Quantcast Avisynth: Latest Script Discussion - Page 14 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
  #261  
05-01-2003, 05:33 PM
Wolfi Wolfi is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 489
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Wolfi Send a message via MSN to Wolfi Send a message via Yahoo to Wolfi
ahah the same naisty problem, to said nothing is working

//Wolfi
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
  #262  
05-01-2003, 05:59 PM
girv girv is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to girv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfi
Quote:
Originally Posted by girv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfi
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
Are you sure? Any source I've tried has come out smaller with my script at the same CQ...
Oh yeah I'm sure :?
I did some more tests with different sources - sometimes my script made a smaller file, sometimes a larger file compared to Kwag's. Maybe it depends on the amount of xvid blocks in the source ?
Reply With Quote
  #263  
05-01-2003, 06:13 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kane
i didnīt use a stable cq value

i let ToK do the prediction with both scripts, with and without STM and then i did a sample of the same movie ( i just made a 3minute sample with dvd2avi ) with the cq value the prdiction gave me, so i could compare the quality, the final movie would have
friend Kane and all, your atention please:

i think that i found why we have differents opinions about STM..

as posted, you(Kane) "let ToK do the prediction with both scripts".

you got differents CQ,right?
than one of your tests got more CQ and show better quality.

i do my tests and samples using diferents scripts
and a little chapter(but complete chapter)
with more or less 5 minutes.
with and without STM filters in this case,
but with the

same CQ (65 with each script)
and adjusting the "spacing free" and
"max file size" to 25 or 30mb

then i see better result using STM filter comparing the images!!!
just a little,but better?

make sense?
Reply With Quote
  #264  
05-01-2003, 06:26 PM
girv girv is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to girv
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwag
STMedianFilter(10, 30, 0, 0, 10, 30), I can't see any visual difference with or without the filter
To me the output does look slightly softer with the above filter in effect, but you might not notice the effect on a TV. And interestingly I think it made the output look better but that might just be my noisy source material.

I think this one needs more investigation :)[/b]
Reply With Quote
  #265  
05-01-2003, 06:29 PM
Kane Kane is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 398
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
as posted, you(Kane) "let ToK do the prediction with both scripts".

you got differents CQ,right?
than one of your tests got more CQ and show better quality.

yes, i got two different cq values, the scripts with STM have a cq, thatīs about 2-5 highter than the cq without STM, but the video quality with the higher cq is worse, than the one with lower cq.
__________________
greetz Kane
Reply With Quote
  #266  
05-01-2003, 06:34 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ok Kane.


but why we see differents qualitys?

maybe the sources.

mine is from dvd,and your?
Reply With Quote
  #267  
05-01-2003, 06:40 PM
Kane Kane is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 398
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
ok Kane.


but why we see differents qualitys?

maybe the sources.

mine is from dvd,and your?

dvd, too

i will give kwagīs STM settings a try after weekend, if quality remains the same and the filesize decreases: OK, i will use it

otherwise, i wonīt use it anymore. my script gives a perfectly sharp video, i can put on 1cd-r. thatīs all i want
__________________
greetz Kane
Reply With Quote
  #268  
05-01-2003, 06:54 PM
ovg64 ovg64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 423
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to ovg64
Spatial filters, Soften Filters, Shapen Filters its just a way to get around ugly video and get better image, But i wich they make a filter to get just Compression and nothing alse. Cause the thuth is the higher the CQ the less noise you get piriod and you only have 800MB to play with. filters like STM do give compression but at the expence of detail, so i just try to use the least amount of filter possible and try different settings and thats just my 2cnts and that.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
05-01-2003, 06:54 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Kane posted:
"dvd, too ...
my script gives a perfectly sharp video,
i can put on 1cd-r. thatīs all i want"


ok my friend!
i see that you are a "hunter of quality" like me!
Reply With Quote
  #270  
05-01-2003, 06:59 PM
Kane Kane is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 398
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
Kane posted:
"dvd, too ...
my script gives a perfectly sharp video,
i can put on 1cd-r. thatīs all i want"


ok my friend!
i see that you are a "hunter of quality" like me!
yep, always on the hunt
__________________
greetz Kane
Reply With Quote
  #271  
05-01-2003, 07:00 PM
jorel jorel is offline
Invalid Email / Banned / Spammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brasil - MG - third stone from the sun
Posts: 5,570
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovg64
Spatial filters, Soften Filters, Shapen Filters its just a way to get around ugly video and get better image, But i wich they make a filter to get just Compression and nothing alse. Cause the thuth is the higher the CQ the less noise you get piriod and you only have 800MB to play with. filters like STM do give compression but at the expence of detail, so i just try to use the least amount of filter possible and try different settings and thats just my 2cnts and that.
yes ovg64
but what is better without filters?
(the least amount of filter possible)

352 x 240 with more CQ or
high x high with less CQ?

but

i'm turning it all more confused!
Reply With Quote
  #272  
05-01-2003, 07:09 PM
ovg64 ovg64 is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 423
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to ovg64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorel
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovg64
Spatial filters, Soften Filters, Shapen Filters its just a way to get around ugly video and get better image, But i wich they make a filter to get just Compression and nothing alse. Cause the thuth is the higher the CQ the less noise you get piriod and you only have 800MB to play with. filters like STM do give compression but at the expence of detail, so i just try to use the least amount of filter possible and try different settings and thats just my 2cnts and that.
yes ovg64
but what is better without filters?
(the least amount of filter possible)

352 x 240 with more CQ or
high x high with less CQ?

but

i'm turning it all more confused!
Its just that some people come up with scrips that look like my Bible.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
05-01-2003, 08:35 PM
muaddib muaddib is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by girv
The borders are added because MSoften does not (seem to) process the very top and very bottom few lines of the image so you get left over DCT blocks flickering away like mad in those locations. Adding the borders gives the filter "room to work" at the edges, then I remove the borders afterwards as they are no longer needed.

As for the odd resolution, 432x544 is 480x576 with the overscan lines my TV does not display removed. I encode at 480x576 with TMPGEnc's "video arrange method" set to "centre" so it adds the borders required to bring the input clip up to the required resolution without resizing. Theres no particular reason for doing it this way, its just the way I like to do it.
OK! Now I got you!
Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #274  
05-02-2003, 04:35 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm using STM filter with different sourses and as I see it it's very helpful with noisy or low quality sources . If u are working with clean DVD source It can be dropped off , else u need more compression .
STM ( for me ) makes very significant job with low quality sources . With KWAG's optimal script (before last update) I've managed to get so clean picture that my friend couldn't beleave to me when I showed to him source and resulted mpg . He thought that source was an encoded movie .
To use or not to use (STM) It's up to u
So do as u like
bman
Reply With Quote
  #275  
05-02-2003, 05:10 AM
girv girv is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to girv
I finally got around to watching a few Kwag-Optimal vs. Girv-MSoften xvid re-encodes on a TV (standard 28" widescreen).

Overall both scripts gave good quality results. With high quality sources I think Kwag's script perhaps had a slight edge, but with lower quality sources with visible flickering DCT blocks I think MSoften really helps. They seem about even on compression as well. Which is nice.

Problems?

MSoften (mostly) stops the blocks flickering but flat coloured backgrounds can end up looking somewhat blocky with no smooth colour graduation - like you'd converted it to 16 colours and back again (whats the name for that effect?) Is that better or worse than a randomly flickering background? Dunno.

There are also blurring artefacts sometimes, mostly vertical edges being shifted sideways in parts (vertical lines becoming slightly wavy). But these are very short lived (<5 frames) and I only really notice them when stepping through the video frame by frame.

To Do ?

I think some sort of spatial soften / blur is required after MSoften to help with the blocky backgrounds; I'm looking at various filters but havent found a satisfactory one yet. You might like to try FluxSmooth, STMedianFilter or SmartSmootherYuv. Anyone know of a filter that can detect and blur horizontal and vertical edges over a wide area? Maybe I should stop encoding video and go and write one (I just know I'm going to be sorry I said that :)

So to finally spend my 0.02c:
DVD & HQ divx/xvid: Kwag's
Other xvid/divx: Blockbuster & MSoften


All totally 100% IMHO and YMMV of course :) Comments and improvements welcome!
Reply With Quote
  #276  
05-02-2003, 05:41 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@ girv !
Hi !!!
I have to agree with u but have some quastions :
=====
So to finally spend my 0.02c:
DVD & HQ divx/xvid: Kwag's
Other xvid/divx: Blockbuster & MSoften
=====
When U Say " xvid/divx: Blockbuster & MSoften " what params u suggest for both of them . Have u any favorite ones ???
bman
Reply With Quote
  #277  
05-02-2003, 06:05 AM
girv girv is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to girv
Quote:
Originally Posted by bman
When U Say " xvid/divx: Blockbuster & MSoften " what params u suggest for both of them
I'm currently encoding with this script:

Code:
AVISource("xvid.avi")
LegalClip()

LanczosResize(432,416)
AddBorders(0,32,0,32)
Blockbuster(method="dither",detail_min=1,detail_max=10,variance=0.3,seed=0,cache=4096)
MSoften(3,3,4,3,pre=1,post=1,speed=4,showmask=false)
Crop(0,32,Width(),Height()-64)
FluxSmooth(MergeLuma(last,1))

LegalClip()
These are the settings I've settled on after many hours of peering at VirtualDub :) They seem to give good results on a variety of sources.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
05-02-2003, 06:53 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That's interesting !
U are resizing , adding borders and right after all this u set all other filters ?
Thats interesting cos I've got better results with all filters before resizing . It takes more time ( bigger frame to work up ) but resulted quality just worth it .
I didn't try this way ( Stupid of me )
More to try
bman
Reply With Quote
  #279  
05-02-2003, 08:31 AM
girv girv is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 108
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to girv
Quote:
Originally Posted by bman
That's interesting ! 8O 8O 8O
U are resizing , adding borders and right after all this u set all other filters ?

Thats interesting cos I've got better results with all filters before resizing . It takes more time ( bigger frame to work up ) but resulted quality just worth it .
I didn't try this way :!: :?: ( Stupid of me :oops: :oops: :? )
Not stupid at all, bman :) I tried the filters before the resizing and, as you say, it takes longer to encode. However I couldnt see any quality difference when doing it this way so I just put the resize first for the speed gain. What filter chain were you using in your test?

Note that I'm adding borders then removing them again with Crop. This is because the MSoften filter doesnt process the top and bottom of the frame so I add borders to give it "room to work" at the edges.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
05-02-2003, 10:01 AM
bman bman is offline
Free Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@ girv
I'm using KWAG's optimal script with some small changes on prams of filters .
bman
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Avisynth: Is it me or is the latest MA script slow? audi2honda Avisynth Scripting 1 12-08-2003 04:27 AM
Avisynth: Latest script compatible with 2.51? Reno Avisynth Scripting 15 07-11-2003 06:26 AM
Avisynth: Possible Addition To Latest Script For 2.5 Dano Avisynth Scripting 13 06-18-2003 04:49 PM
Avisynth: Latest vhs script? Paul0889 Avisynth Scripting 1 04-18-2003 09:31 PM
Avisynth: Latest KVCD script please! syk2c11 Avisynth Scripting 1 04-02-2003 10:03 AM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:39 PM  —  vBulletin Đ Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd