Im also thinking about to build i a special motion adaptive option (on/off parameter) if desired.
Means The masked plain areas will get a very spatial softening on fast scenes. while the details will be "cached", means you wont have that MA phenomenom when a girl stands on the street and a big truck passes by in the backround which actually in the present MA would smooth the whole frame incl. the static sharp girl in front.
For shure when "caching" these Details less compression will be the result compared to the actual MA .... BUT the risk of such phenomenoms like mentioned above is much more reduced.


So im also thinking about doing a modular job, means not only one function but an avsi file which contains several functions which could be single! called and which also will be called within ads().

Second I have to get into that building the convolution kernel of degemask() where the mask is not called from presets like "roberts" but from 3x3 Kernels using values like shown above in didées dedgemask call within ads().

Also an optimzed script could be done via the integration of masktools, means if very complex scenes do occur (detection via YdifferenceToNext(edgemask) ) an "nf" adaptive "cpu2="ooooxx", fmin(quant=nf ,32) would be performed.
hmmmm

May I ask what the difference is between ADS, and Fluffbutt's script (can't remember the name right now) that he made maybe half a year ago?
I know it used MaskTools too... :roll:

It was HybridFupp from Fupp. I just looked into the source but its approach in filtering is different. It shurely got his on pros and contras like mine, but my resizing is based on One-half-one.

Masktools ist just like the name says a plugin which makes avisynth capable using enhanced masks. But everything you do IN the masked areas is script specific. Also its an own story HOW do you generate masks.
Didée also gots nice functions which do base on masktools like Limitedsharpen(), Restore24(), ipp().

;-)

Hi All,

This is my 1st post and I must say that I am hooked. You guys are really awesome. Kudos to everyone for making this possible.
Meanwhile, I have been following this thread and had perform some test and interestingly HybridFupp crops up.
Here is a test I did (side by side .... aka stacking) comparing ADS and HybridFupp. For ADS I am using the latest function posted.

Here is the screenshots

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

I did a 210 sec test individually .... i.e. each test for ADS and HybridFupp

Processing time:-
ADS - 10 mins 47 sec
HybridFupp - 9 mins 50 sec

Size:

ADS - 53MB
HybridFupp - 64MB

BTW, I incorporate kwag's Linear Motion Adaptive Filtering in the avs script that uses HybridFupp.

So inc ... perhaps we can look forward to improvement to ADS processing time and sharpness i.e. reduce blurring.

Sorry should my posting is irrelevant.

Cheers!
Scoprio

scorpio,
Great first post. But, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Just to see what would happen, I replaced ADS(sh=6,th=12) with HybridFupp() in my script. The results were better with ADS when using my noisy DV source tape. Sorry, I have no way to post nice pictures like you did. I think each filter has its place and needs to have the correct settings to get good results.

Hi Scorpio,

it seems that you did not set the mask threshold right. As you can see above in my samples I never got that blurry pics when setting the threshold right.

EVERYTIME do first make a preview using show=true, there you can see jow much the threshold has to be rised till the noise is off and beside this to still keep details.

Several times in the forum I have seen threads on new functions, so the cases of hybridfupp and now ADS. Never I have seen reach a definitive conclusion nor that they are gotten up to optimal scripts section. It could be possible this time?
Or it means that hybridfupp and ADS does not obtain the quality of the Kwag's optimal MA script.

Hi Pete / Inc .... Thanks mate.

Pete are quite right to point that "each filter has its place and needs to have the correct settings to get good results" and that is the absolute truth.

Thanks for the suggestions and I have done a couple more test and data collected as follows:-

As u can see ADS is very promising. I am currently running the script with DVD-RB and RB-Opt.

Samples Shot with Sharpen(6) Threshold (12) - HybridFupp

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif

I am totally blown away with ADS output and the significant time saving.

Cheers Guys!
Scorpio

Hi,

The only problem I see, is that the actor has been shaved by ADS...

Can you post the same picture from the VOB?

Thanks,
Fabrice

scorpio,
Sharpen(6) Threshold (12) are deffinitely not a good choice for high quailty video. As you can see the detail is removed because that is a setting to remove a lot of noise. I have not investigated settings for improving detail on high quality video, but they would be more like Sharpen(8)Threshold (4). The large Threshold value is going to smooth out detail in order to remove noise. One of the advantages of this function is that it can smooth the solid areas without bluring the edges.

great observations fabrice! :wink:
i see and think the same, deserve a little more sharpness(maybe sharpness), a vob picture for reference and link(or thumbnail) to see the result in 720x??? (full size).will be the best way for comparisons!

scorpio
if need space to host big pictures use: http://www.imageshack.com
:)

you can do something like this:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i...2004/09/32.jpg
click on thumbnail or in the link: http://img61.exs.cx/img61/5271/jorelcomputer.jpg

sorry..i forgot to post:

:arrow: ADS quality is fantastic, IMHO only need little more sharpness.
question of personal taste but if the picture could be posted in full size,
the sharpness will encrease and if it happen, is perfect! :wink:

Guys thanks for all the input .... I am taken ill since yesterday so here are a couple of screen shots including the source vob.

Source Vob
Sharpen(8) - Threshold(4)
Sharpen(8) - Threshold(3)
Sharpen(8) - Threshold(2)
Sharpen(6) - Threshold(4)
Sharpen(6) - Threshold(3)
Sharpen(6) - Threshold(2)
Sharpen(4) - Threshold(2)

Just click OK when prompt for password.

IMO a lower threshold produce an output comparable to the source. Honestly I am very happy with ADS output .... perhaps I an just a bit lazy to play around with other tunables parameters.

Cheers!
Scorpio

scorpio,
Great. Thanks for posting all of the test photos.

Yesterday I was digging around in my stock of functions and script and I only found a very old version of HybridFupp. So I downloaded the latest release of hubfupp and had a look at it.

On clean DVD Sources it does a very nice job! (as known)
But on captures you have to rise a lot the values of the choosen temporal denoiser. This caused a lot of temporal artifacts. Thats NOT the fault of HybFupp but of the regular side effect when hard temporal filtering a lot of noise. And thats what ads() tries to avoid by reducing the height by 2 before it gets denoised, where the details will be overlayed again afterwards using the maskedmerge.

So as said in the beginning of the thread.

1. - Do set the source path in your avs and do set in ads() show=true
2. - Look at the mask. Do lower the threshold till just a bit of noise is included in the mask (lowering the threshold is don via threshold=x or in case of HQmask the first value of levels(x,.....) in the function. This gives you the best efficience of keeping details by still handling the noise.
3. - do set show=false and do your preview again.

Related to captures:
BE CAREFUL with the adding of sharpeness as captures do also got a lot of noise on edges. That means if just sharpen those edges, mosquitos will be the result.
And thats why still no new version of ads() was relesed this Weekend: I was searching for a best possible mask method based on an optimal convolution kernel.

Developement is continuing .... ;-)

you're not alone my friend! :wink:

of course i only saw the pictures but let me ask to ink:

PLEASE.... :bowdown: show me the script for dvd sources! :D
i want to use ADS now in my tests!

Hi Inc .... I attached here 2 shots with 2 different TH value, sharpen fixed to 8, HQMask=false and show=true.

Appreciate if you could enlighten me which shots has lower noise in the mask.

TH2
TH12

Jorel ... I think Inc is referring to HybridFupp (I may be wrong though).

I did another test with the same source ... S(8), TH(4) ... I get a file size of 160,892,928 processing time 10mins 14secs

I also did another test with the same setting as above (S(8), TH(4)) and now I include kwag's LMAF in the script .... this time I get a file size of 136,329,912 processing time 14mins 28secs

Cheers!
Scorpio

:douh:
oh yes :oops: ...thanks! :wink: your fault scorpio. (kiddin)
i read faster after see your great pictures posted! :lol:

hummm i see...then, redoing a question:

ink, show me the ADS script for clean DVDs sources please!
:bowdown:

@ Scorpio

First:

As you can see in the first mask the "white" areas do show which will be kept as detail (and if set which will be sharpened)! All other areas will be denoised/smoothed --- so the mask with higher threshold will result in less "white" areas --- means less details kept (or in other words more low details will be smoothed)


Second:

As you do sharpen the source's details for shure the compression will be less. So its all upon a compromise ;-)

What do you mean by LMAF ??? Did you include the MA routine??
What means "include"??? Doing a separate test ONLY using the MA?
BECAUSE: DO NOT MIX diff. functions!!!!!!!!!!!
The same thing if people try to enter the "optimalscript" from DialHot, changing parameters/allocations etc. and then the problems which do result are messed up outputs!


@ Jorel

On clean DVD sources??
Well EVERY "clean" DVD source gots diff. amount of noise, so do the testing using diff. Thresholds and do preview the avs in Vdub.
Start from threshold=3 and do rise it till the noise is off AND all needed details are kept. :wink:

The real link:

http://www.imageshack.us/