest way to find out the answer. Drop onto www.quicktime.com and go to the movie trailers. Find a HD trailer and download the 720p. Does it do it on that also or is that perfect (choose a particularly action packed trailer like Die Hard 4.0 or Bourne Ultimatum).

[jimbo733]

You need a better computer. simple.

It's all about the processor, not the graphics speed in my experience. Hope that helps.

[Steve]

Depends on graphics card. 8800GTX on a Nvidia Mobo will give up graphic memory to the processor.

Also, without a decent graphics card you wont get acceleration which controls the smoothing and overlay effects on video or have a good resolution in which to watch HD movies.

Infact, without a decent graphics card you wont be able to watch HD movies in HD mode as you need DVI or HDMI ports to output to a HD compatiable digital monitor or TV.

[Gonzales]

I don't think there's any problem with the CPU or graphics card "power", as long as hardware acceleration is used at least. I've also played other HD material on this computer before, without having any problems. However that material were not in DIVX format.

For example, if I play the 1280x720 DIVX movie in VLC the CPU load is only about 4% and the video as such plays smoothly.

For some strange reason WMP consumes alot more CPU, close to 30%, still no FPS problem as the video plays smoothly. (Could be post processing done by the DIVX codec that consumes more CPU. VLC uses it's own built in codecs, so it shouldn't be affected by the DIVX decoder settings.)

However in both VLC and WMP there is a lot of visible interlacing artefacts.

Steve, I took your advice and enabled OpenGL output, not sure if it makes any real difference. However, with VLC I'm able to tweak it's de-interlacing postprocessing and with that I can reduce the interlacing artefacts, but they are still there.

> 1280x720, 29.970 fps

This is correct, it appears that the movies from the last year or two is in this resolution. That and the claim of HD were the reason for joining them.

It's these new movies I'm talking about.

> Divx 6.6.1 Codec (2 Logical CPUs) (HyperThreading)

This is just the codec that VDub picks for decoding the video. The "2 Logical CPUs" part is just hyper threading. The CPU is single core.


I think that the bottom line is that, either the movie files are correct and contain interlaced video, but that the de-interlacing is supposed to take place during playback. In the "old days" you would never encode interlaced video, you de-interlace first, then encode. But with these latest DIVX versions and it's interlacing support I just don't know if it's "OK" to encode interlaced video, if done correctly and then "delay" the de-interlacing until playback.

On the other hand the encoding process used for creating these movies may be flawed, producing video with interlaceing artefacts, or incorrectly handling the interlacing so that it's difficult to de-interlace during playback.

Of the 5 movies I've downloaded so far 2 of them has high/annoying levels of interlacing artefacts and 2 of them are really good with very little artefacts.

So I'd just like to know if it's my system or the files them self that are the problem. Since it appears to be some inconsistencies between interlacing in different movies, it would be nice if anyone with an existing account on HoH could check out the Stefani 1280x720 DIVX HD movie and see if it has any interlacing issues.

Thank's for your answers so far though.

[superduper]

I know someone who repairs pcs and he says he wouldn't have a P4 (Pentium 4) if you paid him a million pounds, because they get very hot (105 degrees).

He says use an AMD processor because they operate at a lower frequency and temp (50 degrees) but produce the same power/speed/performance.

A dual core AMD pc might be what is needed. I got one of those, but the odd thing is, the fastest pc I got is an old Socket A AMD Sempron, which is actually faster than the dual core. Weird.

Also, some people think the Semprons are rubbish because they are budget cpus, but the actually work cooler and at a lower frequency than the AMD Athlons.

My Socket A 2400+ Sempron is (for some strange reason) 25 percent faster than my 4200 dual core.

[Gonzales]

Just a short followup... I have no problems what so ever playing DIVX HD 1080i movies from the http://stage6.divx.com, they play smoothly and are fully de-interlaced.

So now I'm waiting for the HoH support to get back to me after they examine the movies to see if there is anything wrong with them.

(This is all a bit annoying. But it's still somewhat encouraging that they have actully responded and kept an e-mail conversation with me.)

[Steve]

It is now sounding like the actual movie files are faulty. If you can play 1080i with no problem, the you should play the HoH stuff with ease. Maybe when they first moved to HD they were testing out a few different settings and thats what you have downloaded...

On the subject of processors. AMD have no internal heat controller and that is why they run cool. If the fan falls off an intel, they have internal mechanisms to reduce clock cycles so the processor does not burn out and they warn you of a problem. AMD just go bang. To offset this they make the processors run cooler. Running cooler though is no indication of faster performance. When the processor is working hard, it will get hot which tells me that AMD processors do not work hard.

Anyway, its chalk and cheese with processors. The fastest processors atm are the dual core extremes (which would leave an AMD in the dust) and amazingly in second place are the Quad Extremes... The quads are not fully supported so are theoretically running on two processors still and not using all four cores. One day they will finally support my processors and also support my graphics cards (no SLI support in DX10 so far).

Toms Hardware is always the best place to look in regards to tests, speed and performace (www.tomshardware.com)

[Gonzales]

Another important note in the processor debate, that one should keep in mind is that even though todays CPUs (AMD, Intel etc) can run the same programs. Different manufacturers have somewhat different hardware acceleration for multimedia related instructions. They also have somewhat different architecture of how instructions are processed etc.

All this results in different ways to optimize performance when doing CPU intensive things such as multimedia and decoding HD video.

The same also applies to using the hardware acceleration offered by graphics cards, different models and different brands can help with different things and to a different level of quality and performance.

All of these factors are important when the software that runs on the computer tries to, for example, decode some video. The software may be able to take advantage of some things but not other things. And depending on what the particular hardware (CPU, GFX card etc) can offer the software, it may be a more or less good match.

So it's not just one thing that determines the performance of the overall computer. It's a lot of different things as well as how well they work together.

But this is all a bit off topic though... As for the videos, the worst case scenario is that I have to re-encode them, with some tweaking in VDub it's possible to remove most of the interlaceing artefacts without loosing too much quality. It's a pain, but if not all videos suffer from this, then it's an acceptable solution for those that do.

[superduper]

AMD have a quad core coming out soon which can run on the existing AM2 motherboard which was used beforehand for their dual core cpus as well as the more recent Semprons, which means an upgrade costs less.

Apparently, AMD have made many complaints about Intel, citing unfair business practices which have seen their market share drop from 25 to 19 percent in the last year. A case of sour grapes or genuine grievance ? There's talk of there being a 1.5 billion dollar fine against Intel.

A problem if you get too big, you want to crush the opposition by fair means or foul, it seems, or it is alleged.

Or maybe AMD no longer compares to Intel in terms of power and speed for really intensive operations.

Maybe I should pick up a cheap P4, just to see if it really gets hot. My friend said, "If you had a Pentium Four, you wouldn't need a fire."

I said, "Do they get hot ?"

He said, "Extremely hot."

But they could have advertised the P4, taking his words out of context.
"Try the Pentium Four, it's extremely hot."

But the P4 is yesterday's hardware.

But I suppose with each pc, how fast it is or how powerful depends partly on the cpu, and partly on other things.

[Steve]

At the moment I have four PC's in my computer room (and other lying around elsewhere). The four in here are as follows.

Intel P4 2.66 with 756mb RAM (rarely switched on and used for storage mostly). Can't actually say I have noticed it generating much heat to be honest. Always been reliable and never failed. Still using the same windows install that it had from new.

AMD 3400+ Clawhammer. Was a decent machine and a bit faster than the P4. Has 1gb RAM and again rarely used and again for storage. When it was my main machine, it did glitch a bit. I noticed the sound would sometimes glitch horrendously if the processor was being heavily utilised. Heat, again not really noticeable.

Intel x6700 Quad Core. As you would expect, lightning fast. So far it hasn't been slowed by any application or game. I supposed thats to be expected though. Its Alienware built and comes with 2x8800GTX cards, Aegia Physx and 2gb 800mhz RAM (combined with the usable 1.6gb of RAM on the cards, thats plenty). Its liquid cooled. Now, is this hot... YES!! I have to keep the windows open in this room permanently and on hot days have Air Con and fans going. Typically 30 degrees in this room when the rest of the house is 22 degrees and thats cause of this PC. Why so hot... well, its not the processor!!! Its the Twin 8800GTX chucking out 70 degrees of heat from the "exhaust pipes" on the back..... So, seriously, I don't regard P4's as even slightly hot... lol

(Oh, the other PC I have no idea what it is. Its not mine and is here to have a mobo replaced)

[Gonzales]

Not going to drag this out much further, but here's the conclusion of the original issue.

I got an email reply from support today and they agree that there is some interlacing issues when the movement becomes too great. According to there studio they are using the latest and best de-interlacing software and latest technology, but it still can't keep up with some of the fast movements. There's not much they can do, but they will do there best to minize the effects.

I may not entierly agree with them as I have seen similar sized HD porn without any of these issues. But if they were not aware of the problem, they are at least aware of the issue now and can make something about it in the future. So I consider this issue closed.

On the positive side they did respond quickly and they have looked into the issue, which is probably as much as I can ask for. And the level of interlacing artefacts varies a lot from movie to movie, so most of them aren't that bad.

As for performance and making the best out of the situation, I have ended up with using the latest FFDShow, which I have configured to decode the DIVX content. Using FFDShow it's also possible to easily apply postprocessing and various forms of de-interlacing that helps to improve the appearance.