Hi SansGrip ,
I'll run a couple of tests to see if I can reproduce that. Maybe just setting the minimum notch area to 8 will solve the problem :idea: Can you make that change and test that same sample and see if you see that red artifact again :?: Just change the two 6's and the 7 on the upper left corner of the matrix to 8 and run that test again on that part :?: -kwag |
Quote:
|
I just finished the movie "The Matrix" ( Which I have encoded now around 10+ times for test purposes :lol: ), but now with KVCDx3. The results are better that anything I had previously done with that movie 8O.
Here's a minute and a half sample of what the complete 136 minute film looks like on one CD, thanks to your filters SansGrip :wink: , the new GOP, prediction, CQ=64, BETA-1 matrix ( Yes, I did it with that one, unless the 8's fix the error you pointed out and I'll have to re-encode again :x ) http://www.kvcd.net/matrix.cq.beta1mat.sample.m1v Here's the .avs I used: Code:
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\MPEG2DEC.dll") |
AviSource("D:\Captures\MSMurders\capture_1.00.avi" ) + AviSource("D:\Captures\MSMurders\capture_1.01.avi" ) + AviSource("D:\Captures\MSMurders\capture_1.02.avi" ) + AviSource("D:\Captures\MSMurders\capture_1.03.avi" )
You can use SegmentedAviSource("D:\Captures\MSMurders\capture_ 1.avi") and it will load all four files automatically. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I still don't understand how you possibly get such high CQ values, ESPECIALLY with a high-action movie like The Matrix at 528x480. The last encode I did was Jay & Silent Bob -- it's about 97 minutes, low action, at 528x480. Audio 128k (about 85 megs). Using an almost identical script (tried adding/removing BB -- this didn't make much difference), new GOP (1/12/2/1/24), Beta-1 Matrix, CQ of 50 was too much to fit on one disc -- I had to overburn. I am using scripts almost identical to yours and the same methods. What am I missing here? I'm racking my brain. How do you do it? |
What's the aspect ratio of the movie? If there's a lot of black, it compresses very well.
|
Quote:
Using TMPGEnc 2.58 (I heard about some issues with 2.59). |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Hey gonzopdx,
Quote:
letter box to start with. If he cuts out credits and uses heavy softening, he could raise CQ even higher. :) The new GOP and Q-Matrix compresses even more. I usually resize 528x480 to 496x336 and still get a CQ in the high 50's. On STD 27" TV, Kwag's movie would look somewhat flat, because of the heavy letterbox. :) -black prince |
Quote:
-kwag |
You guys think we were done with GOP and matrix. Think again 8O :
In theory, a GOP of 1-12-2-1-24 should compress more than 1-12-1-1-24 right :?: , WRONG 8O ( At least with TMPEG in CQ mode ). After reading the previous posts about the small "flashing" effect and always trying to optimize more on the DCT level and artifacts, I ran a test to drop the B frames from 2 to 1, but keeping the size of GOP at 24. Look at the result. I don't even need to circle with red :D , you should see clearly the difference (You might have to blow up the images): http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2003/01/1.png No filters used here. Only LegalClip(). The funny thing is that with CQ=65 on the 1-12-1-1-24, the file size is actually smaller than CQ=64 with 1-12-2-1-24 8O Sample file size for 1-12-2-1-24 = 14,430KB Sample file size for 1-12-1-1-24 = 14,380KB Would anyone be so kind and try this, to see if I'm still dreaming, or if it's true :?: 8) Playing back my 1-12-1-1-24 sample, seems to be more smoother and less visible artifacts in the overall picture. Specially the background areas, where there was more movement on stills images. Edit: This changes each GOP to IBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPB instead of IBBPBBPBBPBBPBBPBBPBBPBB -kwag |
Quote:
I just did a test encode with The Fifth Element (from AVI), 2h2m, and used a CQ of 64 at 528x480. It's very widescreen, though, probably between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. This means big borders and lots of compression. I also used fairly heavy smoothing. Bear in mind that kwag uses two overscan blocks when he resizes, and that makes quite a difference. Try encoding two samples, one with no overscan blocks and one with two overscan blocks. You'll see a significant difference in file size. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Did you encode the whole movie with those settings? I'd be interested to know if prediction still holds true... |
Quote:
|
@kwag
I ran the artifact test and the problem I highlighted is indeed gone when I use 8 as a minimum. That said, now I see similar artifacts in the left-hand side of the frame. Using a lot of 8s in a frame has never worked for me -- while theoretically it should give best quality, if you single-step through the frames you'll see serious degeneration in the P- and B- frames... |
Kwag, you've created another monster :twisted:
I did a quick-and-dirty test, and *drum roll* CQ_VBR file size increased when B frames set to 1 (CQ_VBR value 17,3) It went from 11,712 to 13219. CQ file size decreased when B frames set to 1 (CQ value 60) It went from 6,547 to 6,231. Uh oh. Looks like this will be another chaotic TMPGEnc test session for you lads. |
Quote:
I'm going to encode 5 minutes with each GOP and see if the file sizes maintain their consistency. -kwag |
Quote:
|
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.