Quantcast KVCD Encode with 352x576 or 544x576, Which one is Better? - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #1  
05-01-2003, 11:28 AM
CheronAph CheronAph is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Espoo, Finland
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to CheronAph
I have 2 options, to encode with 352x576 CQ 75 or 544X576 CQ 65, which one is better and why?
__________________
¨¨°şİİş°¨¨°şİCHERONAPHİş°¨¨°şİİş°¨¨
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  
05-01-2003, 11:40 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
544X576 CQ 65
Because it's a much higher resolution.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #3  
05-01-2003, 11:42 AM
Kane Kane is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 398
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
i would prefer the higher resolution
i made a few samples some days ago

528x576 : cq 60
352x576: cq 70
352x288: cq 80

all values predicted with ToK

the kvcd resolution gave me the absolut best result

edit: beaten by seconds
__________________
greetz Kane
Reply With Quote
  #4  
05-01-2003, 11:42 AM
CheronAph CheronAph is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Espoo, Finland
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to CheronAph
yep, and 704x576 is higher, how low can I go with CQ?
__________________
¨¨°şİİş°¨¨°şİCHERONAPHİş°¨¨°şİİş°¨¨
Reply With Quote
  #5  
05-01-2003, 11:51 AM
Kane Kane is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 398
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
there´s no "limit-cq"
just try
__________________
greetz Kane
Reply With Quote
  #6  
05-01-2003, 12:06 PM
CheronAph CheronAph is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Espoo, Finland
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to CheronAph
I could encode 704x576 with CQ 46, is that worth encoding or should I just go with 544x576?
__________________
¨¨°şİİş°¨¨°şİCHERONAPHİş°¨¨°şİİş°¨¨
Reply With Quote
  #7  
05-01-2003, 02:49 PM
dazedconfused dazedconfused is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 316
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Go with the 544x576 @ CQ65 CheronAph. It'll look great and will fit on 1 disc! The KVCDx3 template will always give you the overall best compromise between great picture quality (thanks to the high resolution), and the movie-time you can fit onto a disc.

46 would almost certainly be too low of a CQ level for use with a resolution of 704x576 (although, as Kane already said, there is no such thing as a "set-in-stone" lowest acceptable CQ level...so you should always do a sample test and see for yourself). If you want to use the 704x576 resolution, you should probably do filesize-prediction for 2 discs, and split your movie in half. Doing that, you'd be able to use a high enough CQ level that it would look great and it would be nearly indistinguishable from the original dvd (even moreso than the x3 template). But who likes splitting their movies onto 2 discs!

-d&c
Reply With Quote
  #8  
05-01-2003, 02:53 PM
CheronAph CheronAph is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Espoo, Finland
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to CheronAph
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazed&confused
But who likes splitting their movies onto 2 discs! -d&c
You´re right, I´ll go with the 544x576!
__________________
¨¨°şİİş°¨¨°şİCHERONAPHİş°¨¨°şİİş°¨¨
Reply With Quote
  #9  
05-01-2003, 03:58 PM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
With the latest script, I really love to go for 704x576...
All movies shorter than 110 min. look great for me at this res. also with 704x480/576 you can correct your overscan at the sides to at least 22 pixels left and right... this gives you a lot of extra compression... try it out! go for the limits!
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #10  
05-01-2003, 04:26 PM
dazedconfused dazedconfused is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 316
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You're fitting 110-minute movies onto 1 disc using a 704x480/576 resolution Jelly, and you still manage to get a high enough CQ value so it doesn't look cruddy or give blockiness during action scenes? WOW! I had no idea that could even be possible. I know CQ levels are arbitrary, but generally speaking, what general range does your CQ usually fall into when doing these types of encodes? I figured even 90 minutes was probably pushing the limits when using the 704x templates!

-d&c
Reply With Quote
  #11  
05-02-2003, 04:07 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That's right d&c !!!
U can fit about 120 min movie on one cdr-80 and quality is good enough .
For really good quality better to use cdr-90 .
@ Charon
Lowest quality that gives best results (for me ofcourse) was cq52 with filters . Like Jelly seas - Use 3 overscan and save 24x2 pixels for frame .
And always - To get best results - TRY it
bman
Reply With Quote
  #12  
05-02-2003, 04:27 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by bman
That's right d&c !!!
U can fit about 120 min movie on one cdr-80 and quality is good enough .
For really good quality better to use cdr-90 .
@ Charon
Lowest quality that gives best results (for me ofcourse) was cq52 with filters . Like Jelly seas - Use 3 overscan and save 24x2 pixels for frame .
And always - To get best results - TRY it
bman
hey bman....
seems fantastic!

can you post the script please?

i will try on 90 minutes cd.

Reply With Quote
  #13  
05-02-2003, 05:28 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Jorel !
The script is simple as KWAG posted it with little tweaks :

LegalClip()
Sharpen(0.65)
BicubicResize(656, 368, 0, 0.6, 0, 0, 704,576)
STMedianFilter(10, 50, 0, 0, 10, 50)
FaeryDust()
unfilter(50,50)
mergechroma(blur( 1.58 ))
mergeluma(blur(0.3))
Convolution3D(preset="movieLQ")
AddBorders(24,104,24,104)
LegalClip()

With sharpen before resize I've got almoast no gibbs but it takes more time .
That was best for my source .
I hope It'll help u
I'm waiting to your test results
bman
Reply With Quote
  #14  
05-02-2003, 10:11 AM
CheronAph CheronAph is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Espoo, Finland
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to CheronAph
The movie is quite long so CQ is not so good but I´ll see how it looks on my tv, I´ll let you know.
Have you tried this with spacedust?

Resolution (fps):704x576 (25,000 fps)
Total Frames: 174426
Total Time : 01:56:17
-------------------------------------------------------------

Audio Size: 111*630*211
Required Video Size: 700*494*091

Factor: 60,000
Desired Sample Size: 11*674*902

-------------------------------------------------------------
New Faster Prediction
-------------------------------------------------------------

Full Sample
Next CQ: 70,000. Sample Size: 16*357*369
Small Sample
Next CQ: 70,000. Sample Size: 1*391*821
Predicting...
Next CQ: 49,962. Sample Size: 11*967*895
Next CQ: 37,122. Sample Size: 10*948*965
Next CQ: 44,906. Sample Size: 11*566*241

Exit Condition: 1,000 % reached ! yahoo !
Tries : 4


Final CQ: 44,906
Total Time For Predicition: 00:23:01

Total Time (all operations): 00:23:01

Finished
__________________
¨¨°şİİş°¨¨°şİCHERONAPHİş°¨¨°şİİş°¨¨
Reply With Quote
  #15  
05-02-2003, 10:34 AM
CheronAph CheronAph is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Espoo, Finland
Posts: 494
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to CheronAph
This is with spacedust

Resolution (fps):704x576 (25,000 fps)
Total Frames: 174426
Total Time : 01:56:17
-------------------------------------------------------------

Audio Size: 111*630*211
Required Video Size: 700*494*091

Factor: 62,500
Desired Sample Size: 11*207*905

-------------------------------------------------------------
New Faster Prediction
-------------------------------------------------------------

Full Sample
Next CQ: 70,000. Sample Size: 14*585*154
Small Sample
Next CQ: 70,000. Sample Size: 1*210*706
Predicting...
Next CQ: 53,791. Sample Size: 11*319*250

Exit Condition: 1,000 % reached ! yahoo !
Tries : 2


Final CQ: 53,791
Total Time For Predicition: 00:15:45

Total Time (all operations): 00:15:45

Finished
__________________
¨¨°şİİş°¨¨°şİCHERONAPHİş°¨¨°şİİş°¨¨
Reply With Quote
  #16  
05-02-2003, 11:16 AM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Don't substitute SpaceDust for FaeryDust or vice versa... it's another approach of filtering.

however, I usually get CQ around the 50's with this script, and it looks fantastic on my TV... try it out!

Code:
LoadPlugin("E:\MPEG-Tools\FitCD\MPEG2DEC.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\MPEG-Tools\FitCD\unfilter.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\MPEG-Tools\FitCD\gripfit_preview.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\MPEG-Tools\FitCD\dctfilter_YUY2.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\MPEG-Tools\FitCD\STMedianFilter.dll")
LoadPlugin("E:\MPEG-Tools\FitCD\VobSub.dll")

Mpeg2Source("E:\Der Anschlag\anschlag.d2v")

GripCrop(704,576, Overscan=0)

VobSub("E:\Der Anschlag\vts_02_0")

Gripsize()
# SpaceDust() # Optional - for some "not so clean" DVDs. 
STMedianFilter(10, 50, 0, 0, 10, 50) 
unfilter(40,40) 
temporalsmoother(2,1) 
mergechroma(blur(1.58)) 
mergeluma(blur(0.25)) 

GripBorders()
Letterbox(0,0,24,24)

DctFilter(1,1,1,1,1,.5,.5,0)
You also save some space using Bilinear resize instead of Bicubic... The picture still remains sharper than at a lower resolution...
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #17  
05-02-2003, 06:35 PM
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
thanks for the script bman!

"With sharpen before resize I've got almoast no gibbs .."
yeah?
good! is different,i will try...hey,
the results of CheronAph are incredible!
..

Jellygoose posted now,i see in the preview:
"Don't substitute SpaceDust ..."

let me read...

nice hints!
thanks bman,CheronAph and Jellygoose for scripts and tests!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
05-03-2003, 06:33 AM
Bchteam Bchteam is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 275
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@Jellygoose

Don't you think, that a 704x576 resolution is too much for "Der Anschlag", if you wan to fit it on one CD-R .

I think with 704x576 you won't get an acceptable CQ for a Film which lasts almost 2 hours.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
05-03-2003, 07:54 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 Bchteam...

For this movie I used a 99 min. CD-R! However it would still look pretty awesome on a 80 min CD-R too!
Let me explain where I see the advantages of 704x576...

1. I can set Overscan at the sides to at least 24, on my TV I don't even get side borders when it's set to 26
2. I use Bilinear Resize instead of Bicubic or Lanczos and it's still sharper.
3. I need less sharpening (Unfilter 40,40 will do a great job)
4. I can blur a little more (lumablur 2.5 instead of 2)
5. It's needles to say that if blocks appear, those will be smaller due to the higher resolution.

Those are the advantages I see for using this, besides it's the closest resolution to the source... Well I can live well enough with 544x576, which I use for movies >105 min...
it's a matter of taste I suppose!
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #20  
05-03-2003, 08:11 AM
Bchteam Bchteam is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 275
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
2.5 LumaBlur

How can you set LumaBlur to 2.5 In Moviestacker the maximum is 1.58.

And also overscan 26.The highest Value in MovieStacker is 3.

Please tell me how you are doing this
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it better to encode to 352x576 MPEG-1 or 480x576 MPEG-2 ? bashi007 Video Encoding and Conversion 24 01-04-2004 01:38 PM
Avisynth: 544x576 CQ looks a lot worse CheronAph Avisynth Scripting 6 10-21-2003 03:57 PM
KVCD 352x576 CaLaFaT Convertir y Codificar Video (Español) 31 09-05-2003 11:45 PM
kvcd: prefer 352x288 at cq 72, or 544x576 resolution at cq 57 ? Bilal Video Encoding and Conversion 3 08-01-2003 02:17 AM
KVCD: 352x576 re-size for computer? ozjeff99 Video Encoding and Conversion 14 04-29-2003 08:09 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 AM  —  vBulletin İ Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd