Quote:
-kwag |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Right now I'm figuring out a good CQ_VBR for R.E. at 704x480, 1 disc. Then I'll try to get as close to that size as I can with CQ... |
Anyone else noticed that sometimes several CQ values (in my case 52-54) produce almost identical file sizes?
|
Quote:
-kwag |
So how will using CQ instead of CQ_VBR affect the prediction? Will KVCDP be able to be used the same way or do we have to do manual prediction?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I just found correct sample sizes for both CQ_VBR and CQ, but am having mixed results. While one particular frame is much improved with CQ (with CQ_VBR it is almost entirely made up of macroblocks), generally the CQ version is slightly more blocky. But this is with motion estimation -- I'm currently reencoding at high quality to see if it makes a difference. |
I have a feeling that CQ mode has a better bit rate allocation than CQ_VBR. That's why artefacts are less noticeable than with CQ_VBR. That's just my thought :o
-kwag |
@Kwag and SansGrip,
Used 704x480, GOP=1-2-12-1-24, commented Blockbuster noise, 2 CD's with 112kb audio and CQ=85. The movie, Vanilla Sky, 2hr 19 min and the verdict is WOW great 8O Looking at BitRate Viewer, the average Q = 2.87. I wish there was a corrulation between picture quality and Q. :? Fast action scenes has the lowest Gibbs noise I've seen, even better than KVCDx3 (528x480). This template seemed more compressable the the PLUS templates. I going to try this same resolution for 1 CD. :D I too would like to know what file prediction formula should be using for this :?: -black prince |
As a side note:
CQ_VBR 6.5 (motion estimation) = 11,910,158 CQ_VBR 6.5 (high quality) = 10,610,730 Edit: Also: CQ 56 (motion estimation) = 11,796,690 CQ 56 (high quality) = 11,303,978 Haven't done a visual compare of them yet... |
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif
http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif I think I'll let the pictures speak for themselves :). |
So how will using CQ instead of CQ_VBR affect the prediction? Will KVCDP be able to be used the same way or do we have to do manual prediction?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I currently started to encode "K-19" at 352x240 LBR just to test the formula on CQ. It should be the same. Let's see how far off is the final target to the predicted size. I'll post result here when it's done. In about 2 hours. -kwag |
Quote:
|
Ah, kwag, there you are -- I thought you'd gone missing ;). What... spending time with the family on Christmas Eve instead of TESTING? :mrgreen:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
-kwag |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.