Quantcast KVCD Template vs. TMPGEnc Defaults? - Page 3 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #41  
07-03-2002, 03:14 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
@ANDREAS

Hi! Welcome, and thanks for the links.
I have a question ANDREAS. I have done several tests with your matrix, and I get different results at different resolutions. It seems that the DCT algorithms in TMPEG give different result at different resolutions when using a constant matrix value. Like if I use your 99'er matrix, the quality is not constant at different resolutions.
Have you experienced this behaviour? I'm trying to find an optimal matrix, but it seems that I'm going to have to use different matrixes for different resolutions.

kwag
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
  #42  
07-03-2002, 03:41 PM
reman reman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 174
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Also did you do IVTC?
Sorry, but what is IVTC

Also, I have TMPGEnc 2.53, should I update to latest TMPGEnc-2.55.38.142-Free.zip?
__________________
Thanks!
reman
Reply With Quote
  #43  
07-03-2002, 03:55 PM
energy80s energy80s is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 33
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Although I always think of IVTC as "In-Vision Time Code" it is actually Inverse Telecine and is used (I think) to change the 30fps of NTSC televsion to 24fps film frame rates. This is only applicable to NTSC sources (ie. America / Japan) and not for PAL systems. Incidently, the 24fps film rate is speeded up slightly to 25fps for PAL transmission, that's why the same film will be about 3 minutes shorter in UK video release than it was in the UK cinema!

Anyway, I encoded my "Romancing The Stone" DVD at CQ 66 and it came out at 620 megs, so I think I can up the CQ a bit and still fit onto an 800mb disc. I will try again tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
07-04-2002, 03:09 AM
slab slab is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 43
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Kwag,
I did some testing using your GOP (1-18-3-1-48 )... I've been using, and liked the 12 GOP from your old templates, so I just plugged in (1-12-3-1-48 ) to check the differences in quality and filesizes. Surprizingly, they were exactly the same filesize. Hmmmm...Since I used the log function in TMPGEnc, I checked it out...Here's what I found.

By using 18(P) and 3(B) frames per GOP (current template) but limiting the MAX GOP to 48...I find the maximum possible compression would only be 12. That's why the filesizes and logs came out exactly the same...Here's the arguement:

By using a GOP MAX limit of 48 it was getting to 12P+(3B*12)=48 than starting a new GOP(verified in test log).The 48 max was limiting the P frames from reaching the 18 requested... Should'nt the GOP MAX be changed to 72=18P+(3B*18 ) using the current templates 3B frames?...Here's a graph of what I'm thnking the different GOP structures should reflect in creating MAX GOP compression tweaks. Am I wrong with this? (By the way, using the MAX GOP of 72 in further testing did compress the filesize and reflect the 18P frames requested).

Also, would this long of a GOP negate the flashing effect caused before using (0-automatic)? Or would it be better to lower the B frames to (2)? Would appreciate your comments and wisdom on this one....


|P| |3B| |MAX GOP|
12 + 36 = 48
15 + 45 = 60
18 + 54 = 72
Reply With Quote
  #45  
07-04-2002, 03:22 AM
a_star62 a_star62 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 59
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@ANDREAS
My player will only play 480x480 MPEG-2 files. This is close to standard SVCD. Well, same res anyway. You say that your QMatrix is optimized for SVCD. If I were to use your QMatrix would I get ebtter results with it or not?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
07-04-2002, 04:41 AM
ANDREAS ANDREAS is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well, the matrix. We discuss the matrix problem since ~1,5 jears. One matrix for all itīs impossible. Theoretical have every resolution with every motion area and every datarate this own matrix. Low datarates have other boundery conditions against SVCD standard CD. And 352x576 (480) are different to 704 x 576 (480) and so on. Maybe you found out that different resolution have the same matrix (e.g. KVCD 352x576 with motion area 320x224 and 320x160). But if you see exactly on "my" setting you can see I have turn on the block noise funktion (it is indirect a change of the matrix) with different values and sharpness.

If I search a matrix to a special problem I can only test, test and test. It takes a lot of time to find out in whitch way you can change the values in the matrix. For the examples in the artikel I need more than a week to find whitch matrix and on whitch way I have to change values in the matrix. Fist the intra matrix and later the non-intra matrix if is necessary.

I start with TMPEG default, then I tested MPEG standard and so on. Then you can compare the sequences and you can say the e.g. default matrix is the best picture. From this matrix I take attempts and change in slow steps values of the matrix.

In the first step it is important that the testsequence is a low bitrate sequence. You can see it in my movie examples. The problems on this scene is, that the encoder take normaly only 450kbps or less for the video with the original KVCD template. Normaly it is not enough to ?prevent? the movie about blockness in picture sections there are in the background. Second you can test relativ slow motions to see how sharp they are. Third you can see how sharp is the picture (e.g. hairs in the wind and the corn is moving in the field). Fourthly moskito-noises round corners (it is a very good thing to optimised the matrix). If you have found a good solution mostly you have a good solution for the high datarates. But needs the dataretes a higher value that the max. value is setting (e.g. action sequence) mostly you have to change the non-intra matix again. And then you have test the low sequence and look it is o.k. or not. To the end you found a compromise result about blockness and good picture in the low section.


@a_star62
I donīt know. Your resolution is a NTSC resolution I thing. Iīm only working in PAL. Test it at this way that I describe it higher. Take a SMALL sequence and look it on the PC monitor. If you have good results the result is mostly one step better on the TV.

ANDREAS
__________________
DVD-SVCD-FORUM.de
Reply With Quote
  #47  
07-04-2002, 05:38 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 slab
Hi Kwag,
I did some testing using your GOP (1-18-3-1-48 )... I've been using, and liked the 12 GOP from your old templates, so I just plugged in (1-12-3-1-48 ) to check the differences in quality and filesizes. Surprizingly, they were exactly the same filesize. Hmmmm...Since I used the log function in TMPGEnc, I checked it out...Here's what I found.

By using 18(P) and 3(B) frames per GOP (current template) but limiting the MAX GOP to 48...I find the maximum possible compression would only be 12. That's why the filesizes and logs came out exactly the same...Here's the arguement:

By using a GOP MAX limit of 48 it was getting to 12P+(3B*12)=48 than starting a new GOP(verified in test log).The 48 max was limiting the P frames from reaching the 18 requested... Should'nt the GOP MAX be changed to 72=18P+(3B*18 ) using the current templates 3B frames?...Here's a graph of what I'm thnking the different GOP structures should reflect in creating MAX GOP compression tweaks. Am I wrong with this? (By the way, using the MAX GOP of 72 in further testing did compress the filesize and reflect the 18P frames requested).

Also, would this long of a GOP negate the flashing effect caused before using (0-automatic)? Or would it be better to lower the B frames to (2)? Would appreciate your comments and wisdom on this one....


|P| |3B| |MAX GOP|
12 + 36 = 48
15 + 45 = 60
18 + 54 = 72
Hi slab:
You're right!. 100%. The 18 was left there, because I didn't pay attention, after I closed the GOP at 48. Before, when the last number was set to 0, there was a difference from 1-12-3-1-0 to 1-18-3-1-0, but not anymore.
So the GOP is maxed out even if you set the P's to 9999 or whatever. Which I have in the new template. To avoid ( or create ) confusion The new GOP I have set is now 1-9999-3-1-48 because it doesn't matter above 12. It's the same result because TMPEG controls the P's with the fixed size of 48 ( or 50 for PAL ) What I do have under my sleeve, is a surprise , the KVCD Q.Matrix that I've been playing with for the last couple of days. It's a small modification to the "Default" TMPEG matrix. The quality is higher, as seen and analyzed with bit rate viewer, and there's a space savings of around 332Kb per minute
So I have uploaded the KVCD matrix only in the 352x480 NTSC template.
Please download it and make a measured test against the old template.
This will give us about 40MB savings per 2 hour movie, with higher quality as seen with "my eyes :P " and bit rate viewer. Please give it a run and let me know. I got the best size/quality with these values than with any other matrix. It's available in the download area. You'll see a small "new" indicator above the template

It's 6:30AM and I'm still awake . Going to sleep now.

Enjoy!,
kwag
Reply With Quote
  #48  
07-04-2002, 07:40 AM
pacodoni pacodoni is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 78
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to pacodoni
Hi Kwag !!!

The template is amazing, the quality is very,very good

Just a question, since i have that "pioneer problem"....

Can i just use 352x240 instead of 352x480 ?

Is there much quality loss in that ?

Once again thanks !!!

Pacodoni
Reply With Quote
  #49  
07-04-2002, 10:58 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi guys !
I'm happy that we have new MATRIX here . I didn't tryed yet but will very soon . Results will posted as soon as posible !!!!
KWAG !!!
As SLAB mentioned YOUR GOP 1-18-3-1-48 is not the end of way . I beleave that GOP can and HAVE to be longer than 72 even 96 . Somehow I can't encode with this GOP (I think WINme is the reason) system doesn't let me to go to the end of movie but as I wrote already we can achieve more compression in here .
Matrix - TMPGenc default matrix is worse than ANDREAS even it gives smaller file size . To get the same quality I have to go up with bitrate to 700-800/1750 .
I see this degradation in quality on BIG TV screen and beleave me its true .
I hope that u'r MATRIX is better than DEFAULT(TMPG).
I do not have all number coz didn't finished all tests but I'm sure that more compression of about 15% can be achieved with right GOP and MATRIX in wonderful KVCD templates .
Andreas is right about different matrixes at different resolutions. I've tryed and quality changes are very noticable .
Make long to short :
KWAG u are THE MAN - U have knowledge and u have ability to put in order all this thing
I bealeave it's going to happen soon !!!!
bman
Reply With Quote
  #50  
07-04-2002, 01:41 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:
Originally Posted by kwag
Hi slab:
You're right!. 100%. The 18 was left there, because I didn't pay attention, after I closed the GOP at 48. Before, when the last number was set to 0, there was a difference from 1-12-3-1-0 to 1-18-3-1-0, but not anymore.
So the GOP is maxed out even if you set the P's to 9999 or whatever. Which I have in the new template. To avoid ( or create ) confusion The new GOP I have set is now 1-9999-3-1-48 because it doesn't matter above 12. It's the same result because TMPEG controls the P's with the fixed size of 48 ( or 50 for PAL ) What I do have under my sleeve, is a surprise , the KVCD Q.Matrix that I've been playing with for the last couple of days. It's a small modification to the "Default" TMPEG matrix. The quality is higher, as seen and analyzed with bit rate viewer, and there's a space savings of around 332Kb per minute
So I have uploaded the KVCD matrix only in the 352x480 NTSC template.
Please download it and make a measured test against the old template.
This will give us about 40MB savings per 2 hour movie, with higher quality as seen with "my eyes :P " and bit rate viewer. Please give it a run and let me know. I got the best size/quality with these values than with any other matrix. It's available in the download area. You'll see a small "new" indicator above the template

It's 6:30AM and I'm still awake . Going to sleep now.

Enjoy!,
kwag
Very cool Kwag, would this matrix also be usefull for the KDVD hald D1 template

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #51  
07-04-2002, 04:14 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
I don't know MoovyGuy. I've only tested it at 352x480 MPEG-1 and pacodoni tested it at 352x240 with some amazing size result and also he reported an increase in encoding speed.
We need more tests with other resolutions. But I'm sure the results will be different.
I chose to start with the 352x480 because it's a center point between the lower 352x480 and the higher 704x480.
There's probably more room to tweak this matrix, but the current results are looking good

kwag
Reply With Quote
  #52  
07-04-2002, 09:05 PM
pacodoni pacodoni is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 78
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to pacodoni
Thatīs right Kwag !

Using the new template with 352X240, the results were very impressive

I left TMPGENC encoding the part 2 of ALI with 74 mins and took 2 hours and 2 mins ( using a P-III 750 and 256Mb ).
THe filesize is about 5-6 meg per min, so it can pass the 120 min per 80min Media

Try it out everyone, and post the results in the forum.
I will do more tests and keep on touch.

See ya round

Pacodoni
Reply With Quote
  #53  
07-05-2002, 12:31 AM
syk2c11 syk2c11 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 290
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Is the new structure of 352x480 template application to KVCDx2, if so, can I just change from 352x480 to 704x480?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
07-05-2002, 12:48 AM
Daagar Daagar is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Doh! Just started my encoding runs for the night before I fall asleep, and just read this. I will try more encodings tomorrow with the new KVCD matrix... sound very intruiging.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
07-05-2002, 02:33 AM
ANDREAS ANDREAS is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
O.K. you write somthing about a new MATRIX. I hope we speak from the same thing. The matrix is the point in TMPEG under quantisize matrix, right? In the *.mcf file I found the "Andreas einfache 99er Matrix" and if I understand it right you use thisdmatrix to encode?

ANDREAS
__________________
DVD-SVCD-FORUM.de
Reply With Quote
  #56  
07-05-2002, 02:57 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 ANDREAS:

The matrix being talked here is a new test matrix I am testing. I modified the "default" TMPEG matrix with some new values, and that's the one being tested. I only modified the KVCD 352x480 template with this new matrix, for evaluation purposes. You can find it in the download page and you'll see a small "new" banner over it. It's the only template that currently has this matrix. The only real test so far I've done is file size comparison against all other matrixes. And I only tested it at 352x480. But I've received good results from other people using the matrix. I did compare the Q in bit rate viewer against the "default" template, and I do get a lower Q, which means higher quality, compared to the standard TMPEG template. I did notice some very small artifacts around some moving object. Just a little more than with the "default" template. So I have to analyze what is the frequency domain of these artifacts, and hope it's constant with every encode, to zero in on the 8x8 DCT value and clean that up. That will be the next step. A Steeeeep step

Regards,
kwag
Reply With Quote
  #57  
07-05-2002, 12:56 PM
Yoda Yoda is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 172
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
kwag,
just tried the new template and decided to make some comparisons with all the templates. the source was 1 min 31 sec section of alien4 ressurection 16x9 ntsc.

these are from the current templates:

template cq filesize encode time
352x240 80 13922 2:18 m
352x480 70 18508 2:43 m
704x480 50 20778 4:02 m

these are from the beta template:

template cq filesize encode time
352x480 70 17757 3:25 m
352x240 80 17201 2:20 m
352x240 70 13241 2:25 m
352x240 60 10965 2:17 m
352x240 50 9097 2:10 m

i viewed all these with windvd and all the tests except the 50cq on the
new 352x240 template look real good. i think 60 would be as low as i
would go. on the 352x240 template i just changed to 240 using the beta
352x480 template.
__________________
May the code force be with you
Reply With Quote
  #58  
07-05-2002, 07:54 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
Hello everybody

I've made some minor changes to the template today.
Consider this still experimental.

The following changes were made:

B and P spoilage changed from 0/20 to 30/30
CQ level changed to from 70 to 72

This changes increase the file size about 60KB per minute, compared to the last update ( the GOP 1-9999-3-1-48 and KVCD Q. Matrix ) but still create a file size around 400KB per minute less than with the "default" TMPGEnc Q. Matrix.

I've tested these values in the 352x240, and the results are up to 700KB savings per minute, with no visual quality degradation. I just did a low action scene of one minute (video only) with the 352x240 template and the file size was 5,098KB. I also did a full action scene (also video only)with the 352x240, and the size was 7,953KB. I am, VERY pleased with the results.
Testers welcome I need some feedback!.
I've updated the KVCD 352x240 NTSC template and the KVCD 352x480 template in the download page.

Let me know your results

BTW: The 9999 is a joke. There's no visual/quality changes after 12, because the 48 regulates the GOP size, etc.. So I set the ceiling value in TMPEG ( maybe as a KVCD signature )

kwag
Reply With Quote
  #59  
07-06-2002, 03:16 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
Another update:

Hopefully, now there's not that much more to tweak

I've dropped the KVCD Q. Matrix and reverted to the "default" matrix The KVCD matrix is excelent as far as file size, but it has more "mosquito" effect around edges. This is monitoring a movie on a HDTV. It's not noticeable on a regular TV, but on high definition TV's, it is.
So until I solve that, we're back to the default. ( which is not bad at all ).
Both templates 352x240 and 352x480 NTSC have been tested.
Both templates have been changed from "Normal" motion search precision to "fast". The B spoilage has been tightened from 20 to 10.

Because the tightening of the spoilage, the CQ could be lowered a little. On the 352x240, the CQ is now 78, and on the 352x480, it's 68.
The quality is better than the original templates, and the "mosquito" effect is almost gone. The file size is still lower that with the original template and the "default" Q. Matrix.

I'm going to leave the templates this way for a while, until I get more feedback, and more test runs are made.
I wish I could get the quality that the current templates generate with the KVCD Q. Matrix. That would be the perfect combination. Maybe some day I ( or someone ) will find the optimal coefficient values for the matrix.
I just updated the download page. Both templates are available for download now.

kwag
Reply With Quote
  #60  
07-06-2002, 10:08 AM
Daagar Daagar is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
So what effect does motion search precision mean really? I've always read it should be at 'high', and almost never at 'fast' unless quality wasn't a concern. Of course, not sure where I read this... Very cool if 'fast' is acceptable, because.. well, it's fast
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which KVCD/SKVCD TMPGenc Template to use? JoJoFunyan Video Encoding and Conversion 2 08-03-2004 03:37 PM
TMPGEnc: Kvcd template with audio ShortyII Video Encoding and Conversion 4 03-04-2004 04:17 AM
TMPGEnc: Which is the best KVCD template? Maverick Video Encoding and Conversion 1 02-28-2004 11:27 AM
KVCD: TMPGenc Still Crashes when using Template with Audio? Morloc Video Encoding and Conversion 3 03-02-2003 01:15 AM
default tmpgenc template or the skvcd template? andybno1 Video Encoding and Conversion 4 08-23-2002 12:24 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM  —  vBulletin Đ Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd