Quantcast To Crop or Not to Crop! - Page 7 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #121  
12-17-2002, 02:41 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
My test seems to confirm your conclusions. GOP length 8 turned out to be average 997kbps, Q=2,12. The length 15 was average 998kbps, Q=2,05. I haven't checked the graph thoroughly but as you've already examined the test results, it seems that there is no need to. Too bad, this could have been a revolution
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
  #122  
12-17-2002, 03:10 PM
DaDe DaDe is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 70
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Kwag

Have you made some encodings with the x3 template??? Which were your results??? I only use this template because the x2 showed me blocks sometimes, i would like to go back if that gives me more quality...

Regards,
DaDe.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
12-17-2002, 04:11 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 DaDe
Kwag

Have you made some encodings with the x3 template??? Which were your results??? I only use this template because the x2 showed me blocks sometimes, i would like to go back if that gives me more quality...

Regards,
DaDe.
Hi DaDe,

The same GOP results with every template.
The x3 is still the best balance for quality/space ratio, specially on action scenes. Even viewed on a HDTV, the x3 is very close to DVD sharpness, and will exibit less blocks than the x2. If your movie is a drama or low action, the the x2 will look just near perfect.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #124  
12-17-2002, 07:09 PM
black prince black prince is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,224
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi All,

Must be some hot and heavy PM's between Christopher, SansGrip,
Kwag and other experts about GOP effecting file size. . It's
been very quite for at least 2-3 hours. I hope there's some sort of
answer to this issue. Either a new and revolutionary discovery will
emerge or this was all an exercise in futility Either way, it's fun to
see this much activity going on to solve problems.


-black prince
Reply With Quote
  #125  
12-17-2002, 07:37 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
Hi black prince,

I think we're all crying now . Specially me, since I started the thread, I'm banging my head against the wall
Maybe more tests have to be conducted, and I hope my last test was wrong. I never give up , so I'm still looking for the jack pot . Still, it's great to brainstorm. I hope something great comes out of this

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #126  
12-17-2002, 07:48 PM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
I think we're all crying now .
Actually I quite enjoyed the flurry of activity . As for my silence, I've been doing dishes and cooking supper and so on .

Quote:
Maybe more tests have to be conducted, and I hope my last test was wrong. I never give up , so I'm still looking for the jack pot .
I still think there's more room to tweak. I mean, with so many variables it's highly unlikely that we've hit upon the absolute best possible way of doing it.

For example, I've always wondered if "scene change detection" should be on or off (I imagine kwag's already tested that one), but also it's worth taking a look at the "force picture type" settings. I think we could squeeze some joy out of that dialog.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
12-17-2002, 08:26 PM
christopher christopher is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I too am looking over several ideas. I agree with SansGrip in that there is always room for improvement. Just a side note to let everyone know that the KVCDEncoder project is not dead. I have been going over several ideas from the FFmpeg and Xvid projects. And Kwag has been searching for a bug in your current codebase. I sure that things will pickup after the holidays.
__________________
Christopher
Linux is the body, Unix is its soul
Reply With Quote
  #128  
12-17-2002, 08:53 PM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher
Location: North Carolina
Are you running on a generator down there or did they get the power back up yet?
Reply With Quote
  #129  
12-17-2002, 09:14 PM
christopher christopher is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SansGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher
Location: North Carolina
Are you running on a generator down there or did they get the power back up yet?
I was one of the lucky ones, never lost power, but boy there was ice everywhere.
__________________
Christopher
Linux is the body, Unix is its soul
Reply With Quote
  #130  
12-17-2002, 09:27 PM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher
I was one of the lucky ones, never lost power, but boy there was ice everywhere.
Tell me about it... My web server is located outside Raleigh and was down for about 5 days before the admin was able to find a couple of generators for sale .
Reply With Quote
  #131  
12-17-2002, 10:11 PM
MoovyGuy MoovyGuy is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 118
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Location: Ontario, Canada
Nice to see I'm not the only "northerner" here ..
Reply With Quote
  #132  
12-17-2002, 10:14 PM
SansGrip SansGrip is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoovyGuy
Nice to see I'm not the only "northerner" here ..
You're still north to me -- I'm in Kitchener .
Reply With Quote
  #133  
12-17-2002, 10:44 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 SansGrip

You're still north to me -- I'm in Kitchener .
Is that why you're always in the Kitchen cooking supper
Reply With Quote
  #134  
12-18-2002, 12:47 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
Ok, here we go again
I've been busy for the past 4 hours, because I just don't give up
This is the GOP I've been testing, after trying out so many combinations, that it's driving me crazy.

Try this out: 1-12-2-1-24 against 1-36-3-1-36.
With KVCD Predictor, and using the 1-12-2-1-24, the CQ_VBR value is lower for the same target file size as with 1-36-3-1-36. However, the Q factor is lower, meaning higher quality, for the same file sizes. There are LESS visible artifacts with 1-12-2-1-24 than with 1-36-3-1-36. I've made several tests now, and with the same file size with both GOPs, the difference in quality is visible, specially around complex objects. The 3 B frames used in the current GOP, while giving higher compression, degrade the video quality slightly. So with 2 B frames and a MAX number of frames per GOP of 24, I've found that we get more punch (quality) for the same given file size as 1-36-3-1-36. Here's a clip of "Red Planet" with this new GOP: http://www.kvcd.net/clip3.m1v
The clip is a cut out from the file prediction sample, which is 11.83MB.
And THIS is the quality that will go on ONE CD-R at 704x480, as predicted with SansGrip's KVCD Predictor. Please try it out, and make some samples and compare to the the 1-36-3-1-36 GOP. I believe what I have found here is definitively a better GOP that what we had before. I only tried this with 704x480 PLUS template, but I assume it will work the same with the other templates, based on all tests made in this thread.
We need feedback on this!. This GOP could probably be optimized even further, but I'm tired now. And the result I see on the sample is so good for the resolution, that I don't know if it needs to be further optimized. I'll leave that up to anyone who would like to try and improve on this.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #135  
12-18-2002, 04:23 AM
heyitsme heyitsme is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: pullman, WA
Posts: 129
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to heyitsme
Hey Kwag i s wondering if could see the avs script for red planet. That looks pretty damn good at 704X480. You da man kwag. So is compression still greater with 1-36-3-1-36 or the new gop using only 2 b frames.

Thanks Branden
__________________
Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die
Reply With Quote
  #136  
12-18-2002, 05:47 AM
GFR GFR is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
HI,

Instead of searching and "optimal" GOP for each CQ/resolution/movie, and at the same time trying to do the file prediction, perhaps we can use a compromise solution and narrow the options, like a low-CQ GOP and a hi-CQ GOP.

With only a couple of GOPs the search space is reduced and it can be easier to find "sub-optimal" parameters that may not be as good as if we had exhaustively searched every possible GOP for every CQ for a given movie, but that are still better than always use the same GOP for every CQ.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
12-18-2002, 09:05 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by heyitsme
Hey Kwag i s wondering if could see the avs script for red planet. That looks pretty damn good at 704X480. You da man kwag. So is compression still greater with 1-36-3-1-36 or the new gop using only 2 b frames.

Thanks Branden
Here's what I used for that sample:

Code:
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\MPEG2DEC.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\fluxsmooth.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\blockbuster.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\legalclip.dll")
mpeg2source("K:\RED_PLANET\VIDEO_TS\red.d2v")
LegalClip()
FluxSmooth()
Blockbuster( method="noise", detail_min=1, detail_max=10, variance=1, cache=1024 ) # Apply noise if complexity is <= 10%. 
LegalClip()
I didn't use any "Sharpen" because I think at that resolution it's not needed. The complete encode came out to 756MB, and it was supposed to be ~713. So I guess it throws off the KVCD Predictor formula a little. Based on my original prediction sample size, 11.88MB, using the formula with a factor of 1.0, the result is 759MB. So it seems that for this GOP, the factor is 1.0 and not 0.95.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #138  
12-18-2002, 09:50 AM
black prince black prince is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,224
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Kwag,

Here's my results:

Kx3 (528x480), FitCD=496x448, Movie Length= 8304 seconds

LoadPlugin("E:\DVD Backup\2 - DVD2SVCD\MPEG2DEC\MPEG2DEC.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\DVD Backup\2 - DVD2SVCD\BlockBuster\BlockBuster.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\DVD Backup\2 - DVD2SVCD\LegalClip\LegalClip.dll")
mpeg2source("D:\Temp\movie.d2v")
IL = Framecount / 100 # interval length in frames
SL = round(Framerate) # sample length in frames
SelectRangeEvery(IL,SL)


CQ_VBR=22.42 GOP=1-12-2-1-24 File size= 24,517,706
CQ_VBR=22.42 GOP=1-23-3-1-36 File size= 23,373,174


I used Tmpgenc to mask the borders and resize the video.
Blockbuster noise causes file size to fluctuate and sharp just
increases file size. Picture quality was great for both GOP's.
Will you still resize and mask borders with Tmpgenc or has that
changed I like the fact that you're always searching for
better picture quality/smaller file size/faster process. It's what's
got us here and that's why I stick with this forum. Get some rest.

-black prince
Reply With Quote
  #139  
12-18-2002, 10:16 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
With KVCD Predictor, and using the 1-12-2-1-24, the CQ_VBR value is lower for the same target file size as with 1-36-3-1-36. However, the Q factor is lower, meaning higher quality, for the same file sizes. There are LESS visible artifacts with 1-12-2-1-24 than with 1-36-3-1-36. I've made several tests now, and with the same file size with both GOPs, the difference in quality is visible, specially around complex objects. The 3 B frames used in the current GOP, while giving higher compression, degrade the video quality slightly. So with 2 B frames and a MAX number of frames per GOP of 24, I've found that we get more punch (quality) for the same given file size as 1-36-3-1-36.
Hi kwag!

For a 1CD with 704x480 I presume that the CQ_VBR should be low.
Is this gain in quality true for higher CQ_VBRs? (lets say 2CDs 704x480)
Or for higher CQ_VBRs the quality is high enough that we could use the other GOP and won't notice the degeneration in quality?

Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #140  
12-18-2002, 10:20 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 black prince,

Rest, what's that
Your results are 100% consistent with mine . Now if you lower the CQ_VBR and encode again with the 1-12-2-1-24 until the file size matches the one encoded with 1-36-3-1-36, you'll still have better quality! Here is a screen shot of bit rate viewer showing my two sample encodes. The file size difference from one file to the other is only 5KB. So that's negligible.

Here's the first with a GOP of 1-36-3-1-36:

The peak Q level is 15.14, the average bit rate is 863KB and the average Q. level is 3.86.

And here's the one with 1-12-2-1-24:

Here, the peak Q. level is 13.93(better than above!), the average bit rate is 863KB (same) and the average Q. level is 3.53(Better than above!).

So you see, there is a difference, even though the file sizes are the same. This opens up a window of oportunity to try and continue to optimize the GOP until we can find the best Q factor while retaining the same file size.
Now I'm not crying anymore. I'm happy as a pig

-kwag
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Commande de crop oublié :p tamahome Conversion et d'Encodage de Vidéo (Français) 8 12-17-2004 08:22 AM
Overscan com CROP não funciona. ginoboy Conversão e Codificação de Vídeo (Português) 6 08-10-2004 01:12 PM
Crop divx zagor Convertire e Codifica dei Video (Italiano) 6 03-07-2004 04:14 PM
TMPGEnc: crop without resize? rupan Video Encoding and Conversion 5 03-06-2004 10:36 PM
Avisynth open failure: Crop: you cannot use crop to enlarge or 'shift' a clip nicksteel Avisynth Scripting 0 11-22-2003 06:10 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd