H.265/HEVC Software Encode-Decode FAILS with versions through CBD 1.0.9.0beta

[Sabertooth]

Attempts to re-encode to h.265/HEVC FAIL with all versions including 1.0.9.0beta with all decoding-encoding engines. Previously reported for 1.0.8.4, 1.0.8.7 and 1.0.8.8.

Whether software or CUDA decoder and encoder it fails.

Corrected CUDA engine success was actually h.264 not h.265.

 

[Pete]

On the plus side, I can complete a re-encode to h.265/HEVC if I use the CUDA decoder and encoder. I haven't tried mixed decoder-encoder which might narrow it to the software decoder or encoder specifically.

Note that since CloneBD currently doesn't support HEVC hardware encoding, it will always use software encoding. So in this use case, it makes no difference, what you select as encoding engine.
That it makes a difference, which decoder you select is very strange, though.
I can't reproduce what you're describing - HEVC works for me. Is the problem limited to a certain disc?

 

[Adbear]

Never tried an h265 before, never realised how slow it would be (around 2-3fps).
Mine started off around 2-3fps, but the counter has gone down to 0fps even though the CPU usage is still at 100%, and if I turn the preview on it's still moving albeit very slowly. This is all with GPU acceleration disabled, so it is still working just not reporting it properly inside CloneBD (or it's taking longer than 1 second per frame on a 6700K)

If I turn on hardware decoding to CUDA it also speeds up slightly for me, so it no longer gives 0fps all the time. I suspect this is because it can off load the decoding so frees up the decoding cycles for encoding and as it's already very slow on the encoding there's no slow down moving the decoded frames from the GPU to the CPU

Just realised I had the Quality setting on highest. If I then set the quality to fastest I get around 40-45fps with just CPU decoding and encoding, but if I turn on CUDA decoding it goes up to 50-55fps, and on average quality setting it goes from 10-15fps on CPU only to 15-20 on CUDA decoding.

 

[Sabertooth]

ote that since CloneBD currently doesn't support HEVC hardware encoding, it will always use software encoding. So in this use case, it makes no difference, what you select as encoding engine.
That it makes a difference, which decoder you select is very strange, though.
I can't reproduce what you're describing - HEVC works for me. Is the problem limited to a certain disc?

Unfortunately, it occurs on every disk since July 2016 when I built this PC and numerous logs have been uploaded here and to Elby. Fails immediately. If I change the processor affinity to 16 cores (from 20), it will work however. If what you're suggesting is true that would indicate the problem isn't with the engine but something else in the lead up that's different when I select the CUDA decoder-encoder. See my post with transcoding and re-encoding results here. There are some things that just don't add up with your statement looking at my results so far. In those cases where I used mixed decoder-encoder settings with the CUDA decoding and the software encoding, the frame rates have dropped into the teens and indicated over 2 hours processing time (at highest quality setting), yet I was able to transcode to h.265 with the settings for Cuda decoder-encoder and get 331 fps. It doesn't make sense if the actual processing is like you suggest, CUDA decoding and software encoding. Am I right, somethings not adding up.

Never tried an h265 before, never realised how slow it would be (around 2-3fps).

Exactly the reason I use h.265 for testing because it does require so much. I am using the Highest Quality bias for all processing, btw. It's quite odd that you are getting such low rates with h.265 when I got 331 fps admittedly with the beast of a processor, the 6950x but I would still have expected you to see rates of at least 150 fps not 0-2 fps.

 

[Adbear]

I'm actually surprised you get so many fps. Even in BDRebuilder I can only get around 30-40fps when encoding to h265, and my CPU is overclocked to 4.6Ghz. Did you check the final files with Mediainfo to see if it thinks they are h265?

 

[Reto]

yet I was able to transcode to h.265 with the settings for Cuda decoder-encoder and get 331 fps. It doesn't make sense if the actual processing is like you suggest, CUDA decoding and software encoding. Am I right, somethings not adding up.

What Pete said is correct in all aspects.

Can you please double-check, that you REALLY set h.265 and not by mistake h.264?
HEVC is really not present in the encoder code.

When encoding to HEVC, CloneBD simply behaves as if "no acceleration" was selected for encoding.

Maybe supply a CloneBD log file for clarity.

Thanks.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm actually surprised you get so many fps. Even in BDRebuilder I can only get around 30-40fps when encoding to h265, and my CPU is overclocked to 4.6Ghz. Did you check the final files with Mediainfo to see if it thinks they are h265?

Ah, you are correct. It wasn't h.265 but h.264, must have reset maybe if I went back to an earlier page or something. My bad.

New result: FAIL
Changing the first post. Good catch.

Maybe supply a CloneBD log file for clarity.

Logs have been attached and sent in since CBD1.0.8.4 but I still can't do an h.265 transcode with CBD unless I change the processor affinity to 16 cores from 20. I haven't tried changing processor affinity yet with this revision. I will when I have some time.

New log sent in for CUDA FAIL H.265/HEVC

 

[Pete]

Ah, you are correct. It wasn't h.265 but h.264, must have reset maybe if I went back to an earlier page or something. My bad.

Ok, now I'm relieved a bit, thanks
You probably reset it after the HEVC encode failed.

Ok, version 1.0.9.1 was just released, taking care of some smaller issues.
Also processor-affinity, as a workaround, is automatically set to less cores - more than 8 won't make sense for HEVC anyway.
Can you please try it?

Accelerated HEVC encoding should be added sooner or later anyway.

 

[Sabertooth]

Also processor-affinity, as a workaround, is automatically set to less cores - more than 8 won't make sense for HEVC anyway.
Can you please try it?

Here's the processor affinity result (still on 1.0.9.0 for this but updating to newer revision). I was also ripping a movie to an pISO on the source drive using AnyDVD HD while also decrypting the pISO of Tarzan so the frame rates probably aren't the best they probably could be. See my test results here for additional information on the specific settings I use.

Processor Affinity 20 cores: FAIL
Processor Affinity 17 cores: FAIL
Processor Affinity 16 cores: Success
The Legend of Tarzan pISO (main title: 158214 frames) mounted with Virtual CloneDrive 5.5.0.0 decrypted by AnyDVD HD 8.0.6.0 from 28.77 GB to 2.46 GB completed in 28:42 or 92 fps (with a 20% reduction in processor power). CBD indicates 65% CPU Usage so it may use closer to 9-10 cores than 8. Confirmed to be HEVC see MediaInfo.txt attached.

I assume it will work for less than 16 cores just as I assume 18 and 19 cores won't work. I could be wrong but I think it's a good estimation. Let me know if you need anything else.

@Adbear : I seem to be getting a roughly 50% increase over the software encode using the CUDA encoder so I might see 150 fps with h.265 and CUDA.

 

[Sabertooth]

Updated to CBD 1.0.9.1beta has taken care of the crashing. Re-encoding to h.265 proceeded normally with no change to my processor affinity (Task Manager shows all 20 cores active for CBD process).

Processor Affinity 20 cores: SUCCESS
The Legend of Tarzan pISO (main title: 158214 frames) mounted with Virtual CloneDrive 5.5.0.0 decrypted by AnyDVD HD 8.0.6.0 from 28.77 GB to 2.46 GB completed in 28:35 or 92 fps . CBD indicates only 65% CPU usage which is a bit disappointing but at least it doesn't crash. Confirmed to be HEVC.

 

[Pete]

CBD indicates only 65% CPU usage which is a bit disappointing but at least it doesn't crash

Yes, that's to be expected - the encoder will likely use up to 8 cores.

CBD indicates 65% CPU Usage so it may use closer to 9-10 cores than 8.

It's not only the encoder doing work here - scaling, alpha blending, demultiplexing, multiplexing, color-space conversion, ... CloneBD has a lot other stuff to do, that's where the additional load comes from.

 

[Sabertooth]

Yes, that's to be expected - the encoder will likely use up to 8 cores.


It's not only the encoder doing work here - scaling, alpha blending, demultiplexing, multiplexing, color-space conversion, ... CloneBD has a lot other stuff to do, that's where the additional load comes from.

It's disappointing that the encoder can use less than half of the available cores (8 of 20) on my system. I can only imagine how much faster it would be if they were all in use, less than half the time. It's a big negative for me. Of course, it's a big positive that I can encode at all with the HEVC since I haven't been able to for some months now (without jumping through hoops setting processor affinity).

Accelerated HEVC encoding should be added sooner or later anyway.

The CUDA encoder really kicks ass! Big kudos to you all for that. I'll run a pure software encode tonight (let it run overnight) but my initial attempt previously indicated over 2 hours at highest quality compared to 8:22 for the CUDA encoder. Can't wait for Accelerated HEVC to arrive.

One of the reasons, I haven't used CloneBD much in the past for my re-encoding tasks has been the lack of the quality bias so I hope there's no plan to remove that like there is to remove the decoder encoder selection. I'd like to see the ability to select the coders remain but it could be hidden under an auto setting.

 

[Adbear]

I wonder if Pete meant 8 cores with hyper-threading as you CPU doesn't have 20 cores it has 10 physical cores and 10 virtual cores which don't run as fast as the 10 physical cores anyway.
Did you check in Task-manager to see which cores are actually being used?

 

[Sabertooth]

I wonder if Pete meant 8 cores with hyper-threading as you CPU doesn't have 20 cores it has 10 physical cores and 10 virtual cores which don't run as fast as the 10 physical cores anyway.
Did you check in Task-manager to see which cores are actually being used?

That's 20 threads, pardon me for using the commonly used core reference (like in task manager). As there are other processes running the core activity in task manager probably isn't indicative. If Pete says 8 cores that's good enough for me. The 65% CPU utilization number comes from CBD so it is what it is.

I'm running a software decode-encode using highest quality now and the CPU utilization is even worse in the 30% range for a re-encode to BD-R folder. That seems like a problem though probably a different one.