01-16-2003, 11:46 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 242
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
I'm updating my humble 'noise reducing script' and want to include fluxsmooth and blockbuster. I currently use convolution3d and have been impressed with the results. However there is a certain 'restlessness' or 'swimminess' on certain static surfaces (mostly walls and floors). The addition of Blockbuster would ameliorate this, I think. My question is this. Should I run all three filters? And if so, in what order?
And BTW, my Avisynth version is 2.07. Will your filters marked 2-5 work with this, Sansgrip? Or should I go with the originals?
|
Someday, 12:01 PM
|
|
Site Staff / Ad Manager
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
|
|
|
01-16-2003, 12:06 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reno
However there is a certain 'restlessness' or 'swimminess' on certain static surfaces (mostly walls and floors).
|
Try FaeryDust. In my short tests it totally elimated moving blocks in static areas.
Quote:
And BTW, my Avisynth version is 2.07. Will your filters marked 2-5 work with this, Sansgrip?
|
No. Those are versions for Avisynth 2.5, which is still in alpha phase. They won't work with 2.0x.
|
01-16-2003, 01:06 PM
|
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 SansGrip
Try FaeryDust. In my short tests it totally elimated moving blocks in static areas.
|
There's no doubt about that
-kwag
|
01-16-2003, 03:00 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 242
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Excellent! Should I worry about that 'blockiness in high action' problem Steady wrote about? Have either of you guys seen a problem with it yet?
Sansgrip, I see you recommend Faerydust over Pixiedust. Is the light noise setting best? Remember I'm working with mostly Divx sources (more noise)...
|
01-16-2003, 03:07 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 242
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
P.S. I'm plugging in Convolution after Pixiedust right now. I'll post my results.
|
01-16-2003, 03:09 PM
|
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 Reno
P.S. I'm plugging in Convolution after Pixiedust right now. I'll post my results.
|
"Pixiedust" is that a new filter
-kwag
|
01-16-2003, 03:14 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 242
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Negative. Their are two settings for the Dust filter. Faerydust is for light noise. Pixiedust is for medium noise. I'm looking at the encode now, and it looks frikkin gorgeous!!
|
01-16-2003, 03:31 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Ah!, ok, then I guess we could try pixiedust on captures. But not on DVD sources
-kwag
|
01-16-2003, 04:07 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reno
Should I worry about that 'blockiness in high action' problem Steady wrote about?
|
It's not too bad. It is noticible if you pause during high action, but since that's when MPEG tends to get blocky anyway, I figure it's not too much of a problem. It will be nice when he fixes it though  .
Quote:
Sansgrip, I see you recommend Faerydust over Pixiedust.
|
In my tests the high-motion blockiness was noticibly worse with PixieDust, and for anything other than analog captures I think FaeryDust should work perfectly well enough. For very noisy sources like captures you might want to try PixieDust though.
|
01-16-2003, 04:20 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 242
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Jeez, you guys are 'on the spot!!' with your responses!!
I'm considering using Fluxsmooth as a complement to Pixiedust. Since Fluxsmooth is motion sensitive, it should work nicely, shouldn't it? Or would it oversoften the movie??
|
01-16-2003, 04:28 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,135
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reno
I'm considering using Fluxsmooth as a complement to Pixiedust.
|
They're both denoisers, so you only need one. And since FaeryDust is (much) better, I'd go with that if you can afford the significantly extended encode times  .
Quote:
Since Fluxsmooth is motion sensitive, it should work nicely, shouldn't it?
|
Flux uses motion adaption, while FaeryDust and PixieDust use motion estimation. It's a whole different, much more accurate, ball of wax  .
Quote:
Or would it oversoften the movie??
|
It shouldn't. Personally, though, I'd use FaeryDust or Flux for denoising (depending on how patient you are). If you're having trouble getting the CQ up enough then combine that with Convolution3D(preset="movieHQ") for increased compression.
|
01-16-2003, 04:31 PM
|
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 SansGrip
It's a whole different, much more accurate, ball of wax  .
|
Wax ON, Wax OFF.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:26 PM — vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd
|