Quantcast CQ vs. CQ_VBR ... Very Interesting... - Page 11 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
Go Back    digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] > Video Production Forums > Avisynth Scripting

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #201  
12-30-2002, 12:10 AM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
However, there must be a very noticeable difference in quality if we're going to use 2-pass VBR, because the encoding time will be 2X the time compared to CQ or CQ_VBR.
Yep, though if the quality increase is significant I'd say it would be worth it -- at least for those with faster machines.

Personally I'd let mine (Athlon XP 2100+) encode all night if it meant significantly better quality, at least for important jobs.
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #202  
12-30-2002, 12:13 AM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well, so far I have my sample clips of Resident Evil (2424 frames) encoded at 704x480 CQ_VBR with dither, 704x480 CQ without dither, 528x480 CQ_VBR with dither, 528x480 CQ without dither, and 352x480 CQ_VBR with dither. All are at 11.4mb. I'm very close to having 352x480 CQ without dither finished (it's at 11.3mb right now), and then tomorrow I'll do 352x240 and watch them all on my TV.

After that I have to redo the whole thing with kwag's new Q matrix .
Reply With Quote
  #203  
12-30-2002, 12:15 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansGrip
Well, so far I have my sample clips of Resident Evil (2424 frames) encoded at 704x480 CQ_VBR with dither, 704x480 CQ without dither, 528x480 CQ_VBR with dither, 528x480 CQ without dither, and 352x480 CQ_VBR with dither. All are at 11.4mb. I'm very close to having 352x480 CQ without dither finished (it's at 11.3mb right now), and then tomorrow I'll do 352x240 and watch them all on my TV.

After that I have to redo the whole thing with kwag's new Q matrix .
Now will that be too long, because now I'm sitting on the edge of the chair waiting for your results ( Ouch )
Reply With Quote
  #204  
12-30-2002, 12:24 AM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Now will that be too long, because now I'm sitting on the edge of the chair waiting for your results ( Ouch )
You may as well get comfortable since it's taken me hours to get this far . I find getting precisely sized samples with CQ takes a lot longer than CQ_VBR. There's no way of knowing if you need to increase by 0.5 or by 2. It's very frustrating .
Reply With Quote
  #205  
12-30-2002, 12:26 AM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
...mainly because, 5 sample encodes later, I discover, for example, that I've been doing CQ 352x480 WITH dither instead of without.

Like now.

GRRRRR .
Reply With Quote
  #206  
12-30-2002, 12:27 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansGrip
I find getting precisely sized samples with CQ takes a lot longer than CQ_VBR. There's no way of knowing if you need to increase by 0.5 or by 2. It's very frustrating .
Oh you're 100% right. It's a pain . Every time I calculate "((wanted/current) * current CQ)" the curve is completely off on the next encode . Try it with the BETA-2 matrix, it's a little more linear

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #207  
12-30-2002, 12:30 AM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Try it with the BETA-2 matrix, it's a little more linear
That's next on my list .

By the way, how did the method="dither" sample strip compare to method="noise"?
Reply With Quote
  #208  
12-30-2002, 12:43 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansGrip

By the way, how did the method="dither" sample strip compare to method="noise"?
On 704x480 and 528x480, I can see a clear advantage. At 352x240, the macroblocks are just so big, that anything I try they still show . I'm currently encoding with CQ=53.39 and the new matrix the movie K-19 at 528x480. Here's a short cut from the prediction sample: http://www.kvcd.net/test-kvcd-new-matrix.m1v

Made is with this script:

LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\MPEG2DEC.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\fluxsmooth.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\sampler.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\blockbuster.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\legalclip.dll")
mpeg2source("K:\K19\VIDEO_TS\k19.d2v")
LegalClip()
LancZosResize(496,336)
FluxSmooth()
Blockbuster(method="dither", detail_min=1, detail_max=10, variance=1)
AddBorders(16,72,16,72)
LegalClip()

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #209  
12-30-2002, 12:53 AM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Kwag please:
how can we "found" this values?

AddBorders(16,72,16,72)
why is 16,72,.....?
Reply With Quote
  #210  
12-30-2002, 12:55 AM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
On 704x480 and 528x480, I can see a clear advantage.
Really? Cool .

Quote:
At 352x240, the macroblocks are just so big, that anything I try they still show .
Yes, there's probably not much we can do about that. If you set the intra-frame Q matrix to all 8s (the lowest you can go) you'll still see tons of DCT blocks. MPEG-1 I-frames are blocky, period .
Reply With Quote
  #211  
12-30-2002, 12:59 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
Kwag please:
how can we "found" this values?

AddBorders(16,72,16,72)
why is 16,72,.....?
FitCD
Reply With Quote
  #212  
12-30-2002, 01:09 AM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
thanks (fitcd)!

i see the "test-kvcd-new-matrix.m1v
and seems strange (a little) aspect radio.(faces like eggs)
Reply With Quote
  #213  
12-30-2002, 01:12 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
thanks (fitcd)!

i see the "test-kvcd-new-matrix.m1v
and seems strange (a little) aspect radio.(faces like eggs)
Rename the file to .mpg and play it in WinDVD or PowerDVD
DON'T USE WMP
It's a 528x480 file.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #214  
12-30-2002, 01:16 AM
black prince black prince is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,224
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@Kwag,

The first noticable benifit of the new KVCD Notch (Beta-2) Q-Matrix is
test file size has decreased from 22,865,194 to 21,896,514. I'm using
704x480, lanczosresize, Fluxsmooth, CQ 50. Picture quality is difficult
to judge, but it looks as good as the old Q-Matrix. Going to try Notch
Q-Matrix on 352x240 CQ_VBR. Let you know results later today.

-black prince
Reply With Quote
  #215  
12-30-2002, 01:22 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by black prince
@Kwag,

The first noticable benifit of the new KVCD Notch (Beta-2) Q-Matrix is
test file size has decreased from 22,865,194 to 21,896,514. I'm using
704x480, lanczosresize, Fluxsmooth, CQ 50. Picture quality is difficult
to judge, but it looks as good as the old Q-Matrix. Going to try Notch
Q-Matrix on 352x240 CQ_VBR. Let you know results later today.

-black prince
You should notice less artifacts (Gibbs) on high frequency components and less macroblocks on fast scenes. Also slightly lower dancing DCT blocks on low lit scenes. It's just a little, but it helps

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #216  
12-30-2002, 08:45 AM
black prince black prince is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,224
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hey Kwag,

Kwag wrote:
Quote:
You should notice less artifacts (Gibbs) on high frequency components and less macroblocks on fast scenes. Also slightly lower dancing DCT blocks on low lit scenes. It's just a little, but it helps
I did notice improvements using "avscompare" under magnification mode.
They were small but did appear improved. I have a question about
528x480 Plus (KVCDx3). What needs to be done to the Template so that
I can make it work as CQ instead of CQ_VBR I haven't tried the
new Q-Matrix with this resolution yet. Are you still using Blockbuster
dither with CQ

Thanks

-black prince
Reply With Quote
  #217  
12-30-2002, 09:17 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by black prince
I have a question about
528x480 Plus (KVCDx3). What needs to be done to the Template so that I can make it work as CQ instead of CQ_VBR
Just go to Settings/Video/RateControl and change to CQ.
Quote:
I haven't tried the new Q-Matrix with this resolution yet. Are you still using Blockbuster dither with CQ

Thanks

-black prince
I'm still experimenting with dither

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #218  
12-30-2002, 09:28 AM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ok, I've got 352x240, 352x480, 528x480 and 704x480 all done using both CQ_VBR with dither and CQ without. I'm now encoding them all again, this time using the new matrices...
Reply With Quote
  #219  
12-30-2002, 09:45 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansGrip
Ok, I've got 352x240, 352x480, 528x480 and 704x480 all done using both CQ_VBR with dither and CQ without. I'm now encoding them all again, this time using the new matrices...
Can't wait for the results , either good or bad. The truth, and nothing but the truth

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #220  
12-30-2002, 02:50 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hey SansGrip Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick

Are the results or are they :P

-kwag
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Avisynth: Interesting results with YlevelsS supermule Avisynth Scripting 2 08-06-2006 11:59 PM
Avisynth: Interesting ASharp phenomenon... audioslave Avisynth Scripting 12 10-23-2003 06:36 AM
Interesting info about the Luminance Level in CCE digitalize Video Encoding and Conversion 0 04-28-2003 12:29 PM
A couple of interesting links.. kwag Off-topic Lounge 0 12-31-2002 03:47 PM
KVCD: Interesting poll found kwag Video Encoding and Conversion 2 12-31-2002 02:44 AM




 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:37 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd