Quantcast TMPGEnc: Method Predict for TMPGEnc Xpress? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
11-01-2004, 10:02 AM
tamahome tamahome is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 184
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
which method to use to make a prediction with tmpgenc xpress? in CQ
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  
11-01-2004, 10:09 AM
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
Hi tamahome,

We can't use CQMatic with TMPEG xpress, to predict CQ
They changed a lot of options on TMPEG.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #3  
11-04-2004, 12:08 AM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What about using the CQ predicted with TMPG 2.5x in TMPG XPress?
Will it produce a file with approximately the same size or is it totally off?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
11-04-2004, 12:11 AM
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
Hi muaddib,

No it won't.
I believe Fabrice tested just that, and he got different file sizes with the same CQ on both encoders.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #5  
11-04-2004, 12:27 AM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ok kwag, thanks ... I was suspecting that.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
11-04-2004, 12:37 AM
fabrice fabrice is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid-Spain
Posts: 515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi,

I don't have the test here, but it gave me a very big difference: they change their CQ function (It seems it compress a bit more), and there is a big difference between both CQ.

I'm just using Ping-Pong Method, and it gives me great (manual) results...

Salu2
Fabrice
Reply With Quote
  #7  
11-04-2004, 06:02 PM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabrice
It seems it compress a bit more
Hi fabrice,

By saying that you mean that you have to use a higher CQ to achieve the same size?
What about the difference of the CQs... (approximately) how much do you have to increase it to get the same size?
Is this difference constant?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
11-05-2004, 01:10 AM
fabrice fabrice is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid-Spain
Posts: 515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Muaddib,

Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabrice
It seems it compress a bit more
Hi fabrice,

By saying that you mean that you have to use a higher CQ to achieve the same size?
If I remeber well, yes. You can do yourself the test, using the trial version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
What about the difference of the CQs... (approximately) how much do you have to increase it to get the same size?
Is this difference constant?
Well, I have to do some test, but right now, I don't remember...
I'll try to encode in mpeg1 with the 2 version, with the same CQ, and post here the differences...

Salu2
Fabrice
Reply With Quote
  #9  
11-05-2004, 09:10 AM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ok fabrice, thanks!
I will make some tests...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
11-05-2004, 01:25 PM
fabrice fabrice is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid-Spain
Posts: 515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi,

Here are some test I did with a sample generated by Inc slicer's function, in mpeg1 (to be able to compare the same settings):
- Tmpgenc 2.521 CQ 70 = 34508 Mb
- Tmpgenc xpress CQ 70 = 31885 Mb
- Tmpgenc xpress CQ 71,3 = 34507 Mb

As the size/cq chart is not linear, I think the diff. can not be linear, but let's see it...

Salu2
Fabrice
Reply With Quote
  #11  
11-05-2004, 02:02 PM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What about the quality?
Did you catch any difference?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
11-05-2004, 02:21 PM
tamahome tamahome is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 184
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i have tested in mpeg 2 it's very different

tmpgenc 2.521 1h51----->CQ 75-----> 1190mb
tmpgenc xpress 1h51---->CQ 75 ----> 728mb

0_0 quality mpeg 2 it's better and fast in tmpgenc xpress (in processor p4)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
11-05-2004, 02:24 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 tamahome
i have tested in mpeg 2 it's very different

tmpgenc 2.521 1h51----->CQ 75-----> 1190mb
tmpgenc xpress 1h51---->CQ 75 ----> 728mb

0_0 quality mpeg 2 it's better and fast in tmpgenc xpress (in processor p4)
Hi tamahome.

Do you mean that the file of 728mb looks better than the one 1190mb
That's quite a file size difference, and I don't know how the 728MB can look better

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #14  
11-05-2004, 03:51 PM
tamahome tamahome is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 184
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I was surprised yes in spite of the difference in size quality is identical to see better (the video stays a concert live one see block effects easily with the lights thing who less often returns with xpress)

I speak in MPEG 2, I do not make a MPEG 1

and a same size tmpgenc xpress is CQ87 for Cq75 in tmpgenc 2
Reply With Quote
  #15  
11-05-2004, 04:03 PM
fabrice fabrice is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid-Spain
Posts: 515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
What about the quality?
Did you catch any difference?
SSIM values are:
- tmpgenc 2.521 = 78.62
- tmpgenc xpress, CQ 70 = 78.33
- tmpgenc xpress, CQ 71,3 = 78.81

So no real difference.

From visual test, I don't really see differences (it was expected with so near SSIM value). I can post somewhere the samples: 30 Mb each...

Salu2
Fabrice
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TMPGEnc: Can use use Tmpgenc Xpress to make kdvd's MR_Convert Video Encoding and Conversion 3 07-06-2005 11:04 AM
TMPGEnc: Templates for tmpgenc xpress 3? booboo Video Encoding and Conversion 5 11-12-2004 05:44 PM
TMPGEnc: Undersized File in Tmpgenc Xpress Major Video Encoding and Conversion 10 09-08-2004 12:08 AM
TMPGEnc: Using KVCD Templates with TMPGEnc Xpress 3? Doofuss Video Encoding and Conversion 16 08-06-2004 09:47 AM
TMPGEnc releases new TMPGEnc 3.0 XPress encoder Hydeus Video Encoding and Conversion 1 02-05-2004 07:01 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 PM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd