Thanx a lot Fupp! Can't wait to test! :)

Simulcasting Inc :?: :lol:

-kwag

:P

Please do ! And let me know...

Regards,
FuPP

Anyone out there running MUTE, you'll find a very small sample called HybridFuPP_084_ffvfw_KDVD_sample.m2v
Or just search for KVCD, and you'll see it plus some of the old samples ;)
Can't wait :?:, get it here: http://www.kvcd.net/HybridFuPP_084_f...DVD_sample.m2v (It's only 637KB)

-kwag

Great work FuPP - again! :D Will start testing right away.

P.S. Nice clip kwag! :wink:

Ok guys, here we go :D

I made three sample encodes, one with FuPP, another with Deen and one with modified MA script.
All samples encoded MPEG-2 (KDVD) at 704x480 using KVCD Notch Matrix, and TMPGEnc at a CQ of 70.

This are the scripts used:

FuPP script:
Deen script:
Modified MA script (reduced to a single line) :
The results are interesting :!:
Edit: Don't trust encode times, because I have many things running in my PC :!:
But file sizes are correct and consistent, no matter what CPU overhead there is.

Here are the samples:
http://www.kvcd.net/red-fupp.m2v
http://www.kvcd.net/red-deen.m2v
http://www.kvcd.net/red-ma.m2v

-kwag

cool!
i'm downloading to see the quality of each script!

seems off topic but :
i like too much of the deen filter with this parameters:
deen("a3d",3,4,1,4) # light cleaning
why don't use in MA and/or FuPP :?:

I see the quality of FuPP slightly better than MA, and Deen and MA about the same.
If this difference is notable on a TV, I'm not so sure.
But for file size, specially on a long and very active (action) movie, I'm sure the MA will have the smallest file size.
On a drama type movie, the results of file size will probably be about the same with FuPP or MA, but quality of FuPP will be better. I just wanted to do a test by stripping down a many components as I could.
Really, the MA, is this single line of code: :)

-kwag

i see different:

MA and Deen are equal but better matizes,
look the little lights(red,yellow and green)
in the begining of the samples, the color of the skin (face),
the "brown" of the planet and the red light of the "aircraft" (nave,ufo,don't know the name)!

Fupp change the matizes to green and all colors are faded!
(less intensity,washed)
use the same scenes that i used for MA and Deen like posted!

for me, MA and Deen have better matizes than Fupp
:!:

DAMN jorel, you have the eye of an eagle :mrgreen:
I hadn't seen that. Here are screenshots of exactly what you mean:

FuPP:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/03/5.png

Deen:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/03/6.png

MA:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2004/03/7.png You're correct :!:
I need to go to your eye doctor :lol:

-kwag

:lol:
now you know what means:

"nose on the screen" :0)
in my signature.

:wink:
:cyclops:
:bigooh: :eyes10: :ideasmiley: :nose:

HAHAHA Yes, now I do :rotf:

-kwag

Hi everyone,

And what about replacing the MA part with this lines?
(idea from hybridfupp, but with some modifications)
The speed is a lot better, and I have to compare the quality...

Cu
Fabrice

Kwag : could you provide me the sample ? I'm quiet surprised about colors as I have used colorYUV(analyze=true) to check that and it was ok !

PS : I was wondering if this sample is not a little bit too dark to have an opinion about quality ?

Oh, and you could do a test putting parameters :
preset = "high", N2 ="deen()", Nresizer = 4

or N2 = temporalsoften(something for still scenes)

or (preset = high, ST_Str = 3) too.

and tell us about compressibility and quality of HybridFuPP for the same scenes in these cases ?

The point is that I use a very very light temporal softening, fluxsmooth()1,-1), while you use probably harder values (deen() is quiet strong for instance).

FuPP

FuPP wrote:
" I was wondering if this sample is not a little bit too dark to have an opinion about quality ?"

i could be wrong FuPP, but don't think so, correct me if i'm wrong:
the color can't change the matizes if was used the same scene that have the same luma
no matter if the source is dark or bright, right?

links to download the samples:
http://www.kvcd.net/red-fupp.m2v
http://www.kvcd.net/red-deen.m2v
http://www.kvcd.net/red-ma.m2v

:!:

Hi Jorel,

oh, I was not talking about the chroma problem ! I was talking about the overall quality.

About chroma pb, I need the original sample to take measurements !

FuPP

Hi FuPP,

If you mean from the original VOB, here's a 2 second cut:
http://www.kvcd.net/rp2sec.vob

Also take note on the red area I pointed on the screenshot, there's an artifact that looks like an incorrect colored mapped macroblock, on the lower left part, which is not visible on the samples that were created with Deen or MA.

-kwag

ok, got it.

It is caused by a bug in the internal command blur(), used to smooth chroma !

I'm now trying to find a workaround...

FuPP

I'm definitevely stupid ! This not a bug : this is normal, and it happens only on very dark scenes. In that kind of scenes, bluring chroma planes can cause that kind of things (not easy to explain in english for me). I'm looking if I can do something...

No FuPP, you're very bright :!:
If you were stupid, you would have never designed such a script :D

However, we all bear the :arrow: :imstupid:
and the
:arrow: :douh:

icons, every once in a while.
But just for laughs :lol:

-kwag

yes FuPP, you did (and will do more) a wonderful work!
:wink:

and FuPP
wrote too:
"oh, I was not talking about the chroma problem ! I was talking about the overall quality."
ok my friend, now i "see" what you mean!
:)
and the tests using Deen like you posted?
somebody test it?

ok, not completely stupid if you want :wink:

Maybe some of you would like to try HybridFuPP 0.85a... far better chroma smoothing, so colors are a lot less washed in dark scenes.

here it is : http://fupp.chez.tiscali.fr/HybridFuPP/HybridFuPP.avsi

Regards,
FuPP

You bet! :D Will download the VOB Kwag posted and test the new HybridFuPP 0.85a.

Yes! The "washed out" picture is gone. Great work, man! 8) :wink: It's looking better than ever.

Well, I really have to say this:
FuPP script is very good, but the time to encode a movie, is almost twice that of the MA script.
I just did a test encode to compare the quality on my Samsung 32" HDTV, and to tell you the truth, there's absolutely "zero" visual difference :!:
I think there's a limit to how much filtering there should be done on source material.
I'll certainly use FuPP for some captures, but not for any DVD sources :!:

-kwag

Here's the reason why I'd rather use HybridFuPP to encode my movies:

~ Script Comparison ~
http://hea.port5.com/scriptcomp.htm

It's a scene (from Underworld) when most of the background is moving (subway train) but the actress (Kate Beckinsale, mmm... :wink: ) is in focus. With the MA script everything gets blurred but with HybridFuPP only the background is heavily filtered - as you can see from the screenshots. I'm sure there are better examples but this was a scene that came to mind.

FYI : Underworld DVD isn't interlaced.

@Dialhot
Oops, you're right. The FieldDeinterlace line was already in my scripts and I forgot to comment them out. Anyways, the point was the blurring issue.

Can't download :( :( :(
Site is down ????
bman

Did you right click and save as

thats the only wat to do it :wink:

I did so but couldn't downloaded file !??
This time it worked for me .
Going to try it
Thank's for help
bman

Good evening to you all!
This afternoon I made a comparison of two different resizing methods in the HybridFuPP (0.85a) script.

#1
This script uses FuPP's (the creator of the excellent script :) ) resizing method with the Crop() line.

#2
This cript uses Kwag's (the creator of the excellent MA script :wink: ) method of resizing as posted earlier in this topic.

Results
Latest MA script (Nov. 21, 2003): 14 538 kB
HybridFuPP 0.85a with Crop(): 14 661 kB
HybridFuPP 0.85a with BicubicResize(): 14 821 kB

Results are based on a 02:38 sample from "Master & Commander".

This means that HybridFuPP produces files that are very close in size to those of the MA script (when using the Crop() line in the HybridFuPP script). If we're using the BicubicResize line instead we probably screw up the internal resizing algorithms within the HybridFuPP function. In other words the exact same function that FuPP made to get as small filesizes as possible. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The MA script is of course a lot faster but if you have the time to spare I really think it's worth the wait. That's my opinion. :wink:

I have to agree with KWAG that a little unsharper pic in case of MA you wont notice on a regular TV set. And shurely if you get rid of that second blurring process done by MergeLuma(Blur(..))! as that gives a little over all sharper picture if deleted when using MA.

THE ONLY reason for me to have a close look at HybridFupp() is that it doesnt got that "static foreground object while fast luma moving in the background" - issue! Cause that reults also in a blurry static foreground object as MA does filter the whole frame based on NF where HybFupp does filter only the moving parts.

Incredible wrote:
My point exactly. :) And I agree with both Kwag and yourself about not being able to see the difference with MA's blurrier look on a TV-screen. BUT, it nice to have only the moving parts of a frame blurred... :wink:

Hi,

So, why not trying to play with maskedMerge, to get a similar effect (blurring the moving part), and replace the MA part? (i already post that before, but I know it's a bit OT...).

We just could begin a new thread for the maskedmerge version of the MA version...

CU
Fabrice

Hi Fabrice,

Did you get my PM this morning about that :?: :roll:

-kwag

Hi karl,

just answer right now. Don't know why it doesn't popup me today...

CU
Fabrice

I also gave that hint to kWAG some time ago, but there is the compromise between the "simpler" MA compared to a more complex masking routine.

Masking routines do need much more time than a simple "whole" frame filter.

BUT what we can try is to implementate a maskingroutine which only works/performs on the y (luma) channel.

I did some tests this week on noisy captures where I just let run some routines only on luma and other routines only on the chroma channel :arrow: less static grain on moving walls etc. and on the other hand much more faster as the filter do perform more effective according to the Y/C channels.

"Something" like this...

SourceImport("xxxxxxxxxx.avi")
Mergeluma(filter(xxxxx))
Mergechroma(filter(xxxxx))

... just an example....

So that also "could" speed up HybFupp if we let apply for example only the sharpening unfilter on the luma channel, also the spatial filtering of plain surfaces could be done on the luma only.
only! Softresizings on chroma, but according to HybFupps internal masking ... soft/mid/sharp resizing on Luma only.

For explaining:

SoftAction=Bicubicresize(xx,yy,0,0).blur(x)
SharpAction=Lanczosresize(xx,yy).TemporalSoften(xx x)
MergeLuma(SharpAction)
MergeChroma(SoftAction)

There are filters which do have ettings separately on luma and chroma, but I noticed that its a bit diff. case if really some filters do work ONLY on that specific channel, separated by the MergeXXXX command

You moved to mozilla or firefox and didn't there is an anti popup feature in them ? :-)