Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
-kwag |
@SansGrip and Kwag,
Quote:
wish I could get on the same page as you guys. I bet you both are using settings that most, if not all, of us are unware of and that's why the samples look so great and we can't duplicate them. :( I'm vasilating between KVCDx3 CQ and CQ_VBR. Blockbuster dither set to it's highest shows no effect with CQ at any setting. This is very frustrating :? I wish I could duplicate Kwag's great looking samples once and know how it was done step-step to get the same results :? -black prince |
Quote:
If you set to something like this: min_detail=1, max_detail=10, variance=50 8O you don't see the effect 8O -kwag |
Quote:
Right now I recommend CQ_VBR for 352x240 and 352x480 with noise or dither, and CQ for 528x480 and 704x480 without noise or dither. With CQ mode I use a spoilage of 0 0 -- I don't remember precisely why, but I know it gave the best results in one set of tests I did. Aside from that I believe that the correct preprocessing is important for good results. I'll sometimes increase smoothing significantly if I'm having trouble getting something down to size. I find the resulting increase in CQ/CQ_VBR level compensates for the sharpness you're taking out. I also find bilinear resize to be overall the best method. It's recommended by many people when reducing rather than enlarging, and is the most compressible of all the resizing methods. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: I still see a small advantage by using a very small "dither" even at 528x480. Something like this: Blockbuster(method="dither", detail_min=1, detail_max=10, variance=.4, seed=1) -kwag |
@SansGrip and Kwag,
Thanks, for the explaination. It makes sense. :) One solution doesn't fit all. Each movie seems to be different in terms of settings and testing. The suggestions you made are very helpful. It seems each movie requires expermenting to get the best picture quality. I intend to buy "Signs" next and will put some of your suggestions to good use. :) -black prince |
SansGrip,
Are you using "Fast" motion estimation, or are you using "High quality" :?: -kwag |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
As I promised earlier today, here's my latest sample. First, here's the script used:
Code:
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\MPEG2DEC.dll") This was encoded at 528x480 using CQ mode with a value of 65.5 ( target for one CD-R ) and using "High quality" on motion estimation. Audio was encoded at 112Kbps with "Surround 2" ( Prologic II ). This sample includes audio :wink: The complete multiplexed .mpg file size is 792,421KB :mrgreen: SansGrip, Let me know how this sample sound on your new receiver :D -kwag |
Just a counter-point to the bilinear resize... Lanczos gives me _much_ cleaner results, with only minimal loss in compressibility. An 11.68meg clip done with Lanczos only dropped to 11.57meg with bilinear. Granted, this adds up slightly over the course of a 700meg movie, but the tradeoff wasn't enough to give up the sharpness and clarity provided by Lanczos. Granted, this may be impacted by my source, but don't throw out Lanczos yet. (I didn't try substituting Lanczos with bilinear+blockbuster sharpen).
|
Hi Daagar,
At least at 528x480, which is already a high resolution, lanczos created slightly more visible artifacts than bilinear. Also, my CQ value was stepped up almost 2 point for the same target file size by changing to bilinear. I can clearly see the difference around objects and on dark backgrounds. At least that's the result I got by comparing both samples, one with lanczos, and the other one with bilinear on the movie above. -kwag |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
@Kwag,
I finally noticed Blockbuster dither at variance=50, but at variance=.4 is very subtle. I had to magnifiy the frame and then it's not immediately noticable. Are you using Headac3he or BeSweet for "Surround 2 (Prologic II)". What happen to "Dual Channel" in Headac3he? :? BTW, the sample clip was very good!! With very little Gibbs for the file size created. :D @SansGrip, I took you advice about trying both CQ and CQ_VBR. The source seemed to determine which process came out better. Guide lines for which to use based on the source would be nice. :) Using bilinear, fluxsmooth, and dither, compressed the final file size by 40%, so the video+audio fits on 1 CD with great picture quality. Lanczos looked better, but the compromise between file size/picture quality was my final decision :) -black prince |
Quote:
There's a (Stupid) debate at the "Other" forum about "stereo" or "dual channel". I use dual channel because I don't want ANY variations from one channel to the other. In stereo, there are, and this variations "correlations" mess up surround signals on some receivers. This has been reported before by a couple of users. Using dual channel, their problems were over :wink: . Quote:
-kwag |
Quote:
|
SansGrip,
Sorry for taking too long to reply - the keyboard of my computer at home just died and so I just could test the new DLL now that I'm back to work :) The new DLL works OK with the code I posted before, I didn't even had to recompile. :ole: I'll create a new post in the FitCD forum, with the link to your DLL and my Delphi code, so it's both easier to Muaddib to pick it and we stop polluting the file prediction forum :) |
kwag --
I've noticed this a few times testing the notch matrix. I think this might be a symptom of overflows caused by using values less than 8: http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif If you look in the highlighted area (save the image and zoom in with your favourite viewer) you'll see a red-and-green striped box and to its right some purple and yellow streaks. I also find the lower grab to be somewhat less sharp than the upper. Look in particular at the forehead of the guy on the left. What do you think? |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.