Quantcast Avisynth: Funny Denoising Routines - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
10-16-2003, 07:29 PM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
This evening happend something strange!

I got an analog capture from tv. Well it was just horrible (for me) full over with noise as you can see here:
(captured at 704x576 PAL using PicVideo YUY2 and safed as jpeg pic at 70% quality and 100% size)



And as I everytime do, I tried a lot of combinated denoising routines and so on just to figure out something new for me.

So I tried one at 352x288 resized (bicubic) handled by pixiedust() using the loadpluginex.dll for AVS 2.5.2.
ok. at 352x288 pixiedust is fast enough and just for fun I added a scaler 352x576 and to scale up again to 704x576 .... "what???" do you think ... I too

Oh, I saw the image isn't that bad up sized as I though before.
Now ... even it was up sized using Lanczos I sharpened a little using asharp ... "Laczos & Asharp afterwards, ... WOW that will look funny oversharpen" but .... it wasn't such oversharpened.



Well thats the pic after the downscale, pixiedust and upscale process;


To me it does not seem like really down - upscaled and oversharpened, still details enough preserved (exept her "pullover") and no more noise when watching on a pc screen.


And heres the script:

#############################
LoadPlugin("C:\Programme\AviSynth 2.5\LoadPluginEx.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Programme\AviSynth 2.5\pllugins20\DustV5.dll")
# Still no MJPEGcorrect used
Avisource("H:\capture\capture.avi")
Limiter()
Bicubicresize(352,576)
Pixiedust()
Lanczosresize(704,576)
ConverttoYV12() # Stream was not interlaced
Asharp(1,4) ######### Must be crazy doing an asharp after Lanczos
Limiter()
#############################

I dont want to say its a perfect denoised 704x576 capture but
to show how funny the result comes out by using such a crazy script and how fast it is when pixiedusting @ 352x576.

EDIT: Sorry for late correcting ... the Pic above is denoised using the downsize to 352x576 and not 352x288 !
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
  #2  
10-16-2003, 07:51 PM
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
for me seems amazing!

Reply With Quote
  #3  
10-16-2003, 09:19 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

Hell, might as well try the new VagueDenoiser instead of PixieDust

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #4  
10-17-2003, 01:33 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
I typed an error in the script when posting in here!

....... Edit: Sorry Mistake .. wrong size of high mentioned! Use as shown above in the script .............
Pic is real and an output of exactly that script.



If someone wants to try another Filter or something else, let me know, I keep the capture to be able to post results of other combinations here too.
So Kwag what are your recommended settings vor Vaguedenoiser???
For me personally I didn't come to a good solution using Vagueden.
But Ill try again and we'll SEE!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
10-17-2003, 04:42 AM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Now try the same thing with a DVD Source... This might be getting interesting!
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #6  
10-17-2003, 07:05 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
Theoretically: As Captures are not that sharpen like DVD Sources it wouldn't be such an amazing effect like above when using this Routine on a d2v project from DVD.

BUT! What's theoretical??? I think at least in this case of a capture I only belive in practical outputs and how they do look like.
So stay tuned JellyGoose, this evening I will perform this "OneQuarterOne" script even on DVD d2v sources, interlaced DVD sources and also interlaced captures ... so that we'll see what's behind all this used on all sources. Cause I'm also like you more than interested what this will bring.

In case of interlaced captures I think it would be the best not to resize the orig 704x576 capture just to by bicubicresize(352,28. Ill try it also by eliminating the BottomFields and afterwards only resizing the width to 352.
And shure Ill do a test using Tv sources directly captured at 352x288.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
10-17-2003, 09:53 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by incredible
I typed an error in the script when posting in here!

I did the first resize using"Bicubicresize(352,28"!!! not (352,576)!!!
As I told in the lines above! I corrected this
wow....better for me incredible,...i have a old ati all in wonder and
it's good for captures in resolutions like 352x240(ntsc/pal-m)!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
10-17-2003, 04:56 PM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I just tried reducing-to-VCD-resolution-and-then-upsizing-back on a TV cap..too smooth for me even without any filters Maybe an extra sharp capture would give better results or oversharpening before downsizing would help, but the detail loss was just too big.

When I compare those screenshots to the capture I've got, there's really not much difference in sharpness or detail so I don't know how the details were lost
Reply With Quote
  #9  
10-17-2003, 05:43 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
Same here. I can't duplicate those screenshots.

@incredible,
Are you SURE (positive!) you processed those screenshots with the posted script
I just cannot see how a downsize to 352x288 and then upsize to 704x576 ( where details will be lost ) can look like that
You can't sharpen what doesn't exist

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #10  
10-17-2003, 06:25 PM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
During making some tests using other denoisers and sources I recognised an error and I hope my friends you didn't waste too much time.

Well as my mouth was too wide open when beeing amazed
there was a little confusion whe I did a wrong size correction today in this Thread I posted yesterday containing the correct sizes in the script!!!!
The picture above is right!! and made using a down-filter-upsizing BUT it was made with the script including a resize to 352x576!!! so its not a OneQuaterOne its a OneHalfOne, ... thats why its still so sharp by maintaining the vertical size and its sharpen factor in comparison to a horizontal size of a videostream. I was just shure I leaved the 352x288 I don't know why, maybe it was yesterday a little bit too late, sorry

Sorry for this 352x288 mistake Gentlemen!!!, .... so you have to resize to 1/2 DVD size NOT VCD size!



But as you still see the resizing from 768x576 to 352x576,adding the pixiedust and bring it back to 704x576 gave me a good denoised picture as shown above, thats fact.

And I imagine Jorel & Kwag when you posted your feedback you still read the correct script, when it was still at 352x576 posted. I hope so!!

Kwag ... I used VagueDenoiser instead of pixiedust() just to figure out.
VagueDenoiser also did make the picture less noisy thats true but the picture especially the surfaces still seem a little "disturbed" and therefore the picture isn't that calm as when pixiedust is used.
I also tried Golddust but Golddust seems to make the picture more smoother also the details.

And Jorel as you ended up with a "sonrisa" in your face by imagine that you can also receive that quality with your ATI All in Wonder, which now its not possible I can still say thats a big advantage to do the pixiedust and scale it up and sharpen it. I did a lot of tests the last hours to give a little 352x288 example to you using this kind of also a nice script.
I did encode a 352x288 MJPEG to 704x576 mpeg2 using the following script and burned it togehther with a mpeg1 352x288 version of the same source to a DVD-RW.

##############################
LoadPlugin("C:\Programme\AviSynth 2.5\LoadPluginEx.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Programme\AviSynth 2.5\pllugins20\DustV5.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Programme\AviSynth 2.5\pllugins20\MJPEGcorrect.dll")
#
Avisource("H:\capture\capture352x288.avi")
MJPEGcorrect()
Limiter()
#### no resizing down when already captured at 352x288
Pixiedust()
ConverttoYV12()
Bicubicresize(704, 576) # in this case of 288 high to 576 bicubicresize gives a better picture
Asharp(1.5,4)
Unfilter(60,60)
Limiter()
##############################

Original 352x288 upscaled on a Tv:


An handled by the script "352x288to704x576"


When watching on a TV there is an advantage in comparison to when the player resizes the stream to 1:1 PAL Screen size which is done by the mpeg1 352x288 sample.
Even with the lower CQ of the 704x576 or 352x576 (pixiedusted, upscaled and sharpened 352x288 origin.) it makes sense if your player accepts 352x576 or 704x576 KVCDs or if you want to burn your ATI All in Wonder Captures to KDVD.

Now Im testing the d2v Streams using the 720x576-352x576-filtering-704x576 script as shown and corrected again in my first posting of this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
10-17-2003, 07:10 PM
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

hey incredible,
for me "still" amazing.
in the pictures i can see big differences!

please post more results!


ps:
my preference is for pictures with "girls"!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
10-17-2003, 07:59 PM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
OH now I recognize!! Ähm I really prefer Girls too!
This just was a fast screenie where you can see a lot of different things like flowers, textiles and skin ... it was not my basic intention to hardly find a man from the "blue oyster bar"

Well Jorel, I handled now a very bad orig. DVD - a nice price edition of "Black Rain" - nice price - nice noise!!! Even not anamorph
I couldn't find a DVD containing a nice Girl - in a bad condition like this - to show the effect.
But maybe in a next "sharpen" thread we can do some tests on a Girls Lipgloss! Ill be there!

The orig "nice price, nice noisy" DVD:
(looks and moves like treated using Photoshops "sand" structure)


And the "Wellness" ....

Look at his face and the collar ... no noise (calm picture) and still details preserved.

On DVD Sources which do not contain such a heavy noise we should not perform this script. Cause this script here is for bad sources like captures and bad DVDs only. Its faster than performing the pixiedust on a 720x576 size but still not realtime. But I think in case of bad sources we can live with that if it ends up with such an effect.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
10-18-2003, 03:44 AM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Which script did you use on that one? Downscale to 352x576 then PixieDust() then upscale to 704x576 again?
How about the given compression by performing this compared to the current MA script ?
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #14  
10-18-2003, 04:19 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Try to use PixieDust directly on the 704*576 picture and I'm sure you will have the same results.

You are all stuck to this "downscaling/upscaling" fantastic results where all the benefits has to be to pixiedust.

My two cents.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
10-18-2003, 04:45 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
@ Jellygoose
Exact!
As the script is shown above in the beginning of this thread.
You can also fine-tune a bit by adjusting the sharpen factor.

When downscaling a 720x576 DVD source you should first crop 8px at each side! to get to right 704x576 PAL, then you can perform the downscaling to 352x576. In this case you preserve the aspect ratio.
Well JellyGoose this filtering is still not Motion adaptive cause it was a result of a lot of tryings to really get rid of a noisy capture or a very bad produced commercial DVD. This script definitive gives me a CQ advantage when used on captures as the picture will be less complex after performing the pixiedust() at the 352x576 step.
BUT! If you got a good quality DVD I stll would perform the MA on such a source cause this OneHalfOne script maybe performs to heavy on well looking d2v streams.
I did a test on a perfect detail quality DVD source including a little noise and after this the picture looks too clean this sounds funny but in my eyes it appears to overtreated.
So its up to you what you choose to perform on diverse sources.
Just do a preview test by adding a Sampler() at the end of the script.


@ Dialhot
Two reasons why I do performe such a OneHalfOne scaling Ping-Pong:
I love Pixiedust(). for me its even very much better than Vague or others.
It cleans more, preserve more details, and keeps the picture more sharp than other deinoisers during its performing. I did a lot of tests with many denoisers, using this OneHalfOne technique and for shure the static-size conventional way.
The main reason is SPEED we obtain by downscaling so the filter performs faster.
The second reason is that pixiedust works even more effective (in my opinion) when using half DVD size, .. I don't know for shure but is does not seem that this pixiedust denoiser is resolution adaptive!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
10-18-2003, 05:58 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by incredible
The main reason is SPEED we obtain by downscaling so the filter performs faster.
Yeah, I have already understood that. But it seems that other people have complete forgotten this point in your first post ! They all discuss about your resizing parameters and how you DS/US the image and they never focus on the pixiedust that is done in the meantime

Quote:
The second reason is that pixiedust works even more effective (in my opinion) when using half DVD size, .. I don't know for shure but is does not seem that this pixiedust denoiser is resolution adaptive!
Oh ! If that's true, that's an other story then ! Can you post a comparison between full and half resolution result for pixiedust ?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
10-18-2003, 02:06 PM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
@ Dialhot

First again the 704-352-704 using pixiedust (OneHalfOne Method):

(jorel this babe is again for you, but still without lipgloss)




Here's the result when "very slow" pixiedusting WITHOUT downscaling to 352x576 before so just doing his job on real 704:



Shure, .. even more details .. a bit too sharp cause of lanczos and ... much more "Disco" in the noise ... as I said .
And .... at 704x576 it needs much more time to render!!!


Now lets have a look when our all friend Vaguedenoiser does his job on the "OneHalfOne" (704-352-704) script.



The picture looks very "nervous" at the edges and also at the cleaned surfaces. It seems that he likes a little "artefacting" the cleaned surfaces

I used the latest version I have: VagueDenoiser0.28.0.zip

Set to
VagueDenoiser(threshold=3,method=1,nsteps=6,chroma = true)

If I rise the Thresh it will shurely clean more but the picture gets more and more "uneasy"... well lowering the Thresh .. as we can assume just is for nothing ...
Vague at 704x576 working directly ... can't defenitely NOT handle such a noisy picture as my sample, but maybe there's a setings trick with vaguesenoiser ... if I change nextsteps ... Vdub quits emediately.


And here one shot used teh golddust() at 352x576 ... nice denoising as we know but .... image too soft




And lets see when we all will reach the traffic limit of this free lycos webspace whre the pics are hosted

One thing! These outputs are only refering to the script I posted above!
This does not say anything about the "real" quality of these denoisers!
The pics handled by the denoisers which are shown here as you can see are from ONE source .. and as we know every source is different ...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
10-18-2003, 02:11 PM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
One interesting filter might be MipSmooth. To kiss your bandwidth limit goodbye, try that one too. Make sure you have the latest Avisynth CVS binary and MipSmooth 1.0.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
10-18-2003, 02:56 PM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
(as before still the script in the first post of this thread used, just converttoVY12() added if needed)

So Boulder ...

OneHalfOne using Mipsmooth "HQ" and "LQ", ... "VHS" was unviewable on that source using this script.
Maybe I set something wrong, cause its a new one from shodan.




The Peachsmoother set to Peachsmoother():
(ca. 200 frames pre-roll)


Very very interesting! Still very much noise after 200 frames BUT even its much noise, the noise seems and behaves very different than the noise kept by the others exept pixiedust. So I want to try some combinations.

One fast breaking da rules "heavy-shot"
Peachsmoother().Deen()



Noise is "DEAD!" but shure in this fast combination much details are lost .. look at her collar ... and much more faster cause of AVS 2.5 plugIns in comparision to pixiedust!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
10-18-2003, 11:59 PM
rendalunit rendalunit is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: san jose, Ca
Posts: 1,148
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I've been using Mipsmooth(preset="MovieHQ") and I'm very satisfied with the results! Don't ever use the "UGLY" preset though!

Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Avisynth: Ads() a function using a masked denoising etc incredible Avisynth Scripting 97 10-19-2004 06:52 AM
Funny Flash ovg64 Off-topic Lounge 1 07-01-2003 12:19 AM
Funny Roots - Tell Us YOUR Story here... Jellygoose Off-topic Lounge 11 04-05-2003 01:29 PM
Avisynth: Wavelet denoising? GFR Avisynth Scripting 28 01-08-2003 11:16 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd