Render formats

Get answers to your questions about color grading, editing and finishing with DaVinci Resolve.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

issue-88

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 pm
  • Real Name: Peter van Kalleveen

Render formats

PostSat Oct 20, 2018 4:34 pm

So when checking out what kind of final render options there where I was quite confused.
Like where is the 2-pass VBR option with H.264 :o
Where is HEVC :?
Especially since the user guide says it should be right there.

After a bit of google i found some comments indicating that this is only available on Mac :shock:
Is that correct? and if so why in the world would that be a function only implemented om mac?

As you might have understand by now i'm running windows ;)
Offline
User avatar

roger.magnusson

  • Posts: 3355
  • Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:58 pm

Re: Render formats

PostSat Oct 20, 2018 4:54 pm

It's available on the Mac version of Resolve because it's built-in in macOS. Unfortunately I think the otherwise excellent manual is missing this information, but there's a separate download: DaVinci Resolve Supported Formats and Codecs.
Offline

issue-88

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 pm
  • Real Name: Peter van Kalleveen

Re: Render formats

PostSat Oct 20, 2018 5:01 pm

roger.magnusson wrote:It's available on the Mac version of Resolve because it's built-in in macOS.


As far as i know it is also build into windows OS.
When i look at the HEVC extention discription in windows it clearly states:
In addition to supporting HEVC playback, these extentions also include support for encoding HEVC content for devices that do not support this on hardware encoding.

So that would mean even if i diddnt have the hardware encoding components in the pc it is also supported software wise.

Or am i interpeting this wrong?
Offline
User avatar

roger.magnusson

  • Posts: 3355
  • Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:58 pm

Re: Render formats

PostSat Oct 20, 2018 5:08 pm

It might also be because of licensing issues. In December 2017 Microsoft removed the HEVC Video Extensions, but I see they have since made it available as a paid app.

Regardless, the standalone x264/x265 encoders are so much better than the encoders in macOS/Windows, so I would rather use that instead.
Offline

issue-88

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 pm
  • Real Name: Peter van Kalleveen

Re: Render formats

PostSat Oct 20, 2018 5:12 pm

roger.magnusson wrote:It might also be because of licensing issues. In December 2017 Microsoft removed the HEVC Video Extensions, but I see they have since made it available as a paid app.


Yes, its a bit trouble some. Have bought it on new installations since then.
But still the lack of the 2pass on h264 makes me a bit sad :cry:

I always disliked adobe products for there quick&easy but very poor render options.
So I hoped it would be better in this program, would save a lot of time spend exporting the lossless and rendering with 3th party software
Offline

issue-88

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 pm
  • Real Name: Peter van Kalleveen

Re: Render formats

PostSat Oct 20, 2018 5:14 pm

roger.magnusson wrote:It might also be because of licensing issues. In December 2017 Microsoft removed the HEVC Video Extensions, but I see they have since made it available as a paid app.

Regardless, the standalone x264/x265 encoders are so much better than the encoders in macOS/Windows, so I would rather use that instead.


What are you're preferences?
If it needs to be quick but good i often use handbrake.
When it needs to be perfect i often use mediacoder or staxrip.

But every one has its own downsides :?
Offline
User avatar

roger.magnusson

  • Posts: 3355
  • Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:58 pm

Re: Render formats

PostSat Oct 20, 2018 5:17 pm

I use recent versions of Handbrake or ffmpeg.
Offline

issue-88

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 pm
  • Real Name: Peter van Kalleveen

Re: Render formats

PostSat Oct 20, 2018 5:24 pm

roger.magnusson wrote:I use recent versions of Handbrake or ffmpeg.


The nightly versions of handbrake have become really good with all kind of extra support and functionality. :D
Offline

MishaEngel

  • Posts: 1432
  • Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:18 am
  • Real Name: Misha Engel

Re: Render formats

PostSat Oct 20, 2018 7:57 pm

Nothing beats staxrip at the moment.
Offline

Jim Simon

  • Posts: 29808
  • Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:47 am

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 12:27 pm

issue-88 wrote:But still the lack of the 2pass on h264 makes me a bit sad


I don't believe it's needed. With Premiere Pro, two pass only get's you a longer coffee break. And I think Resolve is better than Adobe at H.264.
My Biases:

You NEED training.
You NEED a desktop.
You NEED a calibrated (non-computer) display.
Offline

issue-88

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 pm
  • Real Name: Peter van Kalleveen

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 12:59 pm

MishaEngel wrote:Nothing beats staxrip at the moment.


Indeed, I try to use it by default but I just love working with programs that have a nice GUI :cry:


Jim Simon wrote:
issue-88 wrote:But still the lack of the 2pass on h264 makes me a bit sad


I don't believe it's needed. With Premiere Pro, two pass only get's you a longer coffee break. And I think Resolve is better than Adobe at H.264.


To be honest I have not looked at them side by side.
But from a technical standpoint a 2pass will always yield better results, and seems like a minor addition to implement. :geek:
And especially when implemented on one platform but not the other.
Offline
User avatar

Cary Knoop

  • Posts: 1437
  • Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:35 pm
  • Location: Newark, CA USA

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 3:50 pm

For constant quality use constant rate factor (not supported by Resolve), two-pass only makes sense if you want to maximize quality distribution for a fixed file length, useful if you would want to burn a Blu-ray, otherwise two-pass is not necessary. Constant rate factor, however, is not suitable for streaming and neither is two-pass.
Offline

Jim Simon

  • Posts: 29808
  • Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:47 am

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 6:07 pm

issue-88 wrote:But from a technical standpoint a 2pass will always yield better results


I don't think it pans out that way in the real world, though. Certainly any pixel-peeping differences wouldn't be worth the additional time investment.
My Biases:

You NEED training.
You NEED a desktop.
You NEED a calibrated (non-computer) display.
Offline

Jim Simon

  • Posts: 29808
  • Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:47 am

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 6:08 pm

Cary Knoop wrote:Constant rate factor, however, is not suitable for streaming and neither is two-pass.


Why not? I use it exclusively.
My Biases:

You NEED training.
You NEED a desktop.
You NEED a calibrated (non-computer) display.
Offline

issue-88

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 pm
  • Real Name: Peter van Kalleveen

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 6:28 pm

Cary Knoop wrote:For constant quality use constant rate factor (not supported by Resolve), two-pass only makes sense if you want to maximize quality distribution for a fixed file length, useful if you would want to burn a Blu-ray, otherwise two-pass is not necessary. Constant rate factor, however, is not suitable for streaming and neither is two-pass.


Let me give you my use case. :D
I do touring theater shows, so i get a lot of content that needs to be build into a show file.
I have several show devices (often dedicated machines like rack pc's), but a lot of editing i do at home on my workstation or on the go on my laptop.
To prevent having to use usb sticks every time and risk creating multiple versions i keep everything synced with the cloud.
This means keeping the size of the content as small as possible while maintaining as much quality as possible.

Since there cannot be a single hike during show from my machines there always on the bleeding edge.
For storage I don't use hard drive's or ssd's, only 3D Xpoint aka intel optane drives.
Crazy fast & responsive at low QD, but very expensive per GB, so another reason to keep sizes down, since i don't want to swap shows or put slow storage in.

Rendering needs to be done once and enjoy it for the rest of the tour.
Rendering is fun, i love seeing my 16 core machine crumble when pushing all quality settings to the extreme.
If i am in a rush i just spin up a couple of virtual machines in the cloud for a couple of bucks per hour and let them chew on it.

Simply said, 3-pass makes me even more happy.
HEVC by default now, hopefully AV1 in a year.
But it always pains me to see the big leaders in the field not even offering remotely the kind of quality rendering I seek and it always has to come from freeware or open source programs.

Worse yet, all the creative people who make the content that I have to work with have no clue and often click the fast, dirty and easy approach.
That is why I'm always hoping for professional video programs to raise the bar on the rendering part. :geek:
Of course I understand that most don't have a need for these extreme settings, but if the encoder is already implemented, some more quality parameters or profiles would be a minor effort in my mind.

Its not that I want to nag :? because I'm really pleasantly surprised how awesome Resolve is.
Just maybe a point worthy of attention in some future update. :idea:
Also since the features are implemented on mac I feel a bit left out :roll:
Offline
User avatar

Cary Knoop

  • Posts: 1437
  • Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:35 pm
  • Location: Newark, CA USA

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 7:53 pm

issue-88 wrote:Simply said, 3-pass makes me even more happy.
...
But it always pains me to see the big leaders in the field not even offering remotely the kind of quality rendering I seek and it always has to come from freeware or open source programs.

It seems I won't be able to convince you. :)

Multi-pass will not encode any better or more efficient than CRF, and unlike CRF, multi-pass does not ensure a given quality level.

Encoding always happens exactly once, the other passes are simply meant to gather statistics and spread out the bitrates over the whole video.

There generally seems to be a misconception that multi-pass encoding improves quality per bitrate, this is untrue.
Last edited by Cary Knoop on Sun Oct 21, 2018 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

Cary Knoop

  • Posts: 1437
  • Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:35 pm
  • Location: Newark, CA USA

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 7:59 pm

Jim Simon wrote:
Cary Knoop wrote:Constant rate factor, however, is not suitable for streaming and neither is two-pass.


Why not? I use it exclusively.

Because a frame may use more bitrate than the given bandwidth can handle.

Contrast that with constant bitrate (CBR), or something more complicated, this ensures a (group of) frame(s) never goes above a certain bitrate.
Offline
User avatar

Cary Knoop

  • Posts: 1437
  • Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 6:35 pm
  • Location: Newark, CA USA

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 8:11 pm

issue-88 wrote:Since there cannot be a single hike during show from my machines there always on the bleeding edge.
For storage I don't use hard drive's or ssd's, only 3D Xpoint aka intel optane drives.
Crazy fast & responsive at low QD, but very expensive per GB, so another reason to keep sizes down, since i don't want to swap shows or put slow storage in.

For live headache-less video presenting I would strongly advise using professional all-intra codecs that are simple such as ProRes and DNxHx.
Complicated H.264/H.265 like CODECs are more prone to glitches.
Offline

issue-88

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 pm
  • Real Name: Peter van Kalleveen

Re: Render formats

PostSun Oct 21, 2018 10:10 pm

Cary Knoop wrote:It seems I won't be able to convince you. :)

Multi-pass will not encode any better or more efficient than CRF, and unlike CRF, multi-pass does not ensure a given quality level.

Encoding always happens exactly once, the other passes are simply meant to gather statistics and spread out the bitrates over the whole video.

I'm always up for new insight into things, so i'm always happy to exchange thoughts :D ;)

From what i understand is given a strict rate budget, the multi pass allows for a much more optimal distribution of the bits.
Busy scence get some more, relaxed and easy parts get some less.
The ensure quality level is sort off based on the avarage bitrate you allow it.
But within that constraint its more effective at quality preservation because of the optimal balancing of available bits.

Cary Knoop wrote:For live headache-less video presenting I would strongly advise using professional all-intra codecs that are simple such as ProRes and DNxHx.
Complicated H.264/H.265 like CODECs are more prone to glitches.


But the files get so large :oops:, also I found that huge data movements across the system create bottle necks of its own, with h264/265 encoded material you can fully optimise the fixed video logic functions found in almost al modern chips and only get the full bandwidth load when all data is in chip cache & ram memory.
Of course I encode with the fast decode preset to relieve the live machine.

That said I will try out running the same showfile, one with my normal encoding steps and one with a more low complexity codec.
A interesting comparison :D
Offline

Jim Simon

  • Posts: 29808
  • Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:47 am

Re: Render formats

PostMon Oct 22, 2018 7:56 pm

Cary Knoop wrote:Because a frame may use more bitrate than the given bandwidth can handle.



Theoretically possible, I suppose. Never been a problem in practice, though.
My Biases:

You NEED training.
You NEED a desktop.
You NEED a calibrated (non-computer) display.

Return to DaVinci Resolve

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Bootstrap635, Cupless, footofwrath, panos_mts, shikawkee and 175 guests