Quantcast FFmpeg: FFvfw Video Codec - Page 17 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #321  
02-04-2004, 09:29 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 Dialhot
The last sample of Kwag is a perfect example of what I want to say. I'm sorry to say that but it was very bad !
(see my post in the other thread talking about ffvfw).
What sample was that Phil
Because every sample I've done (posted), looks far worse when done with TMPEG, at the same file size

-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
  #322  
02-04-2004, 09:37 AM
ARAGORN ARAGORN is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 50
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi everybody

Just wanted to know if the ma script is usefull now or not.
Reply With Quote
  #323  
02-04-2004, 09:39 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 ARAGORN
Hi everybody

Just wanted to know if the ma script is usefull now or not.
Depends on your source material, or if you want to reduce the file size even further


-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #324  
02-04-2004, 09:52 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
What sample was that Phil
It seems you removed it !

I commented it there :
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic....r=asc&start=22

And you suggested some test to do but I don't do them for the moment.

Quote:
Because every sample I've done (posted), looks far worse when done with TMPEG, at the same file size
The problem is not to tell that tmpgenc is better or not. The problem is to stop to say "with ffvfw that's the end of prediction" "3 two hours movie on a DVD" "this codec is awesome" blah blah blah...

I thought we were looking for perfect encoding here. Not "perfect according to the circumstances" nor "perfect compared to everything that exists nearby". Okay other encoders would have done it worst, but what I see in this sample is not perfect and will never be on any DVD I burn. It looks like a bad Divx

People are so crazy about this new "toy" that they forget what is the goal in this. And the goal is certainly not to do divx. Else let's use the Divx codec !

Note: I'd rather the sample you did a little before (http://www.kvcd.net/ffvfw-high-action-sample.m2v)
Reply With Quote
  #325  
02-04-2004, 09:56 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 Dialhot
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
What sample was that Phil
http://www.kvcd.net/kvcd-matrix-for-ffvfw.qmatrix
That's the matrix. Not a sample
Quote:

I commented it there :
http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic....r=asc&start=22

And you suggested some test to do but I don't do them for the moment.

Quote:
Because every sample I've done (posted), looks far worse when done with TMPEG, at the same file size
The problem is not to tell that tmpgenc is better or not. The problem is to stop to say "with ffvfw that's the end of prediction" "3 two hours movie on a DVD" "this codec is awesome" blah blah blah...
Sorry Phil, but I think you also have a PLAYBACK CODEC issue

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #326  
02-04-2004, 10:01 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krassi
In the last picture on the top right corner you can see some blocks
Ok, but it looks marvelous even with quantizer = 4!!
And thats the reason for a more blocky surfaces picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
Note: Inc and all, still snapshots are worthless. They only permit to see if there is macro blocks default. But all other defaults have a temporal aspect (dancing block, ants, mosquitos).
Stay cool!
These Pics are just Impressions to assume also how the video as a whole does behave. If there would exist dancing blocks, ants etc. I would say it.

The problem is that my free provider doesn't permit that big needed traffic for this which you already can assume.

But the videos themself are intact! I wouldn't post some " " if the quality also in motion wouldn't be that good, .... as I'm like you a little perfectionism

Quote:
The problem is not to tell that tmpgenc is better or not. The problem is to stop to say "with ffvfw that's the end of prediction" "3 two hours movie on a DVD" "this codec is awesome" blah blah blah...
Don't take the words that seriuos Phil, ist a yellout of being "amazed" AND we also did say that we're just at the beginning of testing and developing settings on CBR mode of FFvfw mpeg2 .... you see.
And testing also means that on some movie sources the "being amazed" could turn to failures. .... So up to now there have been failures and successes ... and therefore spoken seriuosly: I still did not come to a conclusion as Im waiting for the next upcoming tricky behaviour of that encoder. And thats why I also replied in some posts that up to know I do not recommend anything according to settings or even encoders

And as you know treating Captures is also my passion and I will see this weekend which potential that Encoder really gots on material more worse than good mastered consumer DVD as thats what we right now do use when testing sources.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
02-04-2004, 10:15 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dialhot
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
What sample was that Phil
http://www.kvcd.net/kvcd-matrix-for-ffvfw.qmatrix
That's the matrix. Not a sample
Lol. My mistake, it wasn't were I think it was.
I can't find it for the moment (I don't have mpeg2 software on my office's PC) but I think the title was "ffvfw-notch-kdvd.m2v"
(read my comment about it, it's a sample with Carrie Ann Moss and Val Kilmer, you should probably find what it is !)

Quote:
Sorry Phil, but I think you also have a PLAYBACK CODEC issue
No Karl you CAN'T say that ! It's too easy I'm in video (especially MPEG2) since years and I can see when there is a problem and find if it's due to playback or not. BTW, I didn't change the softwares recently and others samples you did don't suffer such problems. As all my previous KVCD and KDVD !

Again read my comment, watch the sample and you will see all the defaults I gave.

The only comment you can have and would be correct is that some of these defaults probably wouldn't be on a TV set. We all know that. But that does not make this sample good.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
02-04-2004, 10:27 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by incredible
Don't take the words that seriuos Phil, ist a yellout of being "amazed" AND we also did say that we're just at the beginning of testing and developing settings on CBR mode of FFvfw mpeg2 .... you see.
I know that, I'm happy to see that you know that too, Karl probably know that also but the problem is that everyone looking the thread and watching your (or others) stills can't know that.

Look at in the spanish forum for instance : people that never post try to use this codec ! Why ? Because your stills are too perfect (for sure you post only the perfects one, that's logical ).

And that is only a part of the problem. The other part is what I said before : you lost your focus. From "doing awesome KDVD" we go to "doing better KDVD than CCE" and now "doing better KDVD than tmpgenc". Doing things better than something known to be very bad can lead to do things that are "rather good" or "not so bad" if you don't pay attention. I still looking for "good" things.

I can't tell for your own samples, I'm just talking about that sample of kwag I can't even find for the moment but I think you found out.

Quote:
And testing also means that on some movie sources the "being amazed" could turn to failures. .... So up to now there have been failures and successes ...
Yes and for sure Kwag had also a lot of failrues . But once posted here, and described with words like the one you quoted at top of your post, a sample is supposed to reflect a success. And this one wasn't.

I just wanted to "refocus" the competition.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
02-04-2004, 10:52 AM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well, as for me, I'm yet to find the "perfect" encoder, and I'm pretty sure we never will.

However, this codec to me seems a lot better than TMPGEnc and CCE, if I view the VIDEO samples side by side. I don't think something is wrong when I say that. I'm sure noone has lost his focus here. We all encoded with CCE and TMPGEnc for years, and the fact that we all test out ffvfw right now to me seems a great thing. I actually love the enthusiasm in this forum, and I love to participate in it. It's ok if one disagrees with some of the achievements here. But I still believe that there's actually no difference in finding the "perfect encoder" and finding an encoder which is better than TMPGenc or CCE right now. Because until now TMPGEnc and CCE were proven to be the best encoders out there, although far away from perfect. Now every encoder which does a better job, let it be only in High Bitrate MPEG-2, is something great, and also something to be enthusiastic about.
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #330  
02-04-2004, 10:57 AM
incredible incredible is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,189
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to incredible
@ Jell

ok, but I tested yesterday only on one movie where the results where in my eyes awesome, .... but the next movie "The Core" was very hard to handle ... ok I wanted to end up with a 480x576 K"V"CD


@ Phil

Well my frames do look that good continously in that stream, I just selected frames where the encoder shows different difficultinesses (ähm english?? ) to handle.
Also look at my last 480x576 on "The Core" no blocks at all and still a q curve very low for that kind of movie treatment and length. BUT to receive that picture I had to blur it a little... and that schould not be our final prediction method, do rise negative unfilter() settings for prediction. That sample did look even when using Notch much more worse in TmpgEnc compared to FFvfw mpeg2.

I now what do you mean by sayin that others will get confused by hearing those impressive yellouts But ... well lets party a bit ... its like new girl-friends which by the time will still be even more interesting or maybe the other way und you leave her

Now to Kwags sample ......

@ Kwag
sorry Kwag, I didn't took a look at it as I first had to catch up the last postings or if yours was posted already yesterday I overflew it cause of my being exited.

I have to agree with Phil according to the "gibbs" at the edges at the beginning or the surface over Val Kilmers left shouder at sec 6.
Im at work now and Im not shure if you did mention your quantizer and what would be the approx. final full filesize for that movie?

Did you add noise to that sample?
Reply With Quote
  #331  
02-04-2004, 10:59 AM
Krassi Krassi is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 390
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I've just tested the 1-pass-quantizer-mode (@2)
At first view, it seems to be great. Filesize is about 40% less. I have to verify that

EDIT: Was a bug in VDub (bombed and encoded only 2/3 of the video )
Reply With Quote
  #332  
02-04-2004, 11:17 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellygoose
Now every encoder which does a better job, let it be only in High Bitrate MPEG-2, is something great, and also something to be enthusiastic about.
I'm sorry but ffvfw does not do better work than CCE on a 1 movie-DVD, and CCE is still a very good challenger for 2-movie DVD (taht probably depend on the movies but ffvfw should loose on somes and win on others).

ffvfw if far better than CCE when we are talking about quite small target filesize (let say 3 movie-DVD). That's a reality : at this, CCE is awfull, at this ffvfw is better. But... at this ffvfw results are still unusable.

As I said, doing better than "not good" for the moment just lead to reach "rather good". And I just rang the bell because I see too much big words and nothing that bring us back to the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #333  
02-04-2004, 11:20 AM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krassi
EDIT: Was a bug in VDub (bombed and encoded only 2/3 of the video )
This morning I tried to run virtualdubmod and it didn't even start the process ! But I hadn't find the time to look further the reason.
Reply With Quote
  #334  
02-04-2004, 11:57 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by incredible
@ Kwag
sorry Kwag, I didn't took a look at it as I first had to catch up the last postings or if yours was posted already yesterday I overflew it cause of my being exited.

I have to agree with Phil according to the "gibbs" at the edges at the beginning or the surface over Val Kilmers left shouder at sec 6.
Im at work now and Im not shure if you did mention your quantizer and what would be the approx. final full filesize for that movie?

Did you add noise to that sample?
No, I didn't add noise. I think

But apparently, it's a source related issue
Look at my screenshot from the original VOB ( different aspect, because VOB is anamorphic ) :



Now look at ffvfw's screenshot:



And TMPEG's screenshot:



Anyway, you can clearly see that around the letters and some edges on the original, there are slight artefacts. So ffvfw is doing a great job reproducing them too, but not creating new ones

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #335  
02-04-2004, 12:05 PM
Dialhot Dialhot is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,463
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Anyway, you can clearly see that around the letters and some edges on the original, there are slight artefacts. So ffvfw is doing a great job reproducing them too, but not creating new ones
okay if the source in the cause, that's different. A script can handle that easily

And for all others problem I related ?
Reply With Quote
  #336  
02-04-2004, 04:01 PM
ARAGORN ARAGORN is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 50
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Kwag

Have you tried 528x576 on dvd? I've tested it on my pana dmre 50 and it works. I've used bitrate 6426 and i frame interval 25.
Reply With Quote
  #337  
02-04-2004, 04:07 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 ARAGORN
Kwag

Have you tried 528x576 on dvd? I've tested it on my pana dmre 50 and it works. I've used bitrate 6426 and i frame interval 25.
No, haven't tried that yet
What I'm going to try in a little while, is encoding one of my Panasonic DMR-E80 captures, to see how it looks

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #338  
02-04-2004, 04:28 PM
Racer99 Racer99 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 119
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by incredible

But ... to me it seems that there is no VBV Buffer to set in ffvfw!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
No, there is not. However, if you can find one of the early beta version of TMPEG, TMPGEnc-0.11.20.97.zip with the english patch, there's an option in the MPEG tools that will let you correct the VBV buffer size. Give that a try.

-kwag
You can find the here:

TMPGEnc-0.11.20.97.zip (Main Program) http://www.pcphotovideo.com/Download...0.11.20.97.zip

tmpg_en0725.zip (Update to .12 and Japanese to English Translation) http://www.pcphotovideo.com/Downloads/tmpg_en0725.zip

Hope this works for you.

Racer99
Reply With Quote
  #339  
02-04-2004, 04:56 PM
Dano Dano is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Brockton, MA
Posts: 134
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't know if it will make any difference but I have been using VirtualDub-Mpeg-2. I know some of you have had problems with VirtualDubMod, it might be worth trying.

http://fcchandler.home.comcast.net/
__________________
-Dano
Reply With Quote
  #340  
02-04-2004, 05:03 PM
nicksteel nicksteel is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 863
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dano
I don't know if it will make any difference but I have been using VirtualDub-Mpeg-2. I know some of you have had problems with VirtualDubMod, it might be worth trying.

http://fcchandler.home.comcast.net/
This is also what I use.
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FFMPEG vs FFVFW vs Mencoder ? bilu Video Encoding and Conversion 561 04-15-2004 06:16 AM
FFMPEG: Observation about ffvfw poerschr Video Encoding and Conversion 28 02-24-2004 05:50 PM
FFMPEG: Ffvfw - What is video buffer verifier and what is it matter? Prodater64 Video Encoding and Conversion 1 02-23-2004 07:46 AM
FFMPEG: Do ffvfw and mencoder/ffmpeg give the same results? Razorblade2000 Video Encoding and Conversion 4 02-06-2004 04:23 PM
FFMPEG: XMPEG 5.03 and ffvfw kwag Video Encoding and Conversion 2 02-05-2004 10:57 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55 PM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd