Quantcast Avisynth: Optimal Script Now Fully Adaptive - Page 4 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #61  
06-30-2003, 10:53 AM
dredj dredj is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Kwag,

Does the latest changes on the optimize script applicable or will work best only for a very clean material like DVD?

Thanks,
Dredj
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
  #62  
06-30-2003, 12:29 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 audi2honda

Well I wasn't as luck. Came up 30MB short on a 800mb CD encode with the new script. Looks great though, so I'll settle for a little loss in space.
Was that with "Fast" predition or full prediction
Quote:

Kwag, are you using 1 sample per minute and the auto sample size for your prediction?
Yes I am.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #63  
06-30-2003, 12:36 PM
andybno1 andybno1 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 832
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to andybno1 Send a message via Yahoo to andybno1
All I can show about how things are going is: keep up the good work ppl shows what teamwork can do.

(had to do this one seen it and thought it was funny)
Reply With Quote
  #64  
06-30-2003, 12:46 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
Jorel sent me that one

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #65  
06-30-2003, 12:52 PM
audi2honda audi2honda is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 291
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:
Originally Posted by audi2honda

Well I wasn't as luck. Came up 30MB short on a 800mb CD encode with the new script. Looks great though, so I'll settle for a little loss in space.
Was that with "Fast" predition or full prediction
Quote:

Kwag, are you using 1 sample per minute and the auto sample size for your prediction?
Yes I am.

-kwag
That was with Full prediction set to .5% precision. When I used fast i got a CQ 5 pts lower
Reply With Quote
  #66  
06-30-2003, 04:17 PM
audi2honda audi2honda is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 291
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Man this stinks. A new movie just finished and was 7% short of target for 1CD. 50 wasted MB bah
Reply With Quote
  #67  
06-30-2003, 04:22 PM
audi2honda audi2honda is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 291
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by audi2honda
Man this stinks. A new movie just finished and was 7% short of target for 1CD. 50 wasted MB bah
Could it be because these videos I'm encoding are hybrids (about 70% film and 30%) video and I'm using telecide and decimate to bring everything to 23.976 fps? Could something like that throw prediction that far off?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
06-30-2003, 04:35 PM
J-Wo J-Wo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 454
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
hey audi, you're not the only one getting short video files! Kwag are you the only one getting accurate prediction? Sometimes my movies are only 90 min long so I usually do prediction with 2 samples per minute. In my latest encode:

Required Video Size: 732,032,000
Encoded Video Size: 693,986,212

That's 38 Mb short, or 5.2% off. Frankly I don't know what this means but a prediction factor of 1.0 for me is NOT doing the trick.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
06-30-2003, 04:36 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
@audi2honda,

You bet it can
You'll probably need to sample a wider "window" to get a better accurate result, and even that I'm not sure if it will be accurate enough. All my encodes have been progressive. I'm pretty sure that if your material was 100% telecined, and you use telecide and decimate, you'll still get accurate resulte. But mixed Not sure.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #70  
06-30-2003, 04:45 PM
audi2honda audi2honda is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 291
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ok I'll try one of my progressive DVDs tonight when I get home.

J-Wo are you having problems on clean progressive material or just other material?

My current project are DVD versions of a television series that have all sorts of hybrid nasty interlaced stuff in them. Telecide and decimate produce wonderful results, but I guess that could be throwing prediction.

Kwag do you recommend more samples per minute or a longer sample size? or both?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
06-30-2003, 04:51 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 audi2honda

Kwag do you recommend more samples per minute or a longer sample size? or both?
You're probably going to have to do 48 or to 60 frames per sample, and then maybe at least 100 samples per movie. And still I'm not sure of the results, because of the randomness of the mixed nature of your source

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #72  
06-30-2003, 04:56 PM
audi2honda audi2honda is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 291
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It's a randome mixture but after frameserving from AVS with the telecide and decimate functions isn't it all clean 23.976 when it gets to TMPGEnc? I would think in that case prediction would be accurate because TMPGEnc doesn't know since it's allready been converted or IVTC'd
Reply With Quote
  #73  
06-30-2003, 05:01 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
Yes but because the film is not going to be smooth ( some parts will be smooth and some will be jumpy ) that will throw off any prediction for sure

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #74  
06-30-2003, 05:37 PM
audi2honda audi2honda is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 291
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Yes but because the film is not going to be smooth ( some parts will be smooth and some will be jumpy ) that will throw off any prediction for sure

-kwag
True True. Thanks kwag I'll try one of my regular dvd's tonight to see what happens.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
06-30-2003, 06:01 PM
J-Wo J-Wo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 454
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
audi: yes, my sources are 100% film and all progressive. They are from clean DVD or SVCD sources. Kwag, any idea what is throwing off prediction for me? I almost want to revert back to before you got MA with full linearity
Reply With Quote
  #76  
06-30-2003, 06:54 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 J-Wo
Kwag, any idea what is throwing off prediction for me?
I have no idea , but I would like to hear more success/fail stories from many people about this. So far I have encoded three different movies, and the results have been just excelent. I still prefer using the full prediction mode, even if it takes from 20 to 30 extra minutes.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #77  
06-30-2003, 09:16 PM
ovg64 ovg64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 423
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to ovg64
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Wo
Kwag, any idea what is throwing off prediction for me?
I have no idea , but I would like to hear more success/fail stories from many people about this. So far I have encoded three different movies, and the results have been just excelent. I still prefer using the full prediction mode, even if it takes from 20 to 30 extra minutes.

-kwag
I was off my self today by 30mb got a 670mb file when it should have been ~700mb to go with a 95mb audio file, use fast pred. maybe we have to chainge presicion to .10 w action movies . But one thing i did was cutting credits at the end don't think that would throw off pred. though.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
06-30-2003, 09:52 PM
J-Wo J-Wo is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 454
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hey guys, I was having some trouble with prediction too, my video files were also 30-40megs short or so. I think I've gotten around it by changing the # of frames per sample from 24 to 48, and the # of samples per minute from 1 to 2. I'm also following Kwag's advice and doing full prediction, which always seems to increase CQ by a liiiiiiiitle bit vs. fast prediction. But there it is.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
06-30-2003, 09:59 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
Well, today I encoded the same movie (K19) twice, but after the first encode, I changed the prediction to full without exiting ToK. I did this on purpose to log the "fast" CQ and the "normal" CQ on the same log. Here's the complete log:

Code:
=============================================================
ToK Log: F:\k19.avs
=============================================================
 
Resolution (fps):528x480 (23.976 fps)
Total Frames: 198673
Total Time  : 02:18:06
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
Audio Size: 116,004,000
Required Video Size: 703,196,000
 
Factor: 59.940
Desired Sample Size: 11,731,665
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Faster Prediction
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
Full Sample
Next CQ: 64.740. Sample Size: 12,672,395
Small Sample
Next CQ: 64.740. Sample Size: 1,142,434
Predicting...
Next CQ: 59.934. Sample Size: 11,538,292
Next CQ: 61.545. Sample Size: 11,565,668
Next CQ: 62.584. Sample Size: 11,696,326

Exit Condition: 0.500 % reached ! yahoo !
Tries   : 4
 

Final CQ: 62.584
Total Time For Predicition: 00:09:55

 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Encoding F:\k19.avs
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
Encoding... CQ : 62.584
Final Encoded Size: 676,918,065
Total Time (all operations): 05:21:11
 
Finished
 
Audio Size: 116,004,000
Required Video Size: 703,196,000
 
Factor: 59.940
Desired Sample Size: 11,731,665
 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prediction: 1st Group of Passes
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
Next CQ: 64.740. Sample Size: 12,672,395
Next CQ: 59.934. Sample Size: 11,228,599
Next CQ: 61.973. Sample Size: 11,264,170
Next CQ: 63.124. Sample Size: 11,845,091
Next CQ: 62.724. Sample Size: 11,533,510
Next CQ: 62.951. Sample Size: 11,711,037

Exit Condition: 0.500 % reached ! yahoo !
Tries   : 6
 

Final CQ: 62.951
Total Time For Predicition: 00:41:34

 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Encoding F:\k19.avs
-------------------------------------------------------------
 
Encoding... CQ : 62.951
Final Encoded Size: 696,413,210
Total Time (all operations): 06:08:00
 
Finished
Obviously the fast prediction is under target most of the time. And look at the difference on CQ values.
With fast, CQ = 62.584 and file size = 676,918,065
Witn normal, CQ= 62.951 and file size = 696,413,210

Look at the difference in file size, 19,495,145KB but on CQ, it's only 0.367
Again I got 0.964% ( less than 1% again! ) accuracy with the long prediction.
That's why I'll wait the extra time for the longer prediction

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #80  
06-30-2003, 10:19 PM
ovg64 ovg64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 423
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to ovg64
Quote:
Obviously the fast prediction is under target most of the time. And look at the difference on CQ values.
With fast, CQ = 62.584 and file size = 676,918,065
Witn normal, CQ= 62.951 and file size = 696,413,210

Look at the difference in file size, 19,495,145KB but on CQ, it's only 0.367
Again I got 0.964% ( less than 1% again! ) accuracy with the long prediction.
That's why I'll wait the extra time for the longer prediction

-kwag
Yes i see a diference of 20mb in file size, but is there a difference
in Quality between 62.58% n 62.95% i dont think so but it would be great to be closer to the target w fast prediction.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Avisynth: MaskTools based adaptive script? marcellus Avisynth Scripting 3 04-21-2004 01:00 PM
Avisynth: Difference between MA script and optimal script? mistermickster Avisynth Scripting 2 08-01-2003 09:36 AM
Avisynth: Next changes to optimal script. kwag Avisynth Scripting 21 06-27-2003 12:31 PM
Avisynth: add subtitles with the new adaptive script? audioslave Avisynth Scripting 13 06-18-2003 12:26 PM
Avisynth: AVS 2.5x Script, Motion Adaptive Filtering problems? Bchteam Avisynth Scripting 15 05-31-2003 12:38 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd