Very cool, Girv! I'll try your new method as soon as my current encode finishes!!

One thing to note about the script I posted above is that its a bit slower than we're used to :-/ I'm looking at a ~5.5 hour encode for a 1h36m xvid on an XP2000+ machine with fast CL-2 DDR266 memory on an nForce2 mobo. I guess its mainly MSoften as the other filters are quite fast.

On the plus side, work is going to buy me a dual MP2600+, which should come in handy for *something* I'm sure. Though right now I can't think of exactly what I'll use it for ;)

/girv

@Girv,

I'm getting an error message stating 'the variables seed, variance, etc.. are only for use with the "noise" method.'

Am I missing something??

The script works as posted on my machine. According to the Blockbuster docs, "dither" takes the same parameters as "noise" except for "cache"...

Ahhhh....

Updated my Blockbuster.dll (mine was ten days older than the current version), and all is well...

Thx Girv!

So you are saying that Girv's script works better and gives a better quality for DivX and Xvid sources :?:

LegalClip()
LanczosResize(432,544)
AddBorders(0,32,0,32)
Blockbuster(method="dither",detail_min=1,detail_ma x=10,variance=0.3,seed=0)
MSoften(3,3,4,3,pre=1,post=1,speed=4,showmask=fals e)
MergeChroma(Blur(0.5))
MergeLuma(Blur(0.1))
Crop(0,32,432,544)
LegalClip()

//Wolfi

It seems to almost completely remove the flashing blocks of solid colour present in most xvid and divx sources (DCT blocks). I think it does cause some temporal blending artefacts but they might not be noticeable.

You might also want to try changing the MergeChroma / MergeLuma combination for:

"MergeLuma(last,1)" does not affect the picture, but is a workaround for what I think is a bug in MSoften that causes AVISynth errors when FluxSmooth (amongst others) is used directly after it.

This is still highly experimental and I believe there is still room for improvement, so try it for yourself on some different sources, mess around with the script and let us know how you get on :)

I have a few more question :oops:

1. If you wanna put a movie on one 80min cd-r, how high can you rise the CQ with your script? For example, My CQ using Kwag's "For DVD and clean material" script lies around 60CQ when encoding a 90min movie. I'm using 224Mhz on audio.

2. If you compare your script with Kwag's when encoding DivX'es, witch picture quality gets best :?:

3. Why dont you use GripCrop? or is "Crop" "GripCrop" or should I write my resolution in LanczosResize? If you dont use GripCrop you wont be able to select what overscan you want, am I right?

4. Why not use DCTFilter :?: I've heard the piture quality wont suffer and the good thing is that the output size will be samller using DCTFilter filter, that means you can rise the CQ value, so isnt it good to use DCTFilter in your script?

Many questions :oops: :oops: :oops:

//Wolfi

Well, I gave it a shot, but IMHO it's too soft. Compression was sweeeeet though...

I grabbed a few elements from the script and tried this
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#============================================#
# -=Mega Supreme AviSynth script by Reno =- #
#============================================#

LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MovieStacker\Filters\Mpeg2Dec.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MovieStacker\Filters\TemporalCleanerOld.dll" )
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MovieStacker\Filters\FluxSmooth.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MovieStacker\Filters\GripFit_preview.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MovieStacker\Filters\BlockBuster.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MovieStacker\Filters\Msoften.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MovieStacker\Filters\DustV5.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MovieStacker\Filters\LegalClip.dll")
LoadPlugin("C:\Program Files\MovieStacker\Filters\Sampler.dll")

AviSource("Donnie Darko.avi",false)
ConverttoYUY2
LegalClip()
GripCrop(528, 480, overscan=2, source_anamorphic=false)
GripSize(resizer="LanczosResize")
SpaceDust()
TemporalCleaner(ythresh=1, cthresh=15)
sharpen(0.7)
mergechroma(blur(1.58))
mergeluma(blur(0.1))
Blockbuster(method="dither",detail_min=1,detail_ma x=10,variance=0.3,seed=0)
MSoften(3,3,4,3,pre=1,post=1,speed=4,showmask=fals e)

GripBorders()
LegalClip()

Sampler(length=24)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did a great job on macroblocks, and the detail didn't appear to suffer at all...

Only a few I see ;)

Sorry, I've no idea as I havent encoded a full movie with any variation of this script yet. Anyone else? I posted the file sizes of the same clip encoded at the same settings using different scripts and mine did come out significantly smaller than the current DVD script.

With my script the flashing DCT blocks you see on flat areas like walls etc. are greatly reduced. I'm not sure if the picture quality is affected much otherwise, but so far I've only been working with a low quality xvid encode so the picture quality is crappy anyway and its hard to tell.

In frame-by-frame analysis in VDub I do see some occasional over-smoothing and temporal ghosting artefacts from my script but I dont think they would be (very) noticeable when watching the movie on a TV.

I need to do test encodes with better quality xvid/divx's and compare them to the current DVD script. Or better yet, EVERYONE needs to do test encodes and report back here :)

I dont use GripCrop et al simply because I never bothered to learn how! I prefer setting sizes manually and letting TMPGEnc add the overscan borders at encode time. Its just the way I like to work. I dont think it makes a difference, does it?

Perhaps some kind soul could post a GripCrop/GripSize version of my script?

I guess because Im trying to get rid of DCT artefacts, so adding an additional DCT/iDCT is going against what I'm trying to do. Also I dont have a pre-sharpening step (eg: UnFilter) so adding an extra spatial smoother would blur the picture too much I think.

I havent tried DCTFilter though so I could be way off here :)

I think you have too many softeners in there Reno. I tried much the same thing and, like you said, it looked too soft.

cool :) thats some progress at least!

Girv thank you for answering :P I tried your script with the same movie :? Kwag's script gave me a CQ value of 61.xx but your script was quite different, it gave me a CQ of 53.xx 8O So the quality got poorer :(

//Wolfi

it doesn´t have to
i can remember scripts (long time ago), where i got cq 70 , but the quality was a lot poorer than cq 55 with current script (without STM, i hate that filter :twisted: )

Should I drop that filter completely from the current scripts :?: :roll:

-kwag

if you ask ME, i would say YES
to make a long story short:
increased cq value, but poorer quality (with STM)

Filter gone!
I've already heard many people complaining about that, so I removed the filter from the script until further tests are done ( or a substitute for a good and fast "Median" filter appears! )

-kwag

yes k it is a fast filter but, when using it the movie looks almost like you were looking through a thick gass.

Hi griv,

Just wanna give my 2 cents... because this script makes me really confused. :?

Look what you are doing:
First you resize to 432x544,
then you add 64 lines of top/bottom borders (32 lines each),
after that you crop all the borders you just added! 8O

So you end up with a final resolution of 432x544 <- that's a strange resolution!

I didn't get what you are trying to do... :roll:
I think that with this "strange" resolution TMPG will have to resize it too, and that's not good.

wait Kwag,not too fast. 8O

you know,i make thousands tests before encode something.
believe me,sometimes i test for 2 months 8O
everything...scripts,the order of the filters in the script,CQ,
matrices,sizers(bilinear,lanczos...)...etc,etc.

not kidding:
i want best results, not lots of movies with poor quality
caused for filters or anything else.

the last script with STM filter is too slow but
testing the same sample with and without STM,
i see a big more details in scenes in the back of the movie.
little details are clean.
is really better and i have samples here.
the only problem was the velocity.
the script is too slow.
unfilter is fantastic and faster than others sharpen filters but
with 50,50 turn the script slow too!!!

then we need another good filter or better
is back with STM or change it all.

of course,it's only my oppinion!
:wink:

ps:
hard testing all:
i don't work no more(thanks GOD)
and stay in the pc all day long and sometimes for
3 nights without sleep!
doing what?
or in the forum,or testing programs and scripts.
and a months ago i posted tons of tested scripts
in the forum,don't remember where is it.
i test all of them and compare the results!!!
doing only one movie,i have only 4gb free space
in my maxtor 60gb.
tons of samples for compare.

hey,what a big ps!!!?!
:D
:)

3 nights 8O

"the last script with STM filter is too slow but
testing the same sample with and without STM,
i see a big more details in scenes in the back of the movie.
little details are clean."

You say that you see more details with STM filter :oops: :?:

//Wolfi