Look at the lost details on the trees and on the mountains :roll:

-kwag

Ok Karl, but I see that in that motion scene not everything is blurred proportionally, means the whole frame !
And what makes me interesting is that "there" is a way to separate the moving parts from the static parts.

BTW: I used the preset "low" with heavier filtering on that capture cause as I said there are parts with more noise. I think at "high" setting there won't be that detail loss.

I already asked you if there's a way to implementate some "masktools" logic in MA.

What I really wonder, is if it's really necessary to blur small parts of a movie, instead of simply blurring the complete picture, on a high treshold ( very high action scene, that would mean the complete frame is in motion )
My point, if you take for example the clip you encoded (the boat), is that I can bet that the file size is just about the same on both clips, because that very small amount of blur in the very small movement parts, is hardly any to give compression over the one without the script.
So I really wonder if this filter is really usefull at all :!:
I would simply change the MA script tresholds (math) to blur at higher value, which actually means there's a lot of frame movement.
Not to mention that the speed is always going to be faster with the MA script, compared to the FuPPs script, because FuPPS calls many functions and sets many variables on every frame pass, compared to the MA script.

-kwag

After reading kwag's post I got curious and did a test on a clip of "Pitch Black" with both the MA script and the HybridFuPP (preset="High", Chroma=False).
* I encoded both clips at CQ69,9 (don't ask why...).
* Max. bitrate 2000, min. bitrate 100 (Yes, 2000 for max. bitrate value
work very well with HybridFuPP too! :wink: No macroblocks at all.).
* Clip length 2 minutes and 14 seconds.
* I used Lanczos resizing for the MA-script.
And here's what I found out:

Encoding time was about the same for both scripts, but...
MA-script > 13 499 kB
HybridFuPP > 13 192 kB :!:

Please, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just reporting my discoveries... :wink:

And that proves that the MA is bluring less, so something is being lost with FuPP ;)

-kwag

Hi audioslave,

I forgot to ask you, what were the encoding times, if you did benckmark them :?:

-kwag

Hmm,
Good question.
Say, audioslave could you give us some timings?
BTW what CPU does your PC have and what speed does it run?
Thanks buddy.

Actually, kwag, the HybridFuPP clip is clearer and sharper than the clip encoded with the MA script. If only I had some way of posting the comparison images... I don't have any webspace to upload them to.
I will reboot my CPU and do a benchmarking of the encoding times. I guess you can read that post in about 15 minutes or so.
I'll be back 8) ... Se ya! :wink:

I'm back with some info for you guys.
I encoded a new sample of the same movie (Pitch Black).
The length of the sample clip is 02:14.
----------------------
Encoding time:
HybridFuPP > 05:18
MA Script > 04:30

Clip size:
HybridFuPP > 14 419 kB
MA Script > 14 709 kB
----------------------
And once again - the clip encoded with HybridFupp is sharper...


My system:
AMD Athlon XP 2000+
256 MB RAM

That's what I thought. How :?:
MA is larger (slightly), so something is being cut off in FuPP :!:
Need some screenshots :!:

-kwag

I'd be glad to show you some screenshots but I don't have any webspace to upload them to... :oops:

www.netfirms.com ;)

-kwag

Thanks kwag! :D This is great! I'm signing up right now so I'll post the screenshots as soon as everything is alright.

So finally - here they are. The screenshots! :D

KVCD - Screenshots
http://hea.netfirms.com/screenshots.htm

As you can see the MAScript blurs the whole frame and the HybridFuPP only blur the fast moving parts of the frame. The pebbles and gravel on the bottom part of the frame is where you easiest can see the difference between these two encoding methods.

Once again - thank you for the link kwag! :D

;)

I can see it, but what I can't see is how you get a smaller file size with the FuPP script than with the MA script :!:
The FuPP JPEG file is larger than the MA JPEG file, for obvious reasons (sharpness), and that's what doesn't make sense at all when comparing the size of the MPEG files.

-kwag

I can't see the pics :cry:

Yeah, you're absolutely right about that kwag. It makes no sense but it's still true. Wierd. :roll: Have you tried the HybridFuPP function yourself yet? Looks quite amazing to me.

BTW Do the pictures in my post show this time? I can see them here at home. The last time I tried to use pictures in my post I was the only one who could see them. :) So, it would be nice to know...

EDIT: Saw your post bigggt. I'll change them to links instead. Just give me a minute...

Actually, no, I haven't :!: Yes it does :D

Edit: Indeed, if this works on every case, just like the pics you have posted, we can all say "BYE BYE" to the MA script :lol:
Then FuPP has superceded it :cool:

-kwag

@bigggt
Should be fixed now I hope. Try the link in my previous post.

@kwag
Yes. FuPP's script really makes the whole movie look sharper and "cleaner". No offence maestro. :wink:

Thanx audislave yes it works i'm looking at it right now :D