:bouncy: :hopline: :bigooh:
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

this is the real life!

after much reading,write,test,adjust,teach,learn,discuss,ask, think.......

the people here (like me),

is gonna crazy! :lol:

I still haven't found your requested icon jorel :teeth:

-kwag

how can i put a little bitmap here?(3,02k) :?

Do you have an icon? You can send it to my e-mail. Send me a PM.

how i put the image?(bitmap)
tick in what?

Check your PM.

-kwag

Here are my findings for pal,

I`ve found the following to work best for me,
For darkish movies like Blade2 Men in black, I found using CQ without blockbuster 528x576 to be the best,
and all other movies using blockbuster Cq-Vbr looks best to me, I`ll try the new dither blockbuster 7 tommorow, after new years coz i`m working on a new years bash tonight. I did try the new matrix not extensively though so i`m still experimenting with that.

Thanks for all the hard work guys, and have a great new year :D :D :D ,

God bless.

thanks,.........i see you all in 2003.
Happy New Year,progress,fortune,happiness!
GOD bless you all,good morning!

I agree with SansGrip when he said after things slow down you guys could make a how to guide. I don't know about every one else but I'm going crazy trying to keep up with Kwag and SansGrip and all the new software. Don't get me wrong because all the hard work is paying off. Everyone on this forum loves your templates,and look how far we all have come. But with all the new software and you guys fitting longer movies onto one cd some of us aren't sure how you did it or were to start. But a guild could show everyone how you get very great results,and a new faq would be nice also. And the new icons look
great! :ole: :litesbr: :gun: :punch: :tongue2:
Ps: Thanks everyone for your hard work testing and testing again,and thanks kwag for you great templates and everyone helping kwag with his great templates!

I think CQ mode has less Gibbs and responds better to fast motion. I'll be interested to hear what you think.

CQ prediction does work for me, but it's a very slow process. Generally I do it manually, and go up or down maybe 2 or 3 at a time until I end up on the "other side" of my target, then I'll go up (or down) by 1.

It is possible to get very accurate sample sizes, but it generally takes many more iterations than CQ_VBR. That's the one downside of CQ...

8) I feel kinda spacy-punk-cool that I started a 4000-views threat at my favorite website :buzz: :wavey:

yeah! and as for the results: I'm totally with SansGrip and kwag.
But since I only encode in higher resolutions, I'll stick with CQ! :lol:

CU next year!!

kwag -

Now I look at beta-1 more closely I see you're using values lower than 8. This concerns me somewhat, since I'm under the impression (correct or otherwise ;)) that 8 should be the minimum value in the matrix.

This is because the result of a discrete cosine transform is a number between 0 and 2047, and if you were to divide by less than 8 you could get a number greater than 255. This would result in an overflow and subsequent artifacts.

I could be wrong, though.

@SansGrip,

SansGrip wrote:
That's similiar to the way I'm doing file prediction for CQ. I pay
attention to the test file size result and less to the predicted new CQ.
When I'm < 8MB near the target file size, I increase CQ by 1 until
I'm within 2% to 3%. CQ creates a final file size a little larger
than the predicted file. I also use 128kb audio minus CD size, so
if the final video file size is too big for target, I can reduce the audio
size to fit. It's a little tricky, but it's working :D

-black prince

I thought so too :eeks:, but only if I use 0 or 1, then video starts to jump. Maybe what's happening is we're getting a real "clamping" effect ( again a notch ) where I'm using the 6 and 7 values. Or maybe changing the 6 and 7 for 8 will have the same effect. Then we'll know if there's no sense in going below 8. If this is the case, then I will sit in a corner for a while because :imstupid: :cyclops:

-kwag

@SansGrip,

For Cropping I used Tmpgenc's Clip Frame to get the Crop settings.
e.g. Crop(left,top,-right,-bottom). I mask in multiples of 4 to avoid
macro block errors. Next I use FitCD to get correct aspect ratio and
save this in my script:

mpeg2source("D:\Temp\movie.d2v")
Crop(4,64,0,-68 )
LegalClip()
LanczosResize(496,352)
FluxSmooth()
AddBorders(16,64,16,64)
LegalClip()
Sampler()

This seems to work and is simpler than using FitCD to get crop settings.
Can you tell me if I missed something :)

-black prince

That's pretty much what I do, except I usually use VDub to figure out how big the borders are :).

If you use zero you should get divide-by-zero errors -- I'm surprised it works at all :). If you use 1 then you're producing values from 0-2047 instead of 0-255. This is probably why it's jumping.

I'm not totally sure this is the case, but I know that TMPGEnc won't let you enter a value lower than 8 in the very top-left box. I'm thinking that the reason you can use a lower value elsewhere is simply a bug.

I think I'll go ask on Doom9 -- this one's outside my area of knowledge ;).

It's a HUGE difference. Look at this, and note specially around the eyes:

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2002/12/6.png

The top image is using the BETA-1 matrix. The top left of the matrix is this:


Where the bottom image is using this:

I think the notch is dead on target :wink:

Here are both samples:

http://www.kvcd.net/test-cq-beta-1.m1v
http://www.kvcd.net/test-cq-8s.m1v

-kwag

You're right, the lower values are better. However, that still doesn't rule out the case where it overflows and causes weird artifacts. Before going with it I'd like to get a definitive answer on whether one should use values less than 8 in the matrix :).

My tests with beta-1 showed quite a serious impact on CQ level. With the old matrix I got 69.9, and with beta-1 I got 62.8. This will probably equate to more macroblocks. I also saw more Gibbs :(. Are my results really that out of whack with yours?