Quantcast CQ vs. CQ_VBR ... Very Interesting... - Page 14 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #261  
12-31-2002, 01:13 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

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
  #262  
12-31-2002, 01:26 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
this is the real life!

after much reading,write,test,adjust,teach,learn,discuss,ask, think.......

the people here (like me),

is gonna crazy!
Reply With Quote
  #263  
12-31-2002, 01:30 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
I still haven't found your requested icon jorel

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #264  
12-31-2002, 01:33 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
I still haven't found your requested icon jorel

-kwag
how can i put a little bitmap here?(3,02k)
Reply With Quote
  #265  
12-31-2002, 01:34 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
I still haven't found your requested icon jorel

-kwag
how can i put a little bitmap here?(3,02k)
Do you have an icon? You can send it to my e-mail. Send me a PM.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
12-31-2002, 01:39 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
I still haven't found your requested icon jorel

-kwag
how can i put a little bitmap here?(3,02k)
Do you have an icon? You can send it to my e-mail. Send me a PM.
how i put the image?(bitmap)
tick in what?
Reply With Quote
  #267  
12-31-2002, 01:42 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
I still haven't found your requested icon jorel

-kwag
how can i put a little bitmap here?(3,02k)
Do you have an icon? You can send it to my e-mail. Send me a PM.
how i put the image?(bitmap)
tick in what?
Check your PM.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #268  
12-31-2002, 02:50 AM
vdermerwedz vdermerwedz is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 45
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here are my findings for pal,

I`ve found the following to work best for me,
For darkish movies like Blade2 Men in black, I found using CQ without blockbuster 528x576 to be the best,
and all other movies using blockbuster Cq-Vbr looks best to me, I`ll try the new dither blockbuster 7 tommorow, after new years coz i`m working on a new years bash tonight. I did try the new matrix not extensively though so i`m still experimenting with that.

Thanks for all the hard work guys, and have a great new year ,

God bless.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
12-31-2002, 02:56 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by vdermerwedz
Here are my findings for pal,

I`ve found the following to work best for me,
For darkish movies like Blade2 Men in black, I found using CQ without blockbuster 528x576 to be the best,
and all other movies using blockbuster Cq-Vbr looks best to me, I`ll try the new dither blockbuster 7 tommorow, after new years coz i`m working on a new years bash tonight. I did try the new matrix not extensively though so i`m still experimenting with that.

Thanks for all the hard work guys, and have a great new year ,

God bless.
thanks,.........i see you all in 2003.
Happy New Year,progress,fortune,happiness!
GOD bless you all,good morning!
Reply With Quote
  #270  
12-31-2002, 08:43 AM
acidfire acidfire is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 68
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I agree with SansGrip when he said after things slow down you guys could make a how to guide. I don't know about every one else but I'm going crazy trying to keep up with Kwag and SansGrip and all the new software. Don't get me wrong because all the hard work is paying off. Everyone on this forum loves your templates,and look how far we all have come. But with all the new software and you guys fitting longer movies onto one cd some of us aren't sure how you did it or were to start. But a guild could show everyone how you get very great results,and a new faq would be nice also. And the new icons look
great! :tongue2:
Ps: Thanks everyone for your hard work testing and testing again,and thanks kwag for you great templates and everyone helping kwag with his great templates!
Reply With Quote
  #271  
12-31-2002, 09:22 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 black prince
I'm comparing KVCDx3 to it's CQ version to see which one has the most advantages (e.g. file size, picture quality, etc.)
I think CQ mode has less Gibbs and responds better to fast motion. I'll be interested to hear what you think.

Quote:
Finally, file prediction for me is not working for CQ tests.
CQ prediction does work for me, but it's a very slow process. Generally I do it manually, and go up or down maybe 2 or 3 at a time until I end up on the "other side" of my target, then I'll go up (or down) by 1.

It is possible to get very accurate sample sizes, but it generally takes many more iterations than CQ_VBR. That's the one downside of CQ...
Reply With Quote
  #272  
12-31-2002, 09:36 AM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I feel kinda spacy-punk-cool that I started a 4000-views threat at my favorite website :wavey:

yeah! and as for the results: I'm totally with SansGrip and kwag.
But since I only encode in higher resolutions, I'll stick with CQ!

CU next year!!
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #273  
12-31-2002, 09:54 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
kwag -

Now I look at beta-1 more closely I see you're using values lower than 8. This concerns me somewhat, since I'm under the impression (correct or otherwise ) that 8 should be the minimum value in the matrix.

This is because the result of a discrete cosine transform is a number between 0 and 2047, and if you were to divide by less than 8 you could get a number greater than 255. This would result in an overflow and subsequent artifacts.

I could be wrong, though.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
12-31-2002, 10:26 AM
black prince black prince is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,224
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@SansGrip,

SansGrip wrote:
Quote:
CQ prediction does work for me, but it's a very slow process. Generally I do it manually, and go up or down maybe 2 or 3 at a time until I end up on the "other side" of my target, then I'll go up (or down) by 1.

It is possible to get very accurate sample sizes, but it generally takes many more iterations than CQ_VBR. That's the one downside of CQ...
That's similiar to the way I'm doing file prediction for CQ. I pay
attention to the test file size result and less to the predicted new CQ.
When I'm < 8MB near the target file size, I increase CQ by 1 until
I'm within 2% to 3%. CQ creates a final file size a little larger
than the predicted file. I also use 128kb audio minus CD size, so
if the final video file size is too big for target, I can reduce the audio
size to fit. It's a little tricky, but it's working

-black prince
Reply With Quote
  #275  
12-31-2002, 10:34 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
kwag -

Now I look at beta-1 more closely I see you're using values lower than 8. This concerns me somewhat, since I'm under the impression (correct or otherwise ) that 8 should be the minimum value in the matrix.

This is because the result of a discrete cosine transform is a number between 0 and 2047, and if you were to divide by less than 8 you could get a number greater than 255. This would result in an overflow and subsequent artifacts.

I could be wrong, though.
I thought so too , but only if I use 0 or 1, then video starts to jump. Maybe what's happening is we're getting a real "clamping" effect ( again a notch ) where I'm using the 6 and 7 values. Or maybe changing the 6 and 7 for 8 will have the same effect. Then we'll know if there's no sense in going below 8. If this is the case, then I will sit in a corner for a while because

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #276  
12-31-2002, 10:37 AM
black prince black prince is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,224
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@SansGrip,

For Cropping I used Tmpgenc's Clip Frame to get the Crop settings.
e.g. Crop(left,top,-right,-bottom). I mask in multiples of 4 to avoid
macro block errors. Next I use FitCD to get correct aspect ratio and
save this in my script:

mpeg2source("D:\Temp\movie.d2v")
Crop(4,64,0,-68 )
LegalClip()
LanczosResize(496,352)
FluxSmooth()
AddBorders(16,64,16,64)
LegalClip()
Sampler()


This seems to work and is simpler than using FitCD to get crop settings.
Can you tell me if I missed something

-black prince
Reply With Quote
  #277  
12-31-2002, 11:28 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by black prince
This seems to work and is simpler than using FitCD to get crop settings. Can you tell me if I missed something
That's pretty much what I do, except I usually use VDub to figure out how big the borders are .
Reply With Quote
  #278  
12-31-2002, 11:31 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
I thought so too , but only if I use 0 or 1, then video starts to jump.
If you use zero you should get divide-by-zero errors -- I'm surprised it works at all . If you use 1 then you're producing values from 0-2047 instead of 0-255. This is probably why it's jumping.

I'm not totally sure this is the case, but I know that TMPGEnc won't let you enter a value lower than 8 in the very top-left box. I'm thinking that the reason you can use a lower value elsewhere is simply a bug.

I think I'll go ask on Doom9 -- this one's outside my area of knowledge .
Reply With Quote
  #279  
12-31-2002, 12:35 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
I thought so too , but only if I use 0 or 1, then video starts to jump.
If you use zero you should get divide-by-zero errors -- I'm surprised it works at all . If you use 1 then you're producing values from 0-2047 instead of 0-255. This is probably why it's jumping.

I'm not totally sure this is the case, but I know that TMPGEnc won't let you enter a value lower than 8 in the very top-left box. I'm thinking that the reason you can use a lower value elsewhere is simply a bug.

I think I'll go ask on Doom9 -- this one's outside my area of knowledge .
It's a HUGE difference. Look at this, and note specially around the eyes:



The top image is using the BETA-1 matrix. The top left of the matrix is this:

Code:
8  6  8
6  7  10
8  10 14

Where the bottom image is using this:

Code:
8  8  8
8  8  10
8  10 14
I think the notch is dead on target

Here are both samples:

http://www.kvcd.net/test-cq-beta-1.m1v
http://www.kvcd.net/test-cq-8s.m1v

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #280  
12-31-2002, 01:33 PM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You're right, the lower values are better. However, that still doesn't rule out the case where it overflows and causes weird artifacts. Before going with it I'd like to get a definitive answer on whether one should use values less than 8 in the matrix .

My tests with beta-1 showed quite a serious impact on CQ level. With the old matrix I got 69.9, and with beta-1 I got 62.8. This will probably equate to more macroblocks. I also saw more Gibbs . Are my results really that out of whack with yours?
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

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd