Quantcast Avisynth: Unnatural Looking Surfaces? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
03-30-2004, 05:42 AM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi everybody.

I'm right now trying to find a good script for DVD->KDVD encoding with CCE. I target to put 2 movies Anamorphic on one KDVD with AC3 sound, menu chapters etc.
Phil pointed me on the script he's using, and I gotta admit it looks amazing most of the time. For everybody who does not know, here it is:

Code:
Mpeg2Source("F:\*.d2v" ,cpu=4)
Levels(0,0.98,255,0,255)
aSharp(1,4)
BilinearResize(704, 576, 8, 0, 704, 576)
FluxSmooth()
TemporalCleaner(ythresh=5,cthresh=7)
Undot()
DctFilterD(4)
DCTFilter(1,1,1,1,1,0.75,0.5,0) 
LetterBox(0, 0, 16, 16)
I did modify it a bit, with the help of DCT-Filter Lines by Inc, to gain some more compression. but that's not the matter of this post I think. I want to know the cause of these "unnatural" surfaces I experience in some Conversions. Here are 2 sample pics which were encoded at 704x576 w/ KVCD Notch Matrix and Q-Factor 15 with the script mentioned above. Sorry for the size. I didn't want to compress them so you can see the effect as I do.





I know that this is a common problem. I just want to know how I can better this effect. I'm pretty sure blockbuster will help with this one, but it just EATS so much compression, because I only noticed the noise with variances of about 1.0. And I actually don't think it is a good idea to filter out noise beforehand, and spray it back in the end of the script, wouldn't you agree?
To me these scenes look plain "Overfiltered". I know that I also use a softening filter with Bilinear Resize, so this might already be the cause, but I wanna make sure. Are those the Temporal Filters that lead to this effect, or the spatial ones?
any help/comments are welcome.
[/IMG]
__________________
j3llyG0053
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  
03-30-2004, 05:51 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 Jellygoose
Phil pointed me on the script he's using, and I gotta admit it looks amazing most of the time. For everybody who does not know, here it is:
WOAOW !
I NEVER use asharp in ANY of my scripts because it gives nothing good for my eyes. I don't bother to see all people here like it, but it will never cross my screen.

Remove the Levels and asharp line form your script and you will avoid a lot of that :
Quote:
To me these scenes look plain "Overfiltered"
And if you want to have a better result, you should switch asharp for unfilter.
I let you guess what "Unfilter" was called "unfilter" and why it should help you with your overfiltered pictures

Quote:
I also use a softening filter with Bilinear Resize, so this might already be the cause, but I wanna make sure.
What did you really thing about my own original script ? Without levels, without asharp and wiht lanczosresize ?

Quote:
Are those the Temporal Filters that lead to this effect, or the spatial ones?
Temporal.

Note: were these snapshots really encoded with CCE or with TMPGENC ?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
03-30-2004, 06:20 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
Jell,
i have some questions too...later,after your answer Phil but....

the guy in the 1st picture is "egg-head" !
Reply With Quote
  #4  
03-30-2004, 06:29 AM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Phil...

Sorry about the double posting, I didn't realize that. Just delete the other one...

I know I modified your script, but you are exagerating a little bit. I lower the brightness just a tad with the Levels Command, which I use to get rid of some noise beforehand. I'll definetely try to unfilter for aSharp, but you're not advising me to use Unfilter AND Lanczos are you?
Next Backup, I'll try once again your original script, using Lanczos, no levels, no bilinear, and I'll post my results in here, tomorrow morning. In fact I doubt it will help a lot with this issue, but might wanna try of course.
I didn't know that is why the filter was called Unfilter. Will experiment with that...
thanks!
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #5  
03-30-2004, 06:48 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 Jellygoose
but you are exagerating a little bit.
Exagerating in what ? I do know why I don't want to use asharp and un-natural plain surface is one of the reason. Even if it is not the whole problem (it would have be so nice if it was so simple )

Quote:
I lower the brightness just a tad with the Levels Command,
What is funny is that Jorel increase the levels because he finds there is lost during encoding, I do not touch them and you lower them. Definitely not the same tastes

Quote:
which I use to get rid of some noise beforehand.
Lowering the contrast does not remove the noise. It just reduce its visual impact. But noise is still there.

Quote:
I'll definetely try to unfilter for aSharp, but you're not advising me to use Unfilter AND Lanczos are you?
For sure not . I think taht in your case, unfilter would be great with bilinear but I still rather to use nothing and Lanczos.

Quote:
In fact I doubt it will help a lot with this issue, but might wanna try of course.
Actually I think that your problem can be solved with a blockbuster line, with a very light variance (let set 0.3 or 0.5). Nothing your eye will see, nothing that the encoder will suffer, but surely a better look.
Quote:
I didn't know that is why the filter was called Unfilter. Will experiment with that...
I'm not sure it will be efficient for that but give a look into the readme.txt taht is delivered with unfilter andyou will see that it's purpose is to rid of picture that "looks sometime overfiltered in some DVD"

@jorel
Yes it is egg-head but remember : you should also do your KDVD in anamorphic and have egg-heads too
Everything will be okay on J'elly's TV set, don't worry
Reply With Quote
  #6  
03-30-2004, 12:02 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellygoose
Code:
Mpeg2Source("F:\*.d2v" ,cpu=4)
Levels(0,0.98,255,0,255)
aSharp(1,4)
BilinearResize(704, 576, 8, 0, 704, 576)
FluxSmooth()
TemporalCleaner(ythresh=5,cthresh=7)
Undot()
DctFilterD(4)
DCTFilter(1,1,1,1,1,0.75,0.5,0) 
LetterBox(0, 0, 16, 16)
1. Im on a MAC right now, so I cant see your BMPs you posted, so I only can guess!

2. On DVD Sources I wouldn't touch the Gamma! Well depends on the quality, but very most Gamma is ok. What most happens is that the luma range does clip! On a Beamer you wont see it but on a TV yes, but that will be fixes by TV Luma range settings in TMpgEnc or CCE.

3. FluxSmooth() by its defaults is working at (7,7) means spatial AND Temporal, where the temporal cleaning in your script will 2times happen as you use Temporal cleaner as a following filter (may you try to set Fluxsmooth(0,7) so it works only spatial and here you can varying in the spatial value). Also the 4 in the asharp values does "plain" already the source! Asharp does work adaptive but NOT like Unsharpmask in Photoshop!! Where the threshold says WHERE to begin sharpening. Asharp uses the threshold ALSO to say "behind me do begin blurring"!! Which Unshrpmask doesnt do. I think Msharpen does there a better job, but as sharpening in here now is not the thing, this was just a hint

4. DCT Filter is a bit risky at your settings!

DCTFilter(1,1,1,1,1,0.75,0.5,0)

If you encode sources which will be stretched to 1024x576 (anamorph encodings on a big 16:9 TV set or a beamer, that 0.75 will be recognised as you CUT horizontal Frequencies which will be horizontally scaled finally on a 16:9 screen/beamer. So be aware of this.

I also apologize in advance to phil but in his optimal scripts the DCTFilter part on a future encoding at for example VCD size is MEGA risky as this will blur VERY much. As it will be scaled afterwards very much on TV.
Best is to test a DCTFiltered Preview of the avs in VdubMod at 2x scaled Preview. Then do Remark "#" the DCTFilter line in the AVS Scropt editor of VdubMod and hit F5 and you see very fast the change in sharp/blur.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
03-30-2004, 12:06 PM
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
I also apologize in advance to phil but in his optimal scripts the DCTFilter part on a future encoding at for example VCD size is MEGA risky as this will blur VERY much. As it will be scaled afterwards very much on TV.
Actually I always find my VCD res encoding a little blurred but I never suspected DCTfilter for that

Quote:
Best is to test a DCTFiltered Preview of the avs in VdubMod at 2x scaled Preview. Then do Remark "#" the DCTFilter line in the AVS Scropt editor of VdubMod and hit F5 and you see very fast the change
in sharp/blur.
I think I can do that... in ffdshow

Thanks for the tip, I will check !
Reply With Quote
  #8  
03-30-2004, 12:10 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
My friend Phil,

a few days ago I got a capture from a VERY bad broadcasting, the station delvivered a copy of a Movie of the 80s which already was well unsharp.

So I decided to go to 352x288 in the avs script.
Shure I use some of your nice developings in Convo3d settings etc. of the latest opt.Script. But the DCTFilter Line gave that baby the "Extra Unsharp" kick.

When I remarked the DCTFilter line and hitted F5 In VdubMod (2x Scaled Preview because by THIS you see what happens with your frequnecies according to pixel details) .... WOW! Very deteailed at 352x288 again!

Best is in your future release to apply an If/Then routine so that ONLY results in a width more! than 352, so from 480 on for example will be treated by DCTFilter as these wont be stretched that much.

Did you recognised my hint in a past thread in here where I suggested to use an Motion Adaptive routine in an AVI script where for example on high Motion scenes a CPU=6 will be applied as it beheves then even more agressive to blocky motion parts. So a threshhold will be set at i.e. 20 where CPU=4 will change to CPU=6 and you wont recognise oszillating at that high Threshold of YDifferencetoNext. Also The spatial Part Of Convo3d could be handled by the YDifferencetoNext result.

I was playing the last weeks with a adaptive "Capture sources" Script where I have to deal with heavy noise which is even more uneasy to handle, so in case of mpeg4 it would result very good.
But thats a) a big testing workout and b) these last lines do become totally out of topic in here I do see now



PS: Still I do love VDubMods AVS Script editor and just playing with the resulted previews by using just "F5" (F5=Save and refresh) :P
Reply With Quote
  #9  
03-30-2004, 12:21 PM
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
PS: Still I do love VDubMods AVS Script editor and just playing with the resulted previews by using just "F5" (F5=Save and refresh) :P
You should try a day to have ffdshow working in order to see how you can change the script and see the effects _on the fly_ (that is, without having to stop and restart the video or pressing any key ).

And with the mouse you can switch the filtering on then off then on then off... clic...clic...clic... Very usefull

For the other hints, it's a good idea. Will work on this
Reply With Quote
  #10  
03-30-2004, 12:25 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
Phil, I added a line more above, so I replied now that you will be noticed by the Thread response mail automatism
Reply With Quote
  #11  
03-30-2004, 02:51 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Jelly I'm starting to hate you

I looked at side by side a KDVD I did with CCE and my script and the same did you dvdShrink (actually not the same as the KDVD share the disc with a second movie where the one done with DVDShrink is alone) but...

I FIND ALL THE SURFACES "UNNATURAL"

I have to work on an other script. :banghead:

Reply With Quote
  #12  
03-30-2004, 02:59 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
looked at side by side a KDVD I did with CCE and my script and the same did you dvdShrink (actually not the same as the KDVD share the disc with a second movie where the one done with DVDShrink is alone)


What do you mean precisely?
(be aware that I still do not see the pics from Jell)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
03-30-2004, 03:23 PM
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
What do you mean precisely?
Which part did you not understand ?

Quote:
(be aware that I still do not see the pics from Jell)
They worked only 1 hour. It seems that the bandwith quota is very low where he posted this picture.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
03-30-2004, 03:27 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
I did understand:

Transforming using ShrinkDVD ends up in more natural looking faces then compared to your script ???? (shurely I did understand wrong)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
03-30-2004, 03:31 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
No, you do understand right.

Note that with DVDshrik I never do anything under 85% (means 15% of compression). And keep in mind that the KDVD uses only 2 GB on the disc, not 4.3 !

Note also that you don't see the problem if you do not compare the two DVD. I didn't do the comparison directly with the oroginal but for sure it will be the same result.

I think that you are right in telling that Fluxsmooth is too much there.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
03-30-2004, 03:59 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
How can you compare a FULL DVD-5 transforming (85%) with avs filter treated 1/2DVD KVCD stream? .... As I know you Im shure your pupose is somewhere else I still got headache so .... slooowly
Reply With Quote
  #17  
03-30-2004, 04:15 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I wanted to compare the KDVD and the source but I guees my brother has currently this DVD so I had to compare with a DVDShrink backup that I did (by mistake) of that movie that I also have on KDVD.

This way you will understand

So what I did is comparing a KDVD and the original (almost) DVD. That is what we are supposed to do anytime (but actually never do ), isn't it ?

And what Jelly is somehow true : the picture of the KDVD looks less natural, more "moving painting" than "movie pictures". But I repeat : you do not see that if you don't do a direct comparison of both of them

Edit:
It is "test evening" for me
I did a quick test for the DCT line and it seems you are right (again ). I have to do more test but the first impression is that without DCT the "blur aspect" I suffered from my VCD is less present.

But I actually tested a 30 second sample, I have to see taht on a complete movie (size increase was 2.5% ! That's not "a little")
Reply With Quote
  #18  
03-30-2004, 05:04 PM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@inc: sorry about the pictures... they kicked me out again of angelfire, because of "File Storage Only"! it's getting annoying, but I'll upload them again tomorrow. Any tips where they are a bit more tolerant about that?

@phil: sorry for being a pain in the behind... I'm sure we'll find a workaround of this "painting effect"... (could not describe it better...)

@all: thanks for help and support! it's too late for me now. will get back with you tomorrow!
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #19  
03-30-2004, 05:35 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
@ Jell

arcor.de

or heim.at

get your webspace there and you will have NO probs as enough treffic and NO ads!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
03-30-2004, 06:27 PM
bigggt bigggt is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IamCanadian
Posts: 848
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi incredible

Which version vdub mod are you using because i can't see the avs editor

if this was a joke or something then i feel
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dark scenes unnatural, surfaces producing a rippling effect ? J-Wo Video Encoding and Conversion 33 06-23-2004 03:30 PM
Avisynth: About Unnatural Looking Surfaces... Jellygoose Avisynth Scripting 1 03-30-2004 05:54 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 AM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd