Avisynth Filter Order?

[Reno]

I'm updating my humble 'noise reducing script' and want to include fluxsmooth and blockbuster. I currently use convolution3d and have been impressed with the results. However there is a certain 'restlessness' or 'swimminess' on certain static surfaces (mostly walls and floors). The addition of Blockbuster would ameliorate this, I think. My question is this. Should I run all three filters? And if so, in what order?

And BTW, my Avisynth version is 2.07. Will your filters marked 2-5 work with this, Sansgrip? Or should I go with the originals?

[SansGrip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reno

However there is a certain 'restlessness' or 'swimminess' on certain static surfaces (mostly walls and floors).

Try FaeryDust. In my short tests it totally elimated moving blocks in static areas.

Quote:

And BTW, my Avisynth version is 2.07. Will your filters marked 2-5 work with this, Sansgrip?

No. Those are versions for Avisynth 2.5, which is still in alpha phase. They won't work with 2.0x.

[kwag]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SansGrip

Try FaeryDust. In my short tests it totally elimated moving blocks in static areas.

There's no doubt about that

-kwag

[Reno]

Excellent! Should I worry about that 'blockiness in high action' problem Steady wrote about? Have either of you guys seen a problem with it yet?

Sansgrip, I see you recommend Faerydust over Pixiedust. Is the light noise setting best? Remember I'm working with mostly Divx sources (more noise)...

[Reno]

P.S. I'm plugging in Convolution after Pixiedust right now. I'll post my results.

[kwag]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reno

P.S. I'm plugging in Convolution after Pixiedust right now. I'll post my results.

"Pixiedust" is that a new filter

-kwag

[Reno]

Negative. Their are two settings for the Dust filter. Faerydust is for light noise. Pixiedust is for medium noise. I'm looking at the encode now, and it looks frikkin gorgeous!!

[kwag]

Ah!, ok, then I guess we could try pixiedust on captures. But not on DVD sources

-kwag

[SansGrip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reno

Should I worry about that 'blockiness in high action' problem Steady wrote about?

It's not too bad. It is noticible if you pause during high action, but since that's when MPEG tends to get blocky anyway, I figure it's not too much of a problem. It will be nice when he fixes it though .

Quote:

Sansgrip, I see you recommend Faerydust over Pixiedust.

In my tests the high-motion blockiness was noticibly worse with PixieDust, and for anything other than analog captures I think FaeryDust should work perfectly well enough. For very noisy sources like captures you might want to try PixieDust though.

[Reno]

Jeez, you guys are 'on the spot!!' with your responses!!

I'm considering using Fluxsmooth as a complement to Pixiedust. Since Fluxsmooth is motion sensitive, it should work nicely, shouldn't it? Or would it oversoften the movie??

[SansGrip]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reno

I'm considering using Fluxsmooth as a complement to Pixiedust.

They're both denoisers, so you only need one. And since FaeryDust is (much) better, I'd go with that if you can afford the significantly extended encode times .

Quote:

Since Fluxsmooth is motion sensitive, it should work nicely, shouldn't it?

Flux uses motion adaption, while FaeryDust and PixieDust use motion estimation. It's a whole different, much more accurate, ball of wax .

Quote:

Or would it oversoften the movie??

It shouldn't. Personally, though, I'd use FaeryDust or Flux for denoising (depending on how patient you are). If you're having trouble getting the CQ up enough then combine that with Convolution3D(preset="movieHQ") for increased compression.

[kwag]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SansGrip

It's a whole different, much more accurate, ball of wax .

Wax ON, Wax OFF.