@bman: I did some tests of resize-before-filter vs. filter-before-resize, encoding an xvid source to 480x480 resolution MPEG1 300-2500kbps CQ ~80.
Peering very closely at the TV I noticed the filter-before-resize video was slightly sharper. A marginal difference but it was there. As a bonus the filesize was slightly smaller for filter-before-resize, about 100Kb over 5 minutes. Again a marginal difference and very possibly dependent on the source material, but there :) Good suggestion bman, a better picture with more compression! For reference here are the scripts I was using: resize-filter (normal): Code:
LegalClip() Code:
LegalClip() |
girv,
What decoder are you using to decode the DivX/XviD files? If you use FFDshow latest alpha http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffdshow/ with all the postprocessing settings ( I use custom and check all the blocks and also Nic's processing) Then in your script use this for your source... DirectShowSource("C:\movie.avi", fps=25) of course change the fps to whatever the movie really is like 23.976, 25 etc... You should be able to get rid of more blocks and flickering this way... |
There was no blockiness or flickering there , just Gibbs !
@ girv I'm glad u find my observations to be correct . :D :D Effect is very noticable when source is LQ DivX or Captured material . bman |
@KingTuk:
I tried using ffdshow and DirectShowSource when I started all this but all it did for me was to make the picture a bit softer. I'll look at it again though now that I've got a decent post-post-processing script to see if I can improve the picture further. Thanks for reminding me about it :) [/b] |
Quote:
|
If you think that FluxSmooth is good at removing Gibbs, give FaeryDust a try :!: :wink:
You'll see a big difference. However since FaeryDust is so slow, I usually use Flux too to remove Gibbs! |
Quote:
//Wolfi |
@Wolfi
Me too. What is a gibb? Back on pages 13-14 on this thread, there was a lot of discussion about DivX/XviD encoding scripts. Is there any way that these scripts can be tested and than an optimal script placed in Kwag's optimal script thread? |
Quote:
|
Thanks. :D
|
Re: STDMedian is back!
Quote:
i am trying to find the best for us. :wink: after hard tests my conclusion comparing samples with and without STM filer. with the filter the size is really short and look slighty softer. without the filter is sharpen,faster to encode and with little more final size. i see the images only in pc and have little differences. really different is the size and velocity to encode. :!: someone make tests too? :wink: |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.