libx264, why is it making me miserable?

Question

Level 1

0 points

libx264, why is it making me miserable?

I've recently recieved footage (.mov) from someone that looks great in quicktime but starts giving me troubles when I try to do...basically anything to it. Importing, transcoding, converting. When I try importing the footage into Final Cut Pro X, it crashes 100% of the time. What clips remain when I re-open the software are clips that have horizontal green bars that flash in and out. The clips also seem to meld together for a couple short seconds, looking pixelated and confused because multiple (seperate clips keep in mind) bleed together in wonky ways. The audio also clicks (peaking?) which doesn't happen to the original mov's. The one thing that helped get rid of the green bars and clip crossover was going to the Project Properties after import and changing a couple of the settings. Still after that I'm getting incredibly distracting pixelation every second or two.

Check it:

http://vimeopro.com/llexman/the-elusive-libx264

>>>>>

Here are the specs on one of the files...

Source:

/Volumes/X G-RAID with Thunderbolt/Seattle Jan 4-6, 2013/WeTransfer-04tseJOW/00048.mov

Format:

libx264, 1,440 x 1,080 (1,920 x 1,080)

AAC, 44100 Hz, Stereo (L R)

FPS:

59.94

Data Size:

48.5 MB

Data Rate:

11.56 Mbit/s

>>>>>

Here are the video properties that seemed to help a bit I set in FCPX:

Format: 1080i HD Resolution: 1920x1080 Rate: 29.97i

I need this footage for work, we are going to be using it for web based promos but more importantly for television broadcast purposes so getting this to work is crucial, especially since we've paid for it already. The videographer doesn't seem to know what I'm talking about and isn't much help at all.

Cheers!

Compressor, Mac OS X (10.7.4)

Posted on Mar 22, 2013 8:55 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Russ H

Level 7

22,432 points

Mar 22, 2013 11:18 AM in response to RawnEdwards

I'm not familiar with that kind of format, but if it really is 59.94 fps, then it is progresive, not interlaced. What was the camera that shot this?

About the x.264 codec, what app is reporting these specs?

My suggestion…as a test, optimize one of your clips, create a new sequence (project) with Pro Res settings and see if FCP is any happier.

Russ

Reply

Answer 2

Mar 22, 2013 11:34 AM in response to RawnEdwards

1) Report this issue to FCPx Feedback from the FCPx Menu

2) Use MPEG Streamclip or Compressor (MPEG Streamclip is faster) to transcode the files to ProRes 422 or 4444. Depending on Source. Then import them into FCPx

"he videographer doesn't seem to know what I'm talking about and isn't much help at all."

Get another.... IF he doesn't know how to deal with his own footage, he's no good !

Reply

Answer 3

RawnEdwards Author

Level 1

0 points

Mar 22, 2013 12:32 PM in response to Russ H

"I'm not familiar with that kind of format"

I've consulted multiple colleagues, previous professors actively working in the field, online forums. No one seems to understand what libx264 is. From what I gathered online it's just a type of wrapper that's supposed to play nice with H264. I understand, that's why I'm so boggled. Switching from progressive to interlaced was the only way to get rid of the green bars and get the audio more up to par (bizarre right?!).

"what app"

I got the format specs straight from Quicktime when I initially opened the files.

After my initial attempt to import and transcode through FCPX I put a couple of the clips through compressor (ProRes was my first try). No dice. Another weird thing, when I pushed a couple clips through compressor ProRes Proxy exported the best quality....I don't know how that happens.

Thanks Russ

Reply

Answer 4

RawnEdwards Author

Level 1

0 points

Mar 22, 2013 12:33 PM in response to Studio Engineer

1) Reported (twice out of frustration).

2) Check out my reply to Russ, ProRes Proxy yielded the best results which I wouldn't have thought.

Won't use this guy again, that's for sure. But I don't want this footage to go to waste because I can't figure it out.

Reply

Answer 5

RawnEdwards Author

Level 1

0 points

Mar 22, 2013 12:41 PM in response to Russ H

I've asked the videographer to send me the details on his equipment and he hasn't responded to my last two emails and two voicemails. I don't understand why he's being so dodgy, my colleague that met up with him at the project site said he seemed like a very professional person.

Also, I've gotten a lot of advice that it could be the software which is the likely candidate at this point but I'm not convinced. Since January I've edited and produced footage from guys all over the country coming up to about 86 projects. I've never had this problem with the software. The only difference I can find between all of my previous projects and this one is the libx264. That's why I'm targeting it so much.

Reply

Answer 6

Russ H

Level 7

22,432 points

Mar 22, 2013 2:32 PM in response to RawnEdwards

x.264 is a perfectly good codec, which I have in my QT Library. I've sometimes used it for the Web and not had problems using Compressor to exporting to it. But I don't know anything about the format that QT Player reported to you.

The shooter may have shot in a quite unrelated format and then, for whatever reason, run it through some conversion software.

Can you try Studio Engineer's suggestion to get it transcoded to PR in MPEG Streamclip? (I would test PR 442 progressive settings without changing the frame rate. If you have success it should definitely look better than Proxy.

Let us know of any progress.

Russ

Reply

Answer 7

fox_m

Level 6

13,244 points

Mar 22, 2013 3:40 PM in response to RawnEdwards

Every app that uses x264 claims that it IS H.264, but it is *not*. It' can't be.

libx264 is the "generic" H.264. Every free application (MPEG Streamclip, VLC, etc. etc.) that converts to or from "H.264" is using "x264" because: H.264 is a proprietary codec that must be licensed for use (the decoder, at least, anyway [it's all provided for free for the end user though]). It's why YouTube, Mozilla and others had such a problem adopting it a few years back. Usually x264 is not a problem, the "work-alike" typically works very well. However, *libx264" is a Unix library of code and as such has an extensive collection of command line arguments (which can be custom coded in apps like VLC and FFMPeg/FFMpegX, etc)

http://mewiki.project357.com/wiki/X264_Settings if you're interested.

There used to be a cool little application called Visual Hub [http://www.isquint.org/] that did a wonderful job of transcoding video. And every time you hit the Customize button, it would put up an alert: "Don't Do It! You'll only mess it up!" Which, I found to be very good advice. However, some people just cannot refrain from tweaking things. I'm not saying your source *did* overtweak, but there could also be "build issues" if he's on a PC, or other operating system.

My best advice would be that you may need to download and install the x264 codec (for quicktime) if (uncommon) custom settings were used. [It will not interfere with the real H.264 codec.] This was the best *recent* source I could find:

http://www003.upp.so-net.ne.jp/mycometg3/

Since the original frame rate is 60i (59.94i), you can set your project for 1920x1080/30p (29.97p). Check to make sure that the Field Dominance is set to Upper First (or check with the original videographer and make sure HE set the field dominance correctly! Whatever he used - match it in FCPX). There really is no reason to ever use interlacing anymore. It's been proven there is no longer any benefit to interlacing with modern television systems and interlacing can even ADD overhead to the signal.

Reply