digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]

digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/)
-   Video Encoding and Conversion (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/)
-   -   What's next for kvcd as a format? (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/encode/3052-kvcd-format.html)

andybno1 03-21-2003 04:43 PM

What's next for kvcd as a format?
 
lets see u managed 180 mins on 1 80 min cd and 360mins on 1 cd whats next for kvcd?? are there any plans in the pipe work??

Bchteam 03-21-2003 04:52 PM

I don't think that the further development of KVCD will aim for more compressibility.With 360 Minutes on 1 CD,a point is reached where another direction should be taken.The Improvement of the current Quality of the KVCDx3 Template should be the aim for the Future.The KVCDx3 Template has great Potential to reach DVD.And also the KDVD Project deserves some attention,because DVD is the Future Media.

kwag 03-21-2003 05:02 PM

It now really depends more on future encoder generations, taking advantage of our Q. matrix, and all the wonderfull AviSynth filters.
The quality on (SK)VCDs I think is now maxed out. All we've done can be put to great use on other media/transports, as we are currently able to fit ~6 hours full DVD quality on DVD media, and any broadcast station using DVB MPEG-2 technology can take to their advantage the matrix on their hardware encoders to use less bandwidth and maintain the same quality with lower bit rates than the current parameters being used. So the future looks bright :wink:

-kwag

andybno1 03-21-2003 05:15 PM

so basically kvcd is at its limits and couldn't get any sweeter :D??

kwag 03-21-2003 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andybno1
so basically kvcd is at its limits and couldn't get any sweeter :D??

I don't think it can get any better now, so let's have fun encoding :mrgreen:

CheronAph 03-22-2003 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwag
It now really depends more on future encoder generations, taking advantage of our Q. matrix, and all the wonderfull AviSynth filters.

Could the matrix be better somehow or is that it, how did you came up with that?

kwag 03-22-2003 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CheronAph
Could the matrix be better somehow or is that it

Yes, but it would probably take thousands of encodes to find an optimal value, and if probably wouldn't be worth the quality difference. It's already extremely optimized.
Quote:

, how did you came up with that?
A lot of work :wink:.

-kwag

vhelp 03-22-2003 12:34 PM

Hi Kwag and others..

I think that, although the "size" issue has ben addressed to the max (or until
a new technique could be found through pure luck) there is still hope for
the "quality" side.

Improving "quality" through use of Filter Techniques..
If we consentrate on the Filter(s) (and their respective values) we could
futher enhance the (take advantage of) kvcd.xx.x templates for Each format,
KVCD, KSVCD, KDVD etc. Each one could have it's own Profile
version, tweaked according to Source condition and type.

* A set of "user" Profiles for certain Sources ie, VHS; DVD; DVB; or Captures
..etc. based on "tried-n-true" methods could be associated.

* A new naming convention for each tempates..

* or, build a user-base of "filter-chains" and include best one suited for a given
..template.

* create more "specialized" filters for various source, DVD; VHS etc.

* develope a tool or tools to gauge better "filter" techniques

* work more w/ perfecting CQ ratio settings

* create "OUR OWN" frameserver client !! and the possibilities are endless..

And, lets not forget the encoder project.

I think that we should all starting working together and consentrate on the
improvements of "quality" through the use of filter techniques
(aka, filter chaining)

So you see, there is still lots more fun and exciting work to be done.. lots!!

Have a good day everyone.
-vhelp

vhelp 03-22-2003 01:21 PM

Hi Kwag and others..

I missed this..

CheronAph wrote:
>> Could the matrix be better somehow or is that it, how did you came up with that?


>> >> Kwag wrote:
>> >> >> Yes, but it would probably take thousands of encodes to find an optimal value,
>> >> >> and if probably wouldn't be worth the quality difference. It's already extremely
>> >> >> optimized.


Actually, what you'll need is a TOOL to aid in the process, which CAN be done but
that will require a little enginuity.

I too, think that the Matrix COULD be further worked on. But don't forget, that
a revised Matrix table would more than likely require a revised CQ ratio setting..
at least in my experience, it did, but it will depend on the Matrix table, AND, as
a result, required LOTS more work he he..
But, if you do run such tweaks, best to keep a table of results ie, use Excel, as
I did !! :wink: !!

Kwag..
just curious, but in your Matrix tweaking, did you take into account for other
source, ie, Capture AVI (not DVD) ..as I found that in my experience w/ Matrix, that
when I ran test encodes (based on the revised Matrix table) when run w/ an DVD
encode and an AVI captured encode, that the quality WAS in fact different. Some
time mid last year, I ran a battery of Matrix tweaks, and concluded with what I
felt that were TWO of my best Matrix tweaks, and when I encode an Captured AVI
into each, and a DVD in each, I found that one was either blockier than the
other, or one was smoother and grainier (the good grain) than the other.
Some of these LONG and tiring Matrix tweaks were actually memorable. I was up
till 4 A.M encoding various sources. Hmmm, I was thinking about doing some more
work on THAT Matrix I last left off on.. I managed to create even smaller encode
than your KVCD (at least at the time) but I stopped that project due to
other issues going on at that time. I still have it, but it needs work. So in
answering to anydbno1 and other's.., yes, I guess size could be worked on, but
who knows. It would be interesting to do some test comparison though. I miss
working on THAT Matrix. Anyways.. If anything Kwag, Caputred AVI's should
(IMO) have it's own tweaked Matrix.

Have you thougt about that ??

As for CQ..
CQ is (IMO) the best encode mode out their.. fast and accurate (if prop. tuned)
when used under TMPG. Don't mistake it to be best w/ any other encoder ie, MainConcept etc.

-vhelp

ovg64 03-22-2003 01:25 PM

I think What we need is and faster filters and also faster Encoders, TMPGEnc is good but its engine feels pretty slow for me, I get desperate having to wait 4-8 hrs for a good encode. :x............ :D

jorel 03-22-2003 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ovg64
I think What we need is and faster filters and also faster Encoders, TMPGEnc is good but its engine feels pretty slow for me, I get desperate having to wait 4-8 hrs for a good encode. :x............ :D

yes friend, i'm with you! :)

:ideasmiley:

i have to buy another pc..one to encode,another to forum....

only one problem:
i don't have money!
:bawl:

titans_ca 03-22-2003 04:11 PM

How about talking to "the powers that be" and make kvcd the industry standard :)

but certainly should talk to a company and develop a line of standalone player that's compatible with all the kvcd/kdvd template :D , especially now that you think development of kvcd is at final stage.

I would defintely buy that if it's not too expansive and maybe has the added bonus of being multi regional? I'd love that feature.

Just throwing some idea around :D

ozjeff99 04-02-2003 08:25 PM

Talking about "size being important" has always made me feel nervous for some unknown reason. I definitely would like to see more optimised ways of doing good quality VHS captures.

Cheers
Jeff

gpupurs 04-05-2003 11:17 PM

Also, recommended filters for the types of movies or source would be useful. For instance, a mostly bright daytime action movie (Lone Ranger), an animation with video noise from the capture (Simpsons), and a darky shot drama (Road to Perdition) can all be optimized with different filters, but the best choice is usually only hit upon after either experience or LOTS of forum reading. An online database (maybe even a wizard) of types of sources (or actual movie/show titles) along with the type of signal source and quality, listing what people have found to work well, might be a fun way to share experiences, or solve problesm by searching for others results...

PyRoMaNiA 04-06-2003 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ovg64
I get desperate having to wait 4-8 hrs for a good encode.

4-8 hours?? 8O 8O
My encodes take 20 hours at least!!! :( :cry:

conquest10 04-06-2003 02:56 PM

8O mine take up to 12 hours.

ovg64 04-06-2003 03:27 PM

Try defragging your hardrive before encoding :lol: maybe that will help......... :P

conquest10 04-06-2003 04:14 PM

i think the main reason is my slow computer (667) and the use of filters.

kwag 04-06-2003 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conquest10
i think the main reason is my slow computer (667) and the use of filters.

That's definitely it 8O

-kwag

conquest10 04-06-2003 04:25 PM

yeah. i bought it about 3-4 years ago. i haven't got the money to really upgrade yet. :cry:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 PM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd

Site design, images and content © 2002-2022 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2022 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.