Badaboom: A Full Test of Elemental's GPU Accelerated H.264 Transcoder
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 18, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Image Quality
Given that one of the best H.264 codecs is actually open source (x264) the image quality target is clear, and free. There are a number of front ends that use x264, I chose Handbrake as it was the most Badaboom-like in its interface but the x264 codec itself is doing all of the work.
The Handbrake interface is very much like Badaboom’s, except no where nearly as polished. I compared encode quality on a single-pass of the x264 codec to the output from Badaboom using a couple of settings (5Mbps Xbox 360 profile and 1.5Mbps iPhone profile). The image below is taken using a single-pass encode from the x264 codec, hold your mouse over the image to see what Badaboom's encoder can output. Forgive the lack of a pixel-perfect comparison, as I mentioned before Badaboom always seemed to muck with my aspect ratio whenever I was up or downscaling.:
Hold mouse over image to see Badaboom's Image Quality
Hold mouse over image to see Badaboom's Image Quality
The Badaboom output quality is definitely lower than what x264 was able to produce, but it's close enough for our purposes. Since Badaboom can't really deal with Blu-ray content right now preserving maximum quality isn't a top priority for the application, thus the outputted video is close enough to what x264 was able to produce. Let it be very clear though: in motion the x264 codec did output a superior image.
Hold mouse over image to see Badaboom's Image Quality
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
38 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Monday, August 18, 2008 - link
While what you say is true to an extent, we're testing the value of a specific piece of hardware to perform certain work. Using your logic, gaming benchmarks are worthless as well, because it's not like you're going to play games all the time.We can look at the power question in a lot of ways. It appears an E4500 would do about just as well as the Q6600 used in testing, so for power should we compare Q6600 with IGP to E4500 with GTX 280 (or 9800)? That's certainly one valid comparison point, but if you go that route you quickly get to the stage where you have so many valid points of comparison that the project becomes unmanageable.
Personally, I assume most users understand that this is a look at energy efficiency for a specific task, and not a holistic look at PC power use. What it tells us is that in heavily bottlenecked situations, GPU encoding is far more efficient than CPU encoding. That's useful information. Now we just need a good codec and application to back it up.
Inkjammer - Monday, August 18, 2008 - link
Since this is still a beta version, I have to wonder how much could possibly change by end of release? Were you able to talk to Elemental to address the issues with the beta and the dissapointment in the "advanced" settings?The Pro edition seems dissapointing, but if they ironed out the kinks in the end... I'd be interested in picking it up. Will there be a follow-up review for the release version?
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - link
I've kept Elemental aware of all of the issues I've had. I gave them some suggestions back after my first preview of the software. Every single problem I've encountered Elemental has added to their list of things to QA for, I'm hoping we'll see some significant improvements in the next major release.I will keep an open dialogue with Elemental and definitely look at any significant changes in the future.
Take care,
Anand
GotDiesel - Monday, August 18, 2008 - link
Oh jeez.. are these guys retarded or what??? baseline only.. wake up guys.. everyone uses HIGH at least level 4.1..this is a typical example of windows software. all GUI and no go..
what we need here is an open source version.. x264 is a perfect example of superior quality software surpassing close source .. now if only you "professionals" could do the same..
michal1980 - Monday, August 18, 2008 - link
given, that most blu-ray content is already a varient of the efficent mp4 (avc,vc-1,x264 etc etc).to compress it just for the shake of saving file space seems foolish.
IMHO, in most cases, the file on the blu-ray has been encoded to give you the best possible picture in that file size. No automagic program is going to somehow make the file size smaller, and maintain the same quality.
Now if converting to a smaller resolution, theres a point, but then data loss is a given.
IMHO, this solution would ideal for a gamer that wants to work with video, since inalot of cases more cores dont make a difference in gaming... yet make sense for data compression, you could have the best of both worlds, buy a higher speed, dual core, and use the money saved on a faster video card....
if only the software worked.
gamerk2 - Monday, August 18, 2008 - link
They said the same things with the .mpeg (and later. .mp3) formats: Why convert from .WAV and lose data and quality?michal1980 - Monday, August 18, 2008 - link
at least with a wav to mp3, theres a compression coversion.starting with a blu-ray to just run x264 on it.
is like taking and mp3, and converting it to mp3 again, just with more compression.
your stacking detail loss.
JarredWalton - Monday, August 18, 2008 - link
True, but at 20-40 GB per BRD even a 1TB HDD runs out of space with only 20-50 movies. A 35 Mbps AVC stream may look "best", but outside of still captures I bet most users wouldn't notice a difference between 35 Mpbs AVC and 20 Mbps AVC... or possibly even 10 to 15 Mbps.michal1980 - Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - link
if i'm buying a blu-ray, and paying for that 30-35Mbps. Why would I kill it?it just baffels me.
Lonyo - Monday, August 18, 2008 - link
Since the 9600GT isn't too far off the 8800GT in gaming, but has a large difference in the number of SP's (IIRC), it would be interesting to see how the two compare, rather than looking at even lower end cards like the 9500 and 8600's.Any chance of some additional numbers (even only one benchmark) using the 9600?