Quote:
Hi kwag! Are you sure the formula is so accurate? I've encoded a film which is 80 min long with lbr template. The file size is 555MO with cq 90. The predicted filesize is 9,88. If i use your formula i've got a result of 617M0. But if i use this: Predicted MPEG size = (( Total frames/MovieTimeInMinutes)/24) * (MPEG sample file size * .90 ) the result is: 555,75MO!!! :lol: Do you think the factor could be different for each resolution? ARAGORN |
@All,
There is some improvement using High in motion search :) This goes back to an old issue about the algo Tmpgenc's using to detect scene changes between frames at the macro block level it seemed to work, but at the pixel block level it would ignor this due to smoothing from TemporalSmoother and now FluxSmooth. Try encoding without smoothing and see if it improves more :?: With these short comings and others the Frankencoder project was born. (Maybe). Tweaking Q-Matrix may not have produced solutions but defining the problem further could help in seeking answers. The progress being made is excellent (file prediction, new GOP, 704x480 fitting on 1 CD, etc.) Don't give up now. :) Maybe Tmpgenc's developer could shed some light for a solution on this problem :?: -black prince |
@Kwag,
Just finished encoding full movie using 704x480, GOP=1-12-2-1-24, for 2 CD(800MB ea) with CQ=75 and there are NO!! Gibbs effects. I threw Blockbuster noise back in with a variance of .3 and Flux. Tmpgenc's motion search is set to High and I'm using Clip Frame. Audio is 128kb and thanks to file predictor the video filled the rest of the CD's. Picture quality is incrediable!!!! :mrgreen: Maybe with higher CQ the encoder has more bitrate to work with :?: Any way, I'm switching to this resolution at least for 2 CD's. 8) -black prince |
Quote:
-kwag |
Hi kwag!
can you actually compare the Q-Level of different resolutions? because lower quality has a lower Q-Level too, as far as my tests prove... Is that right? |
Quote:
The formula is: Code:
Predicted MPEG size = (( Total frames/MovieTimeInMinutes)/24) * MPEG sample file size |
Quote:
I know that but if i do this the result is not good. There is 62MO of difference between the encoded film and the result with the new formula. I'm using the new gop and Sampler last version. To have the good result I have to multiplying the mpeg file size by .9... Sorry to insist :D 8) ARAGORN |
Hi ARAGORN,
I'm not sure what's going on there :roll: , because I've already made over 4 different CQ encodes with the above formula, and every time I'm hitting < 1% predicted size to final size no matter what resolution I use :roll: -kwag |
Kwag,
What are your exacts settings in cq mode: does enable padding is check? And what about P and B picture spoilage? Are they set to 0 or not? I don't know if that could make a difference in the accuracy of the prediction :roll: ? |
Hi all !!!
I'm confused !!! what is the most updated method or script for file prediction ?!? Anyone please ?!!! bman |
Quote:
-kwag |
Quote:
Which template did you use ? My tests are better with CQ_VBR that CQ :cry: -- apoc |
Quote:
-kwag |
Quote:
apoc, Strange. I'm testing on some of my Tv Captures and CQ set to 80-85 (704x576) puts 1 Hour Widescreen on one CD at far better quality than CQ_VBR at the same filesize. For me, this is definately the way to go. Jim |
Quote:
Very nice quality ... My first tests with CQ give me lot of macroblocks. dunno why :cry: I use KVCDx3 template and I replace CQ_CBR with CQ and change the resolution. -- apoc |
I'm getting very confused now =)
What is the concensus? Is CQ better with high resolution (704x480 and x3) and CQ_VBR with low resolution (352x240/480)? Should we keep using filters? Just when I think I've got a handle on the KVCD thing everything changes... I'm not complaining...just losing track. |
Quote:
Try your prediction samples with all the filters. Blockbuster, FluxSmooth, etc. Then if you see that the sample's quality is not so good, remove only the blockbuster "noise". Leave FluxSmooth() and LegalClip(). I always use them. :wink: So far it seems that CQ is beating the crap out of CQ_VBR :D -kwag |
I'm using DVD2SVCD for encoding/predicting...
CQ prediction doesn't seem as acurate with DVD2SVCD. I tried the first disk of Lord Of The Rings and got a file that was 200megs too big. CQ_VBR seems to come in on target or just below though. What I'm wondering is, if CQ is kicking the crap out of CQ_VBR, how did we get started on CQ_VBR and what has changed to make CQ the better choice again? We started with CQ and then went to CQ_VBR and the "plus" templates, which were recomended over the originals...and now Blockbuster is no longer in favor (for me it seems to help with getting solid black colors)...but at some point each of these was viewed as way better than the old way. At any rate, the work is appreciated, even if its overwhelming me a bit at the moment. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
-kwag |
Ok, that makes some sense to me =)
I can go back to doing things manually, I just like the ease of DVD2SVCD...support for it here is one of the things that brought me back to using KVCD settings. The prediction in DVD2SVCD seems to work very well with CQ_VBR and the new gop settings, just not with CQ. Well, I'll try doing things the old "hands on" way for my next encode. |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.