Engadget claims Quicksync support?

General questions or discussion about HandBrake, Video and/or audio transcoding, trends etc.
Locked
mrstudz
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:13 pm

Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by mrstudz »

http://www.engadget.com/2012/04/23/inte ... rocessors/

"If you're more into multimedia than gaming as such, then there are couple of nuggets here for you too: Quick Sync accelerated video encoding will get a 50 to 80 percent bump, while support has also been added for Handbrake, the open source video transcoder."

Please tell me this is true!
User avatar
Rodeo
HandBrake Team
Posts: 12619
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by Rodeo »

It is not - not sure what they've been smoking.
mrstudz
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by mrstudz »

Meh, engadget is the mother of all click scammers...I'm gonna write them an email about that article the quality has really slipped over the last 2 years.

That said, here's another request for quick sync support, I thought it was a gimmick until I tried it on my friends new "ultra book" laptop... Same CPU as MacBook air....it's amazingly powerful and efficient power wise. There honestly is a hole in the market right now as someone needs to utilize this technology it is amazing... I tried 10 different apps Yesterday none of which were ideal, they all had problems in one dept or another...not enough adjustable settings, crashing on video imports, manual video track selection..no chapter support, poor quality presets...etc etc.

But the fact remains, You can encode an hour of 4.1 x264 video in about 12-13 minutes. As if thats not enough, did I mention you can do 2 videos simultaneously? This was on an ultra book, super thin laptop with a lower tdp running sandy bridge. Ivy bridge is even faster....never mind the more powerful desktop parts! Keep in mind this is running software mostly based on the intel sdk, which I would say is a good starting point but I would wager it would be amazing what the handbrake team could do if pointed in that direction.

x265 will offer 30-50% increased compression over x264 at the expense of computational complexity next year, which really isn't that far away. Combining this encoder with GPU processing is the future, and the first software to get it right will become the standard for years to come.

Truly the only problem is there is a lack of quality software leveraging quick sync right now, i tried a ton of apps and none of them pushed out video i thought had acceptable quality/file size ratio and none of them seemed to offer the ability to fully tweak the settings right.

If anyone else out there wants to try it themselves I'll save you a ton of trouble

The best apps are:

Mediacoder : great control but horrible UI and free version doesn't support Queuing batches from what I could see. What a tease.
Cyber link media espresso : fastest, but almost no control and slow import
Arc soft mediaconverter: this is the one that I liked most but still, didn't have enough control and the presets I wasnt satisfied with.
Gom media converter : looks like perhaps the best of the bunch from the UI/preset standpoint... But it crashed on every single video import I attempted...so I couldn't even try.

No chapter support and only hard coded subs for most of the above, except media coder I believe.

Fail fail fail.

But so effing fast!

If I had the time id look into leveraging quick sync into an app myself, it runs cooler faster and is simply more powerful,until then I'll keep queuing up handbrake.

Thanks for the reply
User avatar
JohnAStebbins
HandBrake Team
Posts: 5583
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by JohnAStebbins »

The QuickSync library is not GPL and therefore incompatible with HandBrake's license. So until this changes, adding QuickSync is impossible.
User avatar
Rodeo
HandBrake Team
Posts: 12619
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by Rodeo »

mrstudz wrote:But the fact remains, You can encode an hour of 4.1 x264 video in about 12-13 minutes.
H.264 video. x264 is one H.264 encoder, and Intel's SDK features another, unrelated, H.264 encoder.

Even with threaded decoding, HandBrake can barely decode an hour of 1080p video on most machines. So some of that encoding speed will go nowhere, as decoding is likely to be the bottleneck.
mrstudz wrote:never mind the more powerful desktop parts!
Quick Sync uses dedicated H.264 encoding hardware, so the processor speed has little impact on performance.
mrstudz wrote:Keep in mind this is running software mostly based on the intel sdk, which I would say is a good starting point but I would wager it would be amazing what the handbrake team could do if pointed in that direction.
The Quick Sync hardware is only accessible via the Intel SDK (unlike, say, AVX). Not only does this mean we cannot use it for now (see John's post), it also means we'd have to go through Intel's H.264 encoder, instead of using the hardware to accelerate relevant parts of x264 (a much better encoder).
mrstudz wrote:Truly the only problem is there is a lack of quality software leveraging quick sync right now, i tried a ton of apps and none of them pushed out video i thought had acceptable quality/file size ratio and none of them seemed to offer the ability to fully tweak the settings right.
For as long as there is no way to access the Quick Sync hardware without using Intel's SDK and encoder, compression efficiency will likely remain poor at best.
Kossy
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:42 am

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by Kossy »

HardOCP also mentionned it with a regret tone. Personnaly I prefer that Handbrake concentrates on cpu decoding as it is now which is more than excellent for my use (and what about Amd owners/love ? :D ).

I'm maybe a little too conservative and yes it's probably good for hand held devices, but for true quality it must improve a lot, some pictures speak for themselves : http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... ml&act=url If someday GPGPU decoding/encoding reaches the cpu one's in quality and assuming it remains free and open source I'm sure Handbrake will support it.
User avatar
JohnAStebbins
HandBrake Team
Posts: 5583
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by JohnAStebbins »

FYI, if you are interested the discussion that took place between an Intel engineer and HandBrake developers, fun reading here
https://services.handbrake.fr/irclogs/h ... 9_pg1.html

This was more than a year ago and we've had no contact since then.

Search for maxim_d33 (Intel engineer's nic)
mrstudz
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by mrstudz »

hmm.

I just read that thread you linked..quite frankly im a third party...and im only seeing that portion of the discussion...but it looked to me like an intel engineer reached out to the HB team, to work on integrating the technology and was met with immediate and unprovoked hostility... congratulations...yet again classic nerd rage and E-Peen got in the way of what looks to me like a massive opportunity.

He logged on and said hi and was then immediately asked to engage in an encoding benchmark challenge, and disbelief that the encoder could provide any benefit over x264.

WTF.

how stupid, and embrrassing.

...and you know what it doesnt matter if it was intel, nvidia, amd, whoever.

The point is that it seems there is currently a lack of GPU accelerated encoders that can deliver acceptable image quality...and the HB team was in a position to try and work toward solving this with intel, and basically didnt because...ummm...why?

*applause*

Now, I understand resistance to using proprietary tech vs open source...and yes i see the standpoint of "why release a CPU and not give people full and open access to its API" That is definitely the wrong choice being made by intel...almost certainly an attempt to deny its competitors from leveraging or copying its abilities I would wager.

BUT
Rodeo wrote:For as long as there is no way to access the Quick Sync hardware without using Intel's SDK and encoder, compression efficiency will likely remain poor at best.
Well,

Ill tell you what Rodeo, compression efficiency WILL DEFINATELY remain poor when when intel knocks on your door and says hey...wanna figure this out, we got a new chip and its pretty badass ...and you say no way my benchmarks is way fazters than urz go away before i tell you the how much betters x264 is than QSV.

....Eerily similar to the dissection of the error i made in my post above between x264 and h264

Heres a scenario:

what if HB had adopted quicksync. Or cuda, or whatever the [Censored] tech you wanna choose. The handbrake team could have helped shape its future development, which could be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT A POSITIVE THING in the very least....no matter how small of an effect.

And in a worst case scenario, if released as is ....all off a sudden a million users complain about the poor image quality from the latest release of handbrake due to the intel SDK and now guess what...In a heart beat the overnight negative PR woud have forced intel to "open things up a bit" change the license or whatever other problem you can drum up as an excuse for why it just sucks, and then made some serious strides toward solving the problem for REAL.
johnastebbins wrote:This was more than a year ago and we've had no contact since then.
You can act like its all Intel's fault...but seriously, you know how to use an email client i presume.... id be happy to act as a mediator if you two cant play nice...what the [Censored]...swallow your pride and pick up the phone. Honestly I think there is a real opportunity for both intel and handbrake....here somehow you both gotta meet somehwere in the middle.

It could literally change the computing landscape significantly.

The bottom line is that it would make sense that some of the best CPU based encoding devs on the planet, partner up with the most advanced chip manufacturer in the world to finally do this right...

FYI, Thats exactly what intel was thinking when they first contacted you (and to sell more chips as a result).....

Not get into a [Censored] match over QSV vs x264 encoding speeds or open source vs proprietary.

What a shame, as there are obviously some really smart guys working on handbrake...unfortunately just not smart enough to see the bigger picture... watch how this post gets dissected now, instead of seeing the real point of it which is:

...hey, somebody should try and get a codec delivering superior image quality running with GPU acceleration once and for all.
TedJ
Veteran User
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by TedJ »

God save us from armchair quarterbacks.
User avatar
s55
HandBrake Team
Posts: 9850
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:05 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by s55 »

You clearly haven't seen the whole picture here. Intel wasn't interested in Helping us (or the x264 developers) do anything, they were interested in promoting their proprietary encoder which can't be used in HandBrake for legal reasons. (I.e their licence isn't GPL-Compatible). Pride isn't an issue here. If someone comes along with a better solution that's GPL compatible, trust me, we are more than willing to accept any patches given!

The x264 developers reached out before that guy turned up on our channel, and got shunned by Intel. Hence why Dark_Shikari is a bit hacked off with them. There where pushing for API access for a while, but got nada from Intel.

The same guy turned up a couple of other times trying to promote the same MediaSDK again and again. He was told it couldn't be added unless they change their license. Next version of MediaSDK turns up and it's still NOT GPL-Compatible. Sadly, even today (several releases later) their license is STILL NOT GPL Compatible.

With Ivy bridge around the corner and the most recent versions of the SDK providing passable quality, I'd reckon that the hardware has potential (even as a standalone encoder) but the fact remains, unless Intel changes their tune, it can't be added to HandBrake.
User avatar
JohnAStebbins
HandBrake Team
Posts: 5583
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by JohnAStebbins »

WTF. You saw a few harsh words and totally ignored all the helpful information we gave the Intel guy. We were very explicit and very concise about what he needed to do to get QuickSync support into HandBrake. And none of it every happened. Nada, zero, zilch.

The link was to one of several exchanges that have occurred between Intel and projects they have been trying to work with. All such exchanges have turned out the same. HandBrake wasn't the first and we were pretty well prepared for the pitch they would be giving. The harsh words were given primarily to put a quick end to the sales pitch and refocus the conversation on what is important.
Smithcraft
Veteran User
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by Smithcraft »

I don't think someone that acts as an instigator is qualified to act as a mediator. Especially, when they are missing out on one of the key reasons why something can not be used in Handbrake.

SC

ps - Was that guy really from Intel? Didn't seem to have a grasp of what he was being told.
User avatar
Rodeo
HandBrake Team
Posts: 12619
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by Rodeo »

mrstudz wrote:The point is that it seems there is currently a lack of GPU accelerated encoders that can deliver acceptable image quality...and the HB team was in a position to try and work toward solving this with intel, and basically didnt because...ummm...why?
Solving this? So integrating Intel's H.264 encoder to HandBrake would somehow suddenly make it high quality? Or what, you think Intel was going to have us work with them, having access to their source code and help them improve the encoder? Moron.

Besides, we don't develop video encoders, so even if they did have us work on improving their encoder, chances are we'd only make it worse.
mrstudz wrote:Now, I understand resistance to using proprietary tech vs open source...
It's not resistance… it's legally impossible, period.
mrstudz wrote:Heres a scenario:

what if HB had adopted quicksync. Or cuda, or whatever the [Censored] tech you wanna choose. The handbrake team could have helped shape its future development, which could be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT A POSITIVE THING in the very least....no matter how small of an effect.

And in a worst case scenario, if released as is ....all off a sudden a million users complain about the poor image quality from the latest release of handbrake due to the intel SDK and now guess what...In a heart beat the overnight negative PR woud have forced intel to "open things up a bit" change the license or whatever other problem you can drum up as an excuse for why it just sucks, and then made some serious strides toward solving the problem for REAL.
Like that's going to happen.
mrstudz wrote:
johnastebbins wrote:This was more than a year ago and we've had no contact since then.

You can act like its all Intel's fault...but seriously, you know how to use an email client i presume.... id be happy to act as a mediator if you two cant play nice...what the [Censored]...swallow your pride and pick up the phone. Honestly I think there is a real opportunity for both intel and handbrake....here somehow you both gotta meet somehwere in the middle.

It could literally change the computing landscape significantly.
Let's stop dreaming, shall we?
The bottom line is that it would make sense that some of the best CPU based encoding devs on the planet, partner up with the most advanced chip manufacturer in the world to finally do this right...
I'm afraid that's not us. Some of us can come up with pretty cool stuff, but I don't think any of the current devs qualify as "some of the best" when it comes to video encoders specifically.
Smithcraft
Veteran User
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by Smithcraft »

Novel article that just came up at Slashdot today.

The Wretched State of GPU Transcoding

"In short, it's simply not worth using the GPU to accelerate your video transcodes; it's much better to simply use Handbrake, which uses your CPU."

SC

ps - If you don't enjoy the comments at Slashdot as much as I do, here is the direct link - The Wretched State of GPU Transcoding
mrstudz
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by mrstudz »

lol, the truth hurts...thats why my post is irritating to some.....the bottom line is somebody has to make this "step" happen

BEFORE ANYONE TRIES TO ARGUE OVER SEMANTICS, SPELLING OR LICENSING ISSUES.... BY STEP I MEAN:QUALITY GPU TRANSCODING

And it seems to me a logical thing to do would be to work with Intel, nvidia, or AMD if that opportunity ever arose,

.....which it did.....

and was subsequently wasted due to petty legal wrangling, geek speak and transcoding benchmark challenges...

FURTHERMORE,

IT WOULD SEEM EVEN MORE LOGICAL,

FOR THE DEVELOPERS OF THE EASIEST TO USE AND BY FAR THE MOST HIGHLY OPTIMIZED CPU based encoding app (HANDBRAKE) to work with Intel ET AL. on this.

Just my two cents.

So pretty please with sugar on top, hate me all you want but If the opportunity arises again, i suggest making some compromises and taking it because sooner or later someone will make it happen and well...apps like handbrake will instantly become obsolete, especially as sales of CPU's with integrated GPU's continue to rise this year.

Seriously the negative PR from all the handbrake users complaining about poor quality in Intel accelerated encoding would have lit a fire under intel's ass...because it would have the potential to hurt them in the wallet.

We'd all be quicksyncing away by now wondering how we ever did it before GPU accelleration existed.
Smithcraft
Veteran User
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:04 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by Smithcraft »

That would all be nice, but the Handbrake developers are not the ones developing the encoder. If Intel knew who to contact it would be the encoder developers, and not the Handbrake developers.

Another thing that you seem to consider irrelevant is the legal background that Handbrake is developed under. While it might be petty to you, it is very important to the development community. Why didn't Intel modify their license? If they did that then all the developers could adapt the Intel code and process. However, since they haven't, it would seem apparent that they don't really consider it to be important. So why don't you campaign Intel to change their terms to be GPL compatible instead of telling the Handbrake developers what to do, as you offered above?

SC
TedJ
Veteran User
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Engadget claims Quicksync support?

Post by TedJ »

mrstudz wrote:lol, the truth hurts...thats why my post is irritating to some.....
No, it's the pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking with zero appreciation for the legal and technical hurdles to be overcome that's irritating.

This thread has run it's course... locking.
Locked