12-29-2002, 11:10 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
However, there must be a very noticeable difference in quality if we're going to use 2-pass VBR, because the encoding time will be 2X the time compared to CQ or CQ_VBR.
|
Yep, though if the quality increase is significant I'd say it would be worth it -- at least for those with faster machines.
Personally I'd let mine (Athlon XP 2100+) encode all night if it meant significantly better quality, at least for important jobs.
|
Someday, 12:01 PM
|
|
Site Staff / Ad Manager
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
|
|
|
12-29-2002, 11:13 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Well, so far I have my sample clips of Resident Evil (2424 frames) encoded at 704x480 CQ_VBR with dither, 704x480 CQ without dither, 528x480 CQ_VBR with dither, 528x480 CQ without dither, and 352x480 CQ_VBR with dither. All are at 11.4mb. I'm very close to having 352x480 CQ without dither finished (it's at 11.3mb right now), and then tomorrow I'll do 352x240 and watch them all on my TV.
After that I have to redo the whole thing with kwag's new Q matrix  .
|
12-29-2002, 11:15 PM
|
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 SansGrip
Well, so far I have my sample clips of Resident Evil (2424 frames) encoded at 704x480 CQ_VBR with dither, 704x480 CQ without dither, 528x480 CQ_VBR with dither, 528x480 CQ without dither, and 352x480 CQ_VBR with dither. All are at 11.4mb. I'm very close to having 352x480 CQ without dither finished (it's at 11.3mb right now), and then tomorrow I'll do 352x240 and watch them all on my TV.
After that I have to redo the whole thing with kwag's new Q matrix  .
|
Now will that be too long, because now I'm sitting on the edge of the chair waiting for your results ( Ouch  )
|
12-29-2002, 11:24 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Now will that be too long, because now I'm sitting on the edge of the chair waiting for your results ( Ouch  ) 
|
You may as well get comfortable since it's taken me hours to get this far  . I find getting precisely sized samples with CQ takes a lot longer than CQ_VBR. There's no way of knowing if you need to increase by 0.5 or by 2. It's very frustrating  .
|
12-29-2002, 11:26 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
...mainly because, 5 sample encodes later, I discover, for example, that I've been doing CQ 352x480 WITH dither instead of without.
Like now.
GRRRRR  .
|
12-29-2002, 11:27 PM
|
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 SansGrip
I find getting precisely sized samples with CQ takes a lot longer than CQ_VBR. There's no way of knowing if you need to increase by 0.5 or by 2. It's very frustrating  .
|
Oh you're 100% right. It's a pain  . Every time I calculate "((wanted/current) * current CQ)" the curve is completely off on the next encode  . Try it with the BETA-2 matrix, it's a little more linear
-kwag
|
12-29-2002, 11:30 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Try it with the BETA-2 matrix, it's a little more linear 
|
That's next on my list  .
By the way, how did the method="dither" sample strip compare to method="noise"?
|
12-29-2002, 11:43 PM
|
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 SansGrip
By the way, how did the method="dither" sample strip compare to method="noise"?
|
On 704x480 and 528x480, I can see a clear advantage. At 352x240, the macroblocks are just so big, that anything I try they still show  . I'm currently encoding with CQ=53.39 and the new matrix the movie K-19 at 528x480. Here's a short cut from the prediction sample: http://www.kvcd.net/test-kvcd-new-matrix.m1v
Made is with this script:
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\MPEG2DEC.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\fluxsmooth.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\sampler.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\blockbuster.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\legalclip.dll")
mpeg2source("K:\K19\VIDEO_TS\k19.d2v")
LegalClip()
LancZosResize(496,336)
FluxSmooth()
Blockbuster(method="dither", detail_min=1, detail_max=10, variance=1)
AddBorders(16,72,16,72)
LegalClip()
-kwag
|
12-29-2002, 11:53 PM
|
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Kwag please:
how can we "found" this values?
AddBorders(16,72,16,72)
why is 16,72,.....?
|
12-29-2002, 11:55 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
On 704x480 and 528x480, I can see a clear advantage.
|
Really? Cool  .
Quote:
At 352x240, the macroblocks are just so big, that anything I try they still show .
|
Yes, there's probably not much we can do about that. If you set the intra-frame Q matrix to all 8s (the lowest you can go) you'll still see tons of DCT blocks. MPEG-1 I-frames are blocky, period  .
|
12-29-2002, 11:59 PM
|
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 jorel
Kwag please:
how can we "found" this values?
AddBorders(16,72,16,72)
why is 16,72,.....? 
|
FitCD
|
12-30-2002, 12:09 AM
|
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
thanks (fitcd)!
i see the "test-kvcd-new-matrix.m1v
and seems strange (a little) aspect radio.(faces like eggs)
|
12-30-2002, 12:12 AM
|
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 jorel
thanks (fitcd)!
i see the "test-kvcd-new-matrix.m1v
and seems strange (a little) aspect radio.(faces like eggs) 
|
Rename the file to .mpg and play it in WinDVD or PowerDVD
DON'T USE WMP
It's a 528x480 file.
-kwag
|
12-30-2002, 12:16 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,224
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
@Kwag,
The first noticable benifit of the new KVCD Notch (Beta-2) Q-Matrix is
test file size has decreased from 22,865,194 to 21,896,514. I'm using
704x480, lanczosresize, Fluxsmooth, CQ 50. Picture quality is difficult
to judge, but it looks as good as the old Q-Matrix. Going to try Notch
Q-Matrix on 352x240 CQ_VBR. Let you know results later today.
-black prince
|
12-30-2002, 12:22 AM
|
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 black prince
@Kwag,
The first noticable benifit of the new KVCD Notch (Beta-2) Q-Matrix is
test file size has decreased from 22,865,194 to 21,896,514. I'm using
704x480, lanczosresize, Fluxsmooth, CQ 50. Picture quality is difficult
to judge, but it looks as good as the old Q-Matrix. Going to try Notch
Q-Matrix on 352x240 CQ_VBR. Let you know results later today.
-black prince
|
You should notice less artifacts (Gibbs) on high frequency components and less macroblocks on fast scenes. Also slightly lower dancing DCT blocks on low lit scenes. It's just a little, but it helps
-kwag
|
12-30-2002, 07:45 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,224
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hey Kwag,
Kwag wrote:
Quote:
You should notice less artifacts (Gibbs) on high frequency components and less macroblocks on fast scenes. Also slightly lower dancing DCT blocks on low lit scenes. It's just a little, but it helps
|
I did notice improvements using "avscompare" under magnification mode.
They were small but did appear improved. I have a question about
528x480 Plus (KVCDx3). What needs to be done to the Template so that
I can make it work as CQ instead of CQ_VBR  I haven't tried the
new Q-Matrix with this resolution yet. Are you still using Blockbuster
dither with CQ
Thanks
-black prince
|
12-30-2002, 08:17 AM
|
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 black prince
I have a question about
528x480 Plus (KVCDx3). What needs to be done to the Template so that I can make it work as CQ instead of CQ_VBR 
|
Just go to Settings/Video/RateControl and change to CQ.
Quote:
I haven't tried the new Q-Matrix with this resolution yet. Are you still using Blockbuster dither with CQ
Thanks
-black prince
|
I'm still experimenting with dither
-kwag
|
12-30-2002, 08:28 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Ok, I've got 352x240, 352x480, 528x480 and 704x480 all done using both CQ_VBR with dither and CQ without. I'm now encoding them all again, this time using the new matrices...
|
12-30-2002, 08:45 AM
|
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 SansGrip
Ok, I've got 352x240, 352x480, 528x480 and 704x480 all done using both CQ_VBR with dither and CQ without. I'm now encoding them all again, this time using the new matrices... 
|
Can't wait for the results  , either good or bad. The truth, and nothing but the truth
-kwag
|
12-30-2002, 01:50 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hey SansGrip  Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick
Are the results  or are they :P
-kwag
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 PM — vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd
|