02-28-2003, 03:21 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Of course... the audio...
i am usualy not using AviSource(movie, FALSE).
Anyway thanks a lot
|
Someday, 12:01 PM
|
|
Site Staff / Ad Manager
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
|
|
|
02-28-2003, 04:38 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: san jose, Ca
Posts: 1,148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
I just wish CQ would be a linear scale icon_cry.gif
Then we wouldn't have all this trouble
|
Yeah, but what fun would that be?
Ok I finally finished my spreadsheet- lot of work for file prediction
I encode samples of Heist with this script:
Code:
Mpeg2Source("D:\HEIST\VIDEO_TS\heist.d2v")
LegalClip()
BilinearResize(512,344,3,0,714,480)
AddBorders(8,68,8,68)
LegalClip()
which is very basic- no noise filters
here's the result:
here's the excel file for the Sigmoidal Curve parameter sticky post : Heist_data.xls
I still think it may be possible to create a linear equation based on cq0 to ~cq50 and combine another one for cq50 to ~cq80
ren
|
02-28-2003, 05:58 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: san jose, Ca
Posts: 1,148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARnet_tenRA
The problem I see with these values is that your CQ100 seem way out of proportion with the CQ0 and CQ50 values.
Using the scale I had posted before you should only have about 17.778MB and 1194 as the avg. bitrate for CQ100. ie: double CQ50
Your CQ100 is triple CQ50 and that is why the formula is not working.
|
Yep, that is very weird I wonder if this might have to do with the resolution I used the KVCDx3 528x480 template
|
02-28-2003, 09:11 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 73
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rendalunit
I wonder if this might have to do with the resolution I used the KVCDx3 528x480 template
|
That is a very good possibility. I used 352x240 for my tests.
-Tenra
|
02-28-2003, 09:14 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
If this means that the curves are different for each resolution, we're screwed
|
02-28-2003, 09:23 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 73
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
If this means that the curves are different for each resolution, we're screwed
|
Don't worry, I'm working on a new formula where you take 3 or 4 short samples and the curve for your movie is automatically determined.
-Tenra
|
02-28-2003, 11:55 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: san jose, Ca
Posts: 1,148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
I encoded a bunch of samples of "the Matrix" at 528x480 and graphed the sizes and it follows exactly the same pattern!
The peak file sizes (or the "ceiling") is higher with the Matrix samples The bottom line is that it may be possible to determine the final size of the encode with one short sample at cq-100 and with a good formula (maybe range adjusted by resolution or number of pixels), making the process simpler :tongue2:
ren
|
02-28-2003, 11:59 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
OK, I'm finally done, and I think I have good news
First, a chart, and then the explanation :
Code:
CQ FS ABR !ABR *CQ
100 4349 1603 1603 100
99 4336 1598 1586.97 98.32
98 4323 1593 1570.94 96.64
97 4310 1589 1554.91 94.92
96 4298 1584 1538.88 93.27
95 4287 1580 1522.85 91.56
94 4276 1576 1506.82 89.87
93 4265 1572 1490.79 88.2
92 4255 1568 1474.76 86.53
91 4246 1565 1458.73 84.82
90 4237 1561 1442.7 83.18
89 4228 1558 1426.67 81.5
88 4219 1555 1410.64 79.83
87 4211 1552 1394.61 78.18
86 4204 1549 1378.58 76.54
85 4196 1546 1362.55 74.91
84 4171 1537 1346.52 73.59
83 4032 1486 1330.49 74.31
82 3884 1431 1314.46 75.32
81 3692 1361 1298.43 77.28
80 3419 1259 1282.4 81.49
79 3085 1136 1266.37 88.07
78 2990 1101 1250.34 88.58
77 2985 1099 1234.31 86.48
76 2980 1097 1218.28 84.4
75 2975 1095 1202.25 82.35
74 2966 1092 1186.22 80.38
73 2880 1060 1170.19 80.59
72 2784 1025 1154.16 81.07
71 2613 961 1138.13 84.09
70 2402 884 1122.1 88.85
69 2362 869 1106.07 87.82
68 2361 869 1090.04 85.3
67 2356 867 1074.01 83
66 2352 866 1057.98 80.63
65 2298 845 1041.95 80.15
64 2222 817 1025.92 80.37
63 2078 765 1009.89 83.17
62 1987 731 993.86 84.29
61 1985 731 977.83 81.6
60 1983 730 961.8 79.05
59 1978 728 945.77 76.65
58 1947 717 929.74 75.21
57 1882 693 913.71 75.15
56 1773 653 897.68 76.98
55 1768 651 881.65 74.49
54 1759 647 865.62 72.25
53 1756 647 849.59 69.6
52 1742 641 833.56 67.62
51 1695 624 817.53 66.82
50 1623 597 801.5 67.13
49 1615 595 785.47 64.69
48 1613 594 769.44 62.18
47 1616 595 753.41 59.51
46 1602 590 737.38 57.49
45 1546 569 721.35 57.05
Please ignore the three columns in the center. They were used only for reference while creating the factors. The important numbers are the CQ on the left, and the *CQ on the right ONLY.
FS=File Size.
ABR=Average Bit Rate.
!AVBR=Linear(should be) Average Bit Rate.
*CQ=Use this CQ to encode.
This was done with 352x480 template to pick a "half way" point for resolution.
Now you only need to run a sampler ( ~30% or full ) one time only with CQ=100
And do this:
(1)Lookup the average bit rate that MovieStacker suggested.
(2)Divide Moviestacker's suggested average bit rate by your real average bit rate of your sample as seen on BitRate Viewer, and multiply by 100.
(3)Look up the closest number you got in step (2) IN THE LEFT CQ values column of the chart, and use the *CQ on the same line on the far right
Tada!. That's it.
Please let me know if this is on target, or if it has been a waste of time
Edit: Suggestion, I think it's better to run the one time full sampler instead of ~30%. This way we get a more accurate bit rate for the prediction. Also these numbers are to be used with KVCD's Q Matrix and GOP. They will be WAY off with anything else
-kwag
|
03-01-2003, 12:00 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
@Ren,
Take a look at the numbers and see if it now matches close to what you had encoded before
-kwag
|
03-01-2003, 01:48 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hey!
If this works I can code this chart into MovieStacker and
make a Prediction Tab to make all the choices and calculations!
|
03-01-2003, 02:11 AM
|
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 muaddib
Hey!
If this works I can code this chart into MovieStacker and
make a Prediction Tab to make all the choices and calculations!
|
Yesssssssssss
I need people to test this. The chart was based on a 20 second sample. If the prediction is not at least 98% accurate, then I'll do a batch job overnight with a longer sampler, and then feed in the new values to the spreadsheet.
-kwag
|
03-01-2003, 02:20 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 129
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Ok, my movie was Ronin.
MovieStacker says average bitrate was 2064 kbps.
Bitrate viewer says 1495
2064/1495 = 1.380602007 x 100 = 138.0602007 ?!?!?!
I used 528x480 with this script:
Code:
Import ("G:\sample avisynth scripts\LoadPlugins.h")
Mpeg2Source("G:\video_ts\Ronin.d2v")
LegalClip()
Telecide()
Decimate()
Gripcrop(528,480)
Gripsize(resizer="lanczosresize")
mergechroma(blur(1.58))
mergeluma(blur(0.2))
SpaceDust()
FluxSmooth(7,7)
NoMoSmooth(40,1,6,1,3,false)
Convolution3d(preset="movieHQ")
DctFilter(1,1,1,1,1,1,.5,0)
GripBorders()
LetterBox(0, 0, 8, 8)
LegalClip()
Sampler(length=24)
What did i do wrong?
|
03-01-2003, 02:25 AM
|
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 Smoochie3
What did i do wrong?
|
2064 kbps average, , no way
Look again at the LEFT value on MovieStacker.
Right under the "Minutes" field.
-kwag
|
03-01-2003, 02:28 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 129
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
LOL! i figured it out, thanks!
Ok, so....
Ok, my movie was Ronin.
MovieStacker says average bitrate was 1001 kbps.
Bitrate viewer says 1495
1001/1495 = .6695652174 x 100 = 66.95652174.
So, i would use a CQ of 83?
|
03-01-2003, 02:53 AM
|
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 Smoochie3
LOL! i figured it out, thanks!
Ok, so....
Ok, my movie was Ronin.
MovieStacker says average bitrate was 1001 kbps.
Bitrate viewer says 1495
1001/1495 = .6695652174 x 100 = 66.95652174.
So, i would use a CQ of 83?
|
That's it
Tell me your results
-kwag
|
03-01-2003, 12:22 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: a PAL land (UK)
Posts: 408
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Wow. A lot has happened since I was last here......
It might be just me but when I ran a full sampler, got the correct CQ, and then used this CQ and ran another sampler using manual file size prediction, the resulting file was about 2 megs bigger than my target size...
|
03-01-2003, 12:28 PM
|
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 PyRoMaNiA
Wow. A lot has happened since I was last here......
It might be just me but when I ran a full sampler, got the correct CQ, and then used this CQ and ran another sampler using manual file size prediction, the resulting file was about 2 megs bigger than my target size...
|
WARNING -SLIPPERY WHEN WET ALPHA ALPHA ALPHA Method, not even BETA
That's related to ALL my posts in this thread.
Ok, so you mean your "sampler" file size was ~2MB larger than with the standard method of file prediction
What was your resolution
-kwag
|
03-01-2003, 12:43 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: san jose, Ca
Posts: 1,148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
hey kwag,
I tried the table and it worked great 1/2 times- first time very close- second time off pretty badly If you want you can download my excel worksheet of Heist that I posted-- did you see that?
I'm confused about a couple things though:
1. The curve range is totally different between 352x240 and 528x480 (assuming the resolution is causing this)- so won't the error factor be different?
2. Why not just use filesize and not bitrate? Using the bitrate is a serious pain- first the recommended bitrate to use in MovieStacker is based on all the settings on the page (most relate to SVCD) It would be so much easier to just enter your error factor into the Predict2 function and it will display the correct cq to use
thanks,
ren
|
03-01-2003, 12:44 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: a PAL land (UK)
Posts: 408
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Ok, so you mean your "sampler" file size was ~2MB larger than with the standard method of file prediction
|
That's right, and my resolution was 352x480.
|
03-01-2003, 12:50 PM
|
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 rendalunit
hey kwag,
I tried the table and it worked great 1/2 times- first time very close- second time off pretty badly If you want you can download my excel worksheet of Heist that I posted-- did you see that?
I'm confused about a couple things though:
1. The curve range is totally different between 352x240 and 528x480 (assuming the resolution is causing this)- so won't the error factor be different?
2. Why not just use filesize and not bitrate? Using the bitrate is a serious pain- first the recommended bitrate to use in MovieStacker is based on all the settings on the page (most relate to SVCD) It would be so much easier to just enter your error factor into the Predict2 function and it will display the correct cq to use
thanks,
ren
|
Hi ren,
Yes, the resolutions throw off the curve completely .
I guess this exercise did turn into a "crap" ( for my posts ), because the method is very tightly integrated with the MIN, MAX and resolution I used. So there would have to be a chart for every template, and then if anything is changed ( matrix, etc. ) that would mean that a whole new chart would be needed. So, I slipped and fell on this one
Thanks for trying it out. Now I'll go dig a hole in the ground and proceed to insert myself in it for a couple of hours, and meditate
-kwag
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:07 PM — vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd
|