Hey Kwag,
Sorry about Divx. :( Seems jorel was the one to malign Divx. :? -black prince |
Hey guys, I like DivX too :D. The compression techniques used on it are beyond MPEG-1 and MPEG-2. It's just that it's not as handy as MPEG-1 or MPEG-2, because not every (Only one!) DVD player can play them. Only the "KISS" DVD player supports MPEG-4, and they're probably having a hard time trying to keep up with firmware patches and upgrades to support every MPEG-4 combination out there and keep the users happy :roll:
-kwag |
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe we can get the best result at every resolution with CQ_VBR after all of this is optimized :!: -kwag |
Quote:
* DCT blocks are much less visible at 704x480, so no Blockbuster should be needed * Below that resolution blockiness starts to become a distraction (at least to me) * CQ mode cannot be used in conjunction with Blockbuster without a specially tuned Q matrix that isn't suitable for any other use * CQ_VBR mode can be used with or without Blockbuster using the same Q matrix My thinking, then, is that the 704x480 template should use CQ mode and no Blockbuster for the best quality. All lower resolutions should use CQ_VBR with Blockbuster variance 0-2 (depending on the movie). This may mean a difference Q matrix for the 704x480 template than the others, but that's not such a big deal. |
Quote:
Quote:
I do see a clear improvement with the mods. on the low frequency area of the matrix. And as you say, DCT blocks will probably never be completely eliminated, but I see a smoother blend on DCT blocks even at 704x480, which help the overall visual experience on the picture. It would be nice to be able to have an "MPEG spectrum analyzer" to analyze a difficult dark scene full of DCT blocks, as this would give us an accurate picture of the exact problematic area, and we would have the exact frequency domain to work on that specific matrix area. That would be cool, instead of shooting in the dark :? -kwag |
Quote:
Although i've got no evidence on me to prove it, I do feel that even at 544(528)x576 I get much better quality using CQ mode and using no blockbuster. To me blockbuster only becomes effective at 352x??? resolutions. Jim |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This doesn't sound too difficult, but it would be a lot of output through which to wade unless one were testing with very small frame sizes (say, 32x32 in a known problem area). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I haven't touched the Intra, because I like the results much better with the 16's 8) BTW: Here's my "compare.avs" script I'm using to test: Code:
LoadPlugin("C:\encoding\MPEG2DEC.dll") -kwag |
Quote:
you write: "I’m just teasing Don’t malign Divx too much. File prediction is now an important part of the KVCD process, but remember when the idea started with Ozzie’s very long avs script using Trim, then he cames up with SelectRangeEvery(). You’ll be interested to know he got it from Divx’s compression test. I believe you are raising the bar for picture quality for all methods of video backup to reach and that’s what’s important to me. I used Gknot for some time and created a lot of Divx’s only to be played on my PC. I wanted more portability in playing movies with the best picture quality possible. KVCD has not disappointed me and others. You are reaching for picture quality that could very well become the standard for others to reach, not just Divx. I wish I had skills like you, SansGrip, and other technical developers, but I know enough to realize what’s happening at KVCD is very promising." yes,i'm with you....... -------------- and i write (with this part quote from Kwag): You all encourage us to push all this stuff to the limits. And the "NAH" sayers at other sites encourage us to go beyond the standards and over the limits ( which then pushes them to oblivion) really,really,really! Kwag,we are with you! ------------ and you again: (:-@ "Seems jorel was the one to malign Divx. :?" are you blame me? where i write something like this? are you :x and :? ? what you talking about???????? |
Quote:
Quote:
Theoretically, a Q factor of 16 for all frequencies of the P and B frames should cause a significant increase in quality, since it quantizes less than the current KVCD Q matrix. My main concern would be the drop in the compression ratio, but if you say it's not significant then that's fine. Of course, it is the "standard MPEG" non-intra-frame matrix... but we shouldn't be biased against it just because of that :mrgreen:. Quote:
Quote:
Now testing with 16s... |
Hey Kwag,
I liked your compare.avs script. Have you or SansGrip tried this utility "avscompare" to compare the effects of different filters. Here's the link: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...ght=avscompare I'm using it to compare a script with CQ Blockbuster and one without :) See what you think. -black prince |
Quote:
BTW, new version of Blockbuster at my site... |
Hi jorel,
jorel wrote: Quote:
I think you are saying if the picture quality keeps getting better using KVCD CQ we won't be limited to using Divx on the PC. :) I believe we are both in agreement. :) -black prince |
Quote:
"You all encourage us to push all this stuff to the limits. And the "NAH" sayers at other sites encourage us to go beyond the standards and over the limits ( which then pushes them to oblivion )" Kwag wrote this after me: "Hopefully we'll keep optimizing MPEG-1 to a point where we drive DivX nuts" but no problems! :) Yes dear friend,"we are both in agreement." :) don't need appology,but you "scare me" 8O |
Hey Kwag and SansGrip,
You've got to try "avsCompare" :D It allows you to load up to 4 avs scripts and allows you to switch between. You can enlarge the frame and save it as bitmap file. You can play each script to preview. There future enhancements to add subtitles to a bitmap image, but it can be done in the script now. I compared Temporal Smoother to FluxSmooth to TemporalSoften in 3 different scripts. Then I compared different Blockbuster noise variance settings with 4 different scripts. Then I compared BilinearResize to LanczosResize to BicubicResize. :) LanczosResize was sharper than BilinearResize which I already knew, but it was very clear when I enlarge them both. This is a great tool :D -black prince |
@black prince
where can you get it? i wanty i wanty! :) |
@SansGrip,
"avscompare" showed that LanczosResize not only sharpened the picture, but also enhanced colors. Colors were richer and image detail was clearer. My question... would this be suitable for CQ encodes. :?: I realize file size will increase, but since I'm not using Blockbuster noise and this would really enhance picture quality. BilinearResize appears to have a more softer look, but probably increases less. I plan to use 704x480 with CQ for 2 CD's. -black prince |
|
Quote:
In that post I suggested that one should always use Lanczos for its most accurate colour fidelity, and then soften if necessary with a filter designed to do this. Quote:
|
"LanczosResize not only sharpened the
picture, but also enhanced colors. Colors were richer and image detail was clearer. " i'm with you black prince,i post a script here (forum) with LanczosResize (with fluxsmooth,blockbuster ,legalclip)that gives good image. i test everything (burn and see on tv) and compare the same chapter with differents scripts.... Lanczos is sharp and clear. :wink: editing: oops...post at same time with Sansgrip. |
Interesting... I accidentally made a couple of sample strips with the old GOP (max 36), and in the process noticed that using the new GOP and CQ_VBR mode I used the same quality setting to achieve the same file size, but using the new GOP and CQ mode I was able to increase the quality setting by about 4 points.
Edit: Correction, 6 points. From 63.9 to 69.95... Anyone else notice this? |
@SansGrip,
My tests finally narrowed down to LanczosResize and FluxSmooth as the best combination for CQ 704x480 encodes (in my opinion). They looked great when viewed on TV. Colours were rich looking and not washed out as before and FluxSmooth controled the sharpness while compressing file size. The only glitch was some noticable blockiness during the water scenes. I increased the CQ to 100 just to see if it would disappear. It was improved but still there. Scenes other than water or fire were perfect. Maybe the tweaking Kwag is doing on the Q-Matrix will help this problem :D Geez testing does payoff :mrgreen: -black prince |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Try the same thing with this: Code:
Name26="KVCD Notch (BETA-2)" -kwag |
Quote:
I'm going to try this as soon as my current test is complete (namely a TV compare of CQ_VBR with Blockbuster against CQ without Blockbuster in all resolutions from 352x240 to 704x480). This is taking forever 8O. |
@SansGrip, :)
testing one chapter, 5 minuts with kvcd-lbr (my player only works in 352x240), in dvd2svcd prog: [AVISYNTH_LanczosResize, Fluxsmooth, Blockbuster, Legalclip] 0=LoadPlugin(!FluxSmooth.dll) 1=LoadPlugin(!Blockbuster.dll) 2=LoadPlugin(!Legalclip.dll) 3=LanczosResize(^TargetWidth,^TargetHeight) 4=FluxSmooth() 5=Blockbuster(method="dither",detail_min=1,detail_ max=10,variance=.7) 6=Legalclip() 7=AddBorders(0,^BorderTop,0,^BorderBottom) !FluxSmooth.dll=C:\DVD2SVCD\Dlls\FluxSmooth.dll !Blockbuster.dll=C:\DVD2SVCd\Dlls\Blockbuster.dll !Legalclip.dll=C:\DVD2SVCD\Dlls\Legalclip.dll 8O fantastic! :wink: the best quality of all my tests! ps: using file prediction factor 0.95 ...change this value? thanks in advance! |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Sansgrip,thanks about the factor! ( 1.0)
i worked 30 years repairs(don't know better word) televisions,videos.etc. see television all they long. every day. for me is the best script at now with a simple test. very clean! :wink: i'm waiting for Kwag,black prince and others oppinion too! |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Code:
Name0="$$Default" |
:!: :!: 8O
|
Quote:
8O 8O :!: :lol: |
Hey guys, don't pay too much attention to all those matrixes. Some of them have been around the net for a very long time. I did benchmark ALL and every one of them against the "KVCD" matrix, which is the one that created the smallest file size while maintained the best quality. The one labeled "KVCD" is the one currently in all KVCD PLUS templates. The BETA-2 is the one I'm currently testing, which has a frequency notch to lower DCT blocks. It should work on every resolution, because the DCT and low lit domains are not (shouldn't be!) resolution dependant. Still, you'll probably get the best results the higher resolution you go. At 352x240 the blocks are just too big, and will always pop-up somewhere, no matter how hard we try to get rid of them :roll:
-kwag |
kwag - How long ago was it that you tested TMPGEnc Plus's 2-pass VBR against CQ(_VBR)?
|
Quote:
-kwag |
Quote:
|
Quote:
-kwag |
Quote:
Might be worth revisiting, though, with the new GOP and Q matrix etc... |
Quote:
I'm currently encoding K-19 at 528x480 with your new "dither" option. So tomorrow, I'll take the final target size and run TMPEG with that size as target for 2-pass VBR. This way we can compare if there's any difference. Edit: However, there must be a very noticeable difference in quality if we're going to use 2-pass VBR, because the encoding time will be 2X the time compared to CQ or CQ_VBR. So even if it's "slightly" better quality, I think the time to encode wouldn't be worth it ( Specially if the machine crashes 75% in the process :roll: ) :!: -kwag |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.