Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm running two more tests now without sampler to see what the end file size is. Maybe this was the ticket to optimize CQ mode :idea: -kwag |
I just finished two 5 minute encodes with both GOP's The visual difference, at least to me, is remarkable. 8O
The file size for GOP 1-12-2-1-24 was 24,338KB and for 1-12-1-1-24 was 24,339KB :mrgreen: 1KB difference :mrgreen: Now I'm running the same test on another 5 minute section. The lobby scene 8) I'll edit this post. Running second test ...... Done!, File size for 1-12-2-1-24 is 42,066KB File size for 1-12-1-1-24 is 42,487KB This was on the lobby scene which is a very active high action part. That's 421KB larger for the 1-12-1-1-24. Not that much, considering a 5 minute clip full of action, and the quality difference is just worth it 8O :D Now, to encode the complete movie, again :x -kwag |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes, it's 1-12-2-1-24 Edit: I just edited the post -kwag |
Quote:
Could you run just one more test with the 1-12-1-1-24 and the BETA-1 matrix, and see if the artifacts are still there :?: I just want to be sure that it's really the values below 8, or the GOP combination. Maybe with the IBP GOP the artifacts won't appear :!: -kwag |
Quote:
|
I hope you guys get the new GOP and CQ optimizations done soon..I've got lots to encode - the Star Trek reruns began today :lol: I don't want to encode the series with lower quality if there's a new, great improvement coming just 'round the corner :wink:
|
SansGrip,
I look like this :teeth:, waiting on your result before the :sun: goes down :mrgreen: |
Quote:
I've been doing some tests with the new GOP, CQ and CQ_VBR. Here's my verdict: CQ_VBR mode is better for shorter movies (say, 90mins at 528x480 or 120mins at 352x480, or whatever) where you can afford to use Blockbuster. It really does improve the picture quality significantly wrt blockiness. Personally, I would even drop the audio down a notch to get less blockiness, but that's just me :). CQ mode is better when you have a borderline case for a particular resolution. Since it quantizes low frequencies much more aggressively, it can spend more bits on higher-frequency stuff and thus you see reduced Gibbs etc. and an overall nicer quality. Unfortunately, you do get blockiness. That seems to be unavoidable with this mode. As far as the new GOP goes, it definitely reduces CQ mode blocks noticibly. Perhaps it's stealing some bits back into low-freq areas from high-freq areas, because I see no detrimental effects from the change. Hence I give it a thumbs up for CQ :). It doesn't have much effect on CQ_VBR mode, though, other than a significant increase in file size (2 CQ_VBR levels). It gets a thumbs down for CQ_VBR mode ;). And that... is my final answer :mrgreen:. |
@kwag
Those artifacts are still visible with the new GOP and beta-1 :(. |
Quote:
Side note: I finished my encode of "The Matrix" with the new GOP, and 8O 8O 8O that's what it looks like :D Final size 666,669KB ( :spook: ) which I had estimated 687. But my Sampler() size was ~11.3MB and the required sample was 11.45MB, so the prediction is right on the ball with this GOP too :) Edit: I'm using TMPGEnc 2.59 PLUS -kwag |
Quote:
Quote:
Not only that, but it could be happening in areas where it's unlikely you'll see it. I have a theory that it requires several of these in the same area to be really visible on casual inspection, perhaps caused by strong vertical or horizontal edges around a very low-frequency area. Or something like that ;). Quote:
Just out of interest, take a look through the final encode using VirtualDub (use the brightness/contrast filter to increase the brightness quite a bit) and I think you'll find one of those artifacts with enough looking. I've seen them several times with various sources using the notch matrix. |
OK SansGrip, that will be my assignment for the rest of the night. Matrix cleanup and de-artifacting :D
BTW, here's a piece of the full encode on "The Matrix" with the new GOP. It's only about 11 seconds: http://www.kvcd.net/test-newmat-cq-.mpg (No audio) just renamed the .m1v to .mpg so people can play it on WinDVD, etc :wink: -kwag |
Quote:
Is that LBR or 352x240-PLUS? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Kwag,
In your latest "Matrix" sample, did you use NEW GOP (1-12-1-1-24) with original KVCD matrix or Notch beta-1 matrix? With NEW GOP, do we need blockbuster (noise or dither) at all? |
Quote:
Gaudi |
Quote:
Code:
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\MPEG2DEC.dll") -kwag |
Quote:
I must agree with black prince when he says that. I think that with heavy letterbox movies, like matrix and lotr, we should not use TV overscan. Well, not the way FitCD does. FitCD resizes to a smaller size and then insert the borders. Doing that it reduces the height of the film. IMHO, with movies like that I think we should overlap the frame with black borders (using the letterbox filter) and not resize to a smaller size. Some times I even cut some of left and right columns to be able to increase the height a bit and keep the aspect ratio intact. |
I agree too... I'm currently trying to encode LOTR... It's hard to find correct resize values for this one... What would you recommend muaddib and others?
|
KVCD BETA-1a Matrix
@SansGrip and All:
Please test these matrix changes. It's the closest I have been able to get to the BETA-1 "notch" without causing division errors. Make the following changes to the current BETA-1 matrix (left top): Code:
8 9 12 Please let me know as soon as you have some results :D -kwag |
KVCD BETA-1a notch Matrix test
Here is a comparison with the original "KVCD" matrix and the new "BETA-1a notch" matrix.
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2003/01/2.png :wink: |
I just played the first 9 minutes of "The Matrix" on my HDTV, and all I can say is :jawdrop: :jawdrop: :jawdrop:
The same results with "K-19", compared to the previous encodes. Take a look at this, encoded with 1-12-1-1-24 GOP and KVCD BETA-1a notch matrix: http://www.kvcd.net/k-19-newgop-newmat.mpg (no audio) That's what the complete 138 minute film looks like on one CD-R :mrgreen: I think I'm going to go drink a (couple of ) beer(s) :flip: :bugeyes: -kwag |
@Kwag,
Quote:
-black prince |
Quote:
Also, make the matrix changes too, and encode a small sample. Let me know what you think 8) -kwag |
@Kwag,
Quote:
Gibbs noise is hardly there. Picture quality is even better than before. To sum it up, this is an excellent test clip. Now the big questions are what template did you use. What setting did you use for CQ or CQ_VBR? I will try a clip of my own to see if I can get the same results. :D -black prince |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That's basically it :D This should apply to all templates above 352x240(288) resolution. Maybe CQ will work now at lower resolutions :idea: . I haven't tried that yet 8) Let me know you findings :) -kwag |
@Kwag,
I used GOP 1-12-1-1-24, Notch Beta-1a and CQ for my own test and the results were just as good as your test clip. I guess I'll switch back to CQ with this result :wink: I know we push you, but look what you have accomplished :D -black prince |
Quote:
And you know what, I was just reading some old KVCD related posts at "another" site, and I'm LMAO right now :mrgreen: Here are some old quotes, with poster names not shown: the video quality of that will be AWFULL... you don't need to be an expert to know that... Needless to say, the quality will be sub-VCD if you actually did put 130 min on one disc. 130 minutes on a CDR? Oh gawd. I don't care what anyone ways, that just can't look too great. Depends what you see as quality. Something around 2000kbps, 2 pass VBR Divx 5 is what i define as ok, I fit all my rips on 2 CDR's but fitting that much on a disc won't give you DVD-like quality. No way I doesn't matter what XVCD template you use, putting 130 min on one CD will have the video quality at SUB-VCD quality. That is "less than standard VCD". And that's just some of them! :D The thing is, we're actually fitting over 2 hours on one CD, but at 528x480. And that is FAR above VCD quality. Actually, I think that we're very close to DVD quality. We're not that far off 8) -kwag |
Kwag,
which motion search precision have you been using in your latest tests? If it's 'high quality', would you please test both 'high quality' and 'motion estimate search' and compare them against each other. I'd really like to know if it's worth switching to the much slower one. |
Re: KVCD BETA-1a notch Matrix test
Quote:
|
Quote:
Testimonial: When I first got into this hobby all I wanted to do was transfer some VHS-C tapes to CD-R. After trying every encoder and every guide on "the other forum", on doom9, on digital-digest, etc. I gave up. There was nothing even barely acceptable. (VHS-C camvorder shooting is a difficult source: noisy, unstable colours, bad ilumination most of the time, the video is shaky, sudden pans, the auto-focus goes in and out, and you've got the "mom-i've-got-a-zoom" effect :)) So I sticked to convert DVD rips and analog tuner captures, that are much easier to encode, and gave good results with 2 CD SVCDs. After the amazing results I got with KVCDs, this week I decided to try again the VHS-C sources. Captured at 352x480 Huffyuv, converted to SKVCD (my player doesn't like hi-res mpeg1). It's GREAT! You can't tell it from the original tape. Many, many thanks. Some comments about the posts on the other forum. I think they don't get how complex the human perception is. They have a closed mind: "if I have a lower bitrate, I'll have more artifacts, and if I have more artifacts it's worse". Another example, if I have a 352x240 encode and a 544x480 encode, both at the same min, max and average bitrates, the 544x480 encode should look worse, because you have less bits per pixel, that's simple math. I think if you calculated PSNR for the encodes, KVCDs, specially KVCDx3 would have awful figures (maybe I'm wrong, because bitrate viewer shows nice Q figures). But it's not as simple as that. I'm only guessing, but I think KVCDs can actually have more artifacts (noise, distortion) than higher bitrate encodes, but it looks better, because it creates more artifacts that you can't see or that aren't annoying, and less artifacts that are annoying. A typical example is a very fast high action scene. The "normal" approach is bump up the bitrate so that it has few blocks. If you pause a KVCD at such a scene you'll see many blocks. But if the scene is in normal playing rate, you just can't see the blocks because they move too fast. Why expend bits where you can't see their effect? And you can use those extra bits where they are really needed. And, of course, we have the labourious fine tuning of GOP and Q matrix, the noise-dithering filter, etc that help squeezing the ultimate efficience from the encoder :) |
Quote:
|
@Kwag,
I browse other forums occasionally for KVCD and really focus on posts where members who have not tried KVCD process have generally the same comments. They get to the sight and there's no guides to get them started correctly. They usually encode with other methods, e.g. standard VCD, and just use your templates. They get frustrated having to wade throught so many forums and days of asking for help until they conclude that KVCD wouldn't work anyway. I realize at this time KVCD is under going a lot of great changes (e.g. sampler, Blockbuster, GOP, Q-Matrix, RoboCrop, and the list goes on) but as boring as guides are they get new comers and experienced started on the right track with KVCD. Also, other sites, mainly DivX one's have guide sections and some are use to looking for them. If i had just come to KVCD today and tried to figure out how to get started, I probably would give up, and have the same conclusions you are getting. :) @Boulder, When I used GKnot and Divx 5.0.2 the concept of pyschovisual fasinated me and the read about encoding what vision is able to perceive and eliminate the parts it can't. This whole topic alot of sense and produced encodes that in still frames looked bad, e.g. atrifacts, blockiness, but were in areas where our vision normally does'nt see. This not only saved file size, but actually enhanced picture quality. Divx 5.0.2 has some very good descriptions of how it's use and achieved. True it has to be done differently for KVCD, but I believe right now it happening by accident and not by design. Just like TV-Overscan is used to crop parts of the frame that won't be displayed anyway, psychovisual could be used to tune frames for detail that our vision won't detect. There's more that can be done to improve KVCD. @All, KVCD, when I joined, used to be improved templates, but now it's a process. e.g. FitCD, avisynth scripts, Tmpgenc setups, etc. It's grown into a excellent way to make backups. :D -black prince |
Quote:
So, I think that a simple, one-path guide would be appreciated by novices. The problem just is that things can evolve really fast around here. It wasn't that long ago when KVCDx3 meant 60 minutes per 80min CD 8O |
Quote:
I've been using "High quality". I'll make some tests today with this new stuff and "Fast" motion search :D Edit: Test finished on a sample. "High quality" is FAR better than "Fast" motion estimation. At the same CQ value, the "Fast", produced a sample slightly larger than the "High quality" sample. And the quality is also slightly inferior. So if I lower the CQ value to match the size of the "High quality", the result will be even worse. So, no contest, "High quality" wins :D -kwag |
I think the home page needs to be revamped a little, like maybe a link to the guides as the first thing to see. There also needs to be a tools section to make it easier to find everything you need in one spot. I think it might make it easier for newbees to follow.
-Yoda |
Quote:
-kwag |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.