Hi Daagar:

The "Highest" quality setting just takes too long to encode. There's almost no difference from it to the "Fast motion estimate". I tested the "fast motion estimate" and the result is that I get less "mosquito effect" around edges in the picture.

Here's a 2,492KB 30 second sample ( video only to save space ):
http://ns1.shidima.com/kwag/paysamp.mpg

The sample is 352x240 with the template that is currently posted. The complete movie video size is 416,197KB. The audio file, which I created with headac3he at 224Khz, is 166,033KB. So the complete multiplexed movie is 589,502KB. The movie's playing time is 1 hour 41 minutes and 12 seconds.

kwag

Good enough reason for me! Anything to cut back in encoding time is fine. My machine only has 256megs of ram, and I found out that with the 704x480 template, I was pegging the amount of physical ram I had, and spent most of the time swapping. VERY painful encoding times. Dropped back to 352x480 and things are cooking along much better. Dropping to 'fast' motion search will help even more!

Hi KWAG !
Nice work , NICE
Just a FEW questions :
352x240 template bitrate 1150/300 ???? 1150 is the right value in here
( vs 352x240 - 1750/300 )
Kwag !
As I see that u'r KVCD matrix is better than Default - on 34" screen I really don't notice "mosquitoes" (u r talking about HDTV but how meny of us are using it ????)
I defenetly preffer KVCD matrix vs default !!!
With Default matrix there is some color problem too : Colors become somehow FADED . Black becomes dominant and colors lose strength (can't change even with tv tuning).
U'r previous template was much better ( I think )
What about ANDREAS matrix : It was just fine too .
So many changes and tweacks ....
Can u check 1-9999-1-2-48 GOP for me ?
It saves few Kb too !!!
All in All good job , MAN !
So many efforts and on such short period !!!
Best regards
bman

Hi bman:

Well, surprise probably tomorrow
I've got the KVCD matrix working with NO "mosquito" effect in my HDTV monitor
I'm still running some tests, as I am syncing the 352x240, 352x480 and 704x480. They are all using the KVCD matrix. BUT using CQ_VBR insead of plain CQ. I did this, because some people's DVD players can only play CQ_VBR, but not CQ mode. But nobody has complained that they can't play CQ_VBR. The resulting bit rate is very different viewed with bit rate viewer. I hope that some time tomorrow I'll have something ready to upload.

In the mean time, here's a peek at two samples so that you can feel what to expect Each is 15 seconds.

http://ns1.shidima.com/kwag/samp-352x240.mpg
http://ns1.shidima.com/kwag/samp-352x480.mpg

No audio on both samples. Just a dummy 64k blind filler mono chanel.
Same sample clip at two different resolutions. Both WITH the new KVCD Q. Matrix. Feedback always welcome

kwag

bman,
About your questions. 1750/300 is for the 352x480. 1150/300 has always been the value for the 352x240.
About the 9999 I explained it before. If you increase the P's above 12, there's no file size/quality difference, because the GOP size is being controlled by the max of 48. So I just set it to the max that the field permits. Which is 9999. Just for the hell of it

kwag

@ KWAG !
Sorry about my bad english !!!
What I meant was - set in u'r temlplates 1-9999-1-2-48 instead of 1-9999-3-1-48 .
Just change numbers and give me your opinion about this change . I found that this can make smaller file size !!!
bman

Hi bman.

On every measured test I've made so far, changing the number of B pictures from 3 to 2, increases the file size. Not much, but it does.
Only on dark scenes and long low action scenes, the B=2 creates a smaller file. But on average, on a complete movie, the B=3 creates the smallest file.

kwag

Kwag !
We are missing something here ?!!!
In 1-9999-1-2-48 GOP =>>> I=1 P=9999 B=1 Output interval = 2 Mux=48
Am I right ???
bman

I=1
P=9999 ( for the time being )
B=3
Output interval in sequence header = 1
MAX number of frames in GOP = 48

So the order is: 1-9999-3-1-48

kwag

Kwag,
Are you ready to give us surprise (new template with KVCD matrix)? I am really looking forward to tasting it.

Hi teacher!

I did some tests again and found that... you're right! the Gop 1-18-3-1 give the smaller file size if you use the standard matrix but 1-18-1-1 give smaller file size for an entire movie if you use the andreas matrix, so there is no sense in using andreas matrix wich increase the file size and after that change the gop to decrease the size unless someone can say that the quality with this procedure is better, right now i'm testing your new templates so i leave the original gop as it is, by the way i have a question, did you say you changed from CQ to CQ_VBR? do i need to make this manually cause the templates doesn't changed it... it changed CQ68 motion search to estimated and changed the Q.matrix to yours... or you will post that template today?

Well, so sad, i thought i found something useful but i didn't, better luck next time... i hope.

Saludos.

DaDe.

@syk2c11
Almost! There is one thing which I have been trying for the last two days, and that is to reduce the size of the files, with the new templates. Right now the best I've been able to do is that the 352x240 template can still fit an average 120 minute movie. But the 352x480 will fit "maybe" 120 minutes, but probably more like 100-110 minutes max per CD . And the 704x480 about 95-100 minutes per CD .
BUT the quality of the three templates just blows away every other template!. The 704x480 just looks incredible, even better than the 2 CD 704x480!

So I think that even that the file sizes are larger than with the older templates, I'm going to go ahead and post them, in a separate beta section. If someone wants to fit more time with these templates, it will be a matter of just lowering the CQ_VBR values ( which are completely different than the values of CQ mode! ). After seing the quality produced by these templates, I'm not going back to the old ones . Even if I have to use 2 CD's. Of course, I'm looking at the VCD's in a HDTV, and there you can see the humongeous difference

@DaDe

The new templates are based on CQ-VBR instead of plain CQ. I read that many DVD players don't play CQ, but play CQ-VBR. Also the quality I'm getting with the new KVCD Q. matrix works better with the CQ_VBR.

@ALL

The templates are available at the download page now
Here are three samples, one from each template, for your evaluation.
They're coded with silent 128Kbps audio track.

http://ns1.shidima.com/kwag/film-352x240.mpg
http://ns1.shidima.com/kwag/film-352x480.mpg
http://ns1.shidima.com/kwag/film-704x480.mpg

Hack'em all you want! And let me know your results.
Enjoy,
kwag

Ill be sure to try this new template out on my Apex 1500.. hopefully the cq-vbr will work with my DVD player...


One other quick question Kwag.. You were mentioning before with the Motion Search Precision in Tmpgenc on Motion Estimate Search (fast) that it wouldnt change the quality at all. Im wondering if this is still true with yer new 704x480 beta template.. An increase in speed would be nice

tks

The BETAS have the Motion search presicion set to "Normal".
After some tests, with the current paramers and the Q.Matrix, I got lower file size with the "Normal" mode instead of "Fast".

kwag

Okay, a few questions about getting the most out of the new templates. Let's assume we have a 150min movie. A bit large for the new templates (actually, too large for the old as well most times), so we know we need two CDs. No problem. Since you've gone to CQ_VBR, does this give us any better ability to 'max out' the space on each CD? IE., I know the movie is 150min, so let's just put 75min on each CD, and fill each CD to capacity. Or does it still follow the CQ model of 'you don't know filesize until you try'?

This also begs the question 'why not 2pass VBR'... (time, obviously, would be one reason).

Hi Daagar:

Based on the estimated file sizes generated by the BETA templates, I would put the 150 minute movie in 2 CD's, using the 352x480 template. Now this is what I recommend, if what you want is to max the size in the CD.
The quality generated by the new templates, it's pretty much maxed out. You won't get more quality by increasing the CQ value. Maybe a little, but it's barely noticeable.
What I am doing, and I strongly recommend everyone to do, is to encode ONLY the video stream. Then, depending on the video stream size, you encode the audio with HeadAC3he. When you run headAC3he and open your AC3 or WAV file, the program tells you what the size of the MP2 file will be. So just add your video size to your audio size and see if it will fit in one CD. If it doesn't fit in one CD, with your audio say at 128Kbps, then encode at full 224Khz audio quality and mux your video/audio in two pieces with BBmpeg. It never fails!. The audio and video are always in perfect sync using this method. So instead of waisting time re-encoding the video, DON"T. It's a waste of time.
If you still want to fill your disk with CQ mode, I suggest you try DVD2SVCD. It will calculate an average CQ to fill a CD. But keep this in mind, if you are thinking about x-pass VBR. The longer your movie, the worse the quality. The longer the movie, the lower will be the average bit rate, for a calculated size. With CQ modes, the longer the movie, the larger the file size. But your quality will be maintained constant in every part of the movie.

kwag

Kwag,
I hope you can bear with me (us) since a brand new template is out, I (we) may have a series of questions.

(1)---If I am not anxious to "fill up" each CD-R, what would be the suggested set up to have a movie (say 120 minutes) safely put into 2 CD-Rs by using the NEW 704x480 template. All I care about is quality, I don't mind to have 2 CD-Rs for one movie but not 3 CD-Rs. I don't want to have a separate procedure for audio, I just want Tmpeg to take care of all Video and Audio for me.

(2)---Will there be a noticeable difference between 128 and 224 kbps in audio setting? Thanks a lot.

Hi Kwag,

With switching modes in your new templates you've opened the door to more questions for those of us trying to keep up with you .

I've started a new thread here http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3352#3352

Thanks

1) Just like me I don't mind 2 CD's. But 3 is a no no
For 120 minutes at 704x480 in two CD with the new template, maybe!, but you'll probably have to lower the CQ value a little. It all depends on the type of movie. I'm encoding "The Matrix" later tonight at 704x480, to find out the size, with the template without modifications. I'll let you know tomorrow. That's a 136 minute movie, so we'll know what to expect from the new template as far as file size.

2) There is a HUGE difference from 128Kbps to 224Kbps. As a matter of fact, if you use headaAC3he which uses mp2enc to create the audio, it will sound better at 128Kbps than with TMPEG's built in audio encoder at 192Kbps
I haven't tried audio lower than 128Kbps in the regular templates. But I can tell you this: I tried audio at 64Kbps for the Pocket PC templates, done with headac3he in joint stereo, and it sounds good. DAMN good! Don't try that with TMPEG's audio encoder. It will probably sound like metal cans rolling down a street

kwag

Ahhh, my mistake Kwag. I was thinking CQ_VBR was one of the modes where you specified your own 'average' VBR rate, not just min and max. If you could specify an average, you could calculate a 'max out the CD size' as you can with dvd2svcd. However, it appears with CQ_VBR, you are still simply defining a min/max and CQ level, so what you suggest is probably the best bet. Thanks for pointing out headache... I've used besweet in the past but will check this alternative out.