Quantcast CQ vs. CQ_VBR ... Very Interesting... - Page 33 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #641  
06-12-2003, 01:18 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
[quote="r6d2"]@Kwag,

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
"3. Min BR: does not really matter. " Use 0. -> If your player supports going down to 0, by all means use it
Most DVD players have problems below 300Kbps, so we settled for 300 as a safety factor.
Uh... Do you happen to have an image to check this? (lazy moron again) .
What do you mean by "Image"
Quote:

"12. Audio: 128 kbps, Joint stereo" -> Joint stereo is a No No
Use "Dual channel", and you can also go down to 112Kbps if you encode with HeadAC3he. If you encode "Joint Stereo", you will kill "Surround 2" signals, and the sound will be messed up on a Prologic II receiver.
12. Audio: 112 kbps Joint stereo for 2 channel input; 128 Dual channel for 5 channel input.

Still a no no
I use 112Kbps almost exclusively, leaving more bitrate for video
Quote:
"13. VBV buffer size: 0 (Auto)" -> Don't use auto Use TMPEG's default. It's more compatible.
But Kwag... 0 (Auto) is TMPGEnc default! (At least on my Plus 2.5 version) Or you mean "standard" defaults of VCD 40/SVCD 112?
TMPGEnc shouldn't be set to "0" At least that's not the default in my PLUS version
Quote:
Another question... I read somewhere that DC bits must be chosen examining the original VOBs with Bitrate Viewer... If it says 10, use 10. Do you agree?
Not for MPEG-1. And for the low bitrates we use here ,it's better to use 8 bits of precision, instead of 9 or 10..

-kwag
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Site Staff / Ad Manager
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #642  
06-12-2003, 01:47 AM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If you don't want to use 'dual channel', please use at least 'stereo' instead of 'joint stereo'. The current MP2 encoders are not very good at joint stereo, you'll get glitches and distortion in the audio track very easily.
Reply With Quote
  #643  
06-12-2003, 02:30 AM
r6d2 r6d2 is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Voyager II
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@Kwag,

Quote:
What do you mean by "Image"
A mean a ISO image, a short clip encoded at 10 kbps to check my DVD player and not do it myself
Quote:
I use 112Kbps almost exclusively, leaving more bitrate for video
OK, great tip.
Quote:
TMPGEnc shouldn't be set to "0" At least that's not the default in my PLUS version
You're right, if you load a template it would to be zero. But look at the help file:

Quote:
VBV Buffer Size
The VBV (Video Buffer Verifier) buffer is the buffer used by the encoder while encoding. It is suggested to let the VBV automatically determine the required size.

If you use a template, the most appropriate VBV buffer size is loaded. Set the VBV buffer to 0 to have TMPGEnc automatically guess the most appropriate size.
It is not the default, but the recommended setting (my fault). So it seems it can handle it sort of dinamically... Maybe sometimes it needs more than what the standard says... Any thoughts on this?

@Boulder,

So I guess that joint stereo is a No no No


Thank you guys, I am encoding right now Friends Season 1, 3 episodes per CD with KVCDx3, with all this suggestions of yours.

I did some LBR tests but I was dissapointed. My encodes were by far worse than Kwag's KVCD test disc with the Seinfeld scene. I was aiming at that... 6 episodes per CD, but I guess I did was not able to tweak it right.
Regards,
Reply With Quote
  #644  
06-12-2003, 09:33 AM
GetUp GetUp is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 46
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
"10. Motion search precision: Use High Quality" -> If you are going to use the new motion adaptive script for AviSynth 2.52, change that to "Motion Estimation". It produces better video with less visible artifacts.

-kwag
About Motion Estimation... This method produce larger video files, and I don't to be sure it's have higher quality... How you compare results from HighPrecision and MotionEstimate? Frame-per-frame or common look on tv-set? If f-per-f - what method do you use?
Thanks in advance
Reply With Quote
  #645  
06-12-2003, 01:07 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi GetUp,

Motion Estimation produces better quality and less artifacts. At least on all the latest tests I've done with the current script and AviSynth 2.52. You can clearly see less artifacts around moving objects, and even though the CQ is slightly lower than with "High quality", the results are better

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #646  
06-12-2003, 02:39 PM
r6d2 r6d2 is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Voyager II
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigggt
What about this one

Quote:
17. Burn as SVCD if your player supports it, else use VCD.
Is this right and if so can someone explain a little more please
I understand that so far as we are concerned in this case, the advantage of SVCD over VCD is PBC. You can have seamless chapters instead of tracks.
Reply With Quote
  #647  
06-12-2003, 02:47 PM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
[quote="r6d2"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigggt
, the advantage of SVCD over VCD is PBC. You can have seamless chapters instead of tracks.
You have seamless chapters with VCDs too
You don't need to do tracks/chapter. Use ChapterXtractor to read your .IFO, and Cut&Paste the information into VCDEasy. It will create chapter entry points on your single MPEG file.

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #648  
06-12-2003, 05:15 PM
r6d2 r6d2 is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Voyager II
Posts: 31
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Then that leaves us just with selectable subs and multiple audio tracks, which we rather not use anyway in KVCD
Reply With Quote
  #649  
06-12-2003, 05:43 PM
kwag kwag is offline
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 r6d2
Then that leaves us just with selectable subs and multiple audio tracks, which we rather not use anyway in KVCD
That's right
There are very few players that can handle selectable subs on SVCDs. So that only leaves selectable audio channels on a SVCD as an option

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #650  
06-13-2003, 05:05 AM
Jellygoose Jellygoose is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,288
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
But you can still encode as a KVCD and after that mux as SVCD with 2 audio tracks!
__________________
j3llyG0053
Reply With Quote
  #651  
06-13-2003, 08:00 AM
GFR GFR is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 438
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
[quote="kwag"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by r6d2
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigggt
, the advantage of SVCD over VCD is PBC. You can have seamless chapters instead of tracks.
You have seamless chapters with VCDs too
You don't need to do tracks/chapter. Use ChapterXtractor to read your .IFO, and Cut&Paste the information into VCDEasy. It will create chapter entry points on your single MPEG file.

-kwag
At least in my player (Philco), chapters get completely messed up if I do a SVCD with more than 90 min (there's a warning about that when VCDEasy is generating the image). Chapters work fine in VCDs over 90mins.
Reply With Quote
  #652  
06-13-2003, 09:24 AM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Hi GetUp,

Motion Estimation produces better quality and less artifacts. At least on all the latest tests I've done with the current script and AviSynth 2.52. You can clearly see less artifacts around moving objects, and even though the CQ is slightly lower than with "High quality", the results are better

-kwag
Kwag,

is it the same for scripts without the dynamic filtering?
Reply With Quote
  #653  
06-13-2003, 09:35 AM
kwag kwag is offline
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 Boulder
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Hi GetUp,

Motion Estimation produces better quality and less artifacts. At least on all the latest tests I've done with the current script and AviSynth 2.52. You can clearly see less artifacts around moving objects, and even though the CQ is slightly lower than with "High quality", the results are better

-kwag
Kwag,

is it the same for scripts without the dynamic filtering?
I don't know, because I'm not using any other (non-adaptive) script from now on

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #654  
06-13-2003, 12:43 PM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well, I did a small test and it looks like the motion estimate search produces better quality despite the fact that CQ has to be reduced slightly. I don't use the adaptive filtering because of the damn permanent subtitles in the TV broadcasts here
Reply With Quote
  #655  
06-13-2003, 04:45 PM
kwag kwag is offline
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 Boulder
I don't use the adaptive filtering because of the damn permanent subtitles in the TV broadcasts here
Are the permanent subs on a black bar below the picture, or are they right on top of the picture

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #656  
06-14-2003, 04:54 AM
Boulder Boulder is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lahti, Finland
Posts: 1,652
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boulder
I don't use the adaptive filtering because of the damn permanent subtitles in the TV broadcasts here
Are the permanent subs on a black bar below the picture, or are they right on top of the picture

-kwag
They are practically always on top of the picture. We are supposed to switch to digital broadcasts in a couple of years and then you're supposed to be able to switch the subs off and change their appearance. At the moment the transmissions are 4:3 so there are no borders (unless the source was specifically made widescreen format). And even if there are borders, a part of the subs is always on top of the picture
Reply With Quote
  #657  
01-31-2004, 09:17 AM
Encoder Master Encoder Master is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: (^_^)
Posts: 504
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I've tested a lot and here I've a link to compare the CQ and CQ_VBR at a resolution of 352x(240)288 PAL.

TEST: CQ vs. CQ_VBR

If the results aren't good for you download the pics and use the zoom function and you will see CQ is better in every resolution.
Reply With Quote
  #658  
01-31-2004, 11:02 AM
kwag kwag is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Who ever did those tests, probably didn't consider many factors.
We've already proved here that CQ_VBR is better than CQ for resolutions of 352x240(28.
That is, when comparing both CQ and CQ_VBR targets to be the same size.
Those screeen shots don't mention the process, and there is not enough data.
In this threads, we did provide all the data and procedures

-kwag
Reply With Quote
  #659  
01-31-2004, 12:22 PM
Encoder Master Encoder Master is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: (^_^)
Posts: 504
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't know clearly what you say, but I've tested a lot of resolutions with CQ and CQ_VBR and in my results you can see the difference. First I've tested a resolution of 480x576, but the artefacts in this Video with CQ_VBR were very high.
And then I've tested VCD resolution. And I don't know why but you can see that there are more blocks with CQ_VBR because this mode has too little weak in high action scenes.
Can't you that the pics on the left side are very shaper than the right?
Reply With Quote
  #660  
01-31-2004, 12:40 PM
kwag kwag is offline
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 Encoder Master
I don't know clearly what you say, but I've tested a lot of resolutions with CQ and CQ_VBR and in my results you can see the difference.
Then read this thread from top to bottom again
Quote:
First I've tested a resolution of 480x576, but the artefacts in this Video with CQ_VBR were very high.
Of course
That's clearly stated in this thread, that above 352x240(28, CQ is better than CQ_VBR.
Quote:
And then I've tested VCD resolution. And I don't know why but you can see that there are more blocks with CQ_VBR because this mode has too little weak in high action scenes.
Can't you that the pics on the left side are very shaper than the right?
Yes, I can see it, and as I said before, the screenshots don't prove anything, because there's no detailed data as to how those samples were encoded.
Again, read this thread from top to bottom, and you'll see the FACTS

-kwag
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Avisynth: Interesting results with YlevelsS supermule Avisynth Scripting 2 08-06-2006 11:59 PM
Avisynth: Interesting ASharp phenomenon... audioslave Avisynth Scripting 12 10-23-2003 06:36 AM
Interesting info about the Luminance Level in CCE digitalize Video Encoding and Conversion 0 04-28-2003 12:29 PM
A couple of interesting links.. kwag Off-topic Lounge 0 12-31-2002 03:47 PM
KVCD: Interesting poll found kwag Video Encoding and Conversion 2 12-31-2002 02:44 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 PM  —  vBulletin Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd