Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
using the same sample with STM filter. i don't know (how i could)but if is possible, i can send pictures with and without the filter from my samples. ps: i sleep one 2 or 3 days in the week. and my friends(some are doctors)stay 8O :wink: |
Yeeah please send me some pics :) would be graet :!: But if you remove STM filter, are you sure quality gets better, CQ value will get lower :?
//Wolfi |
Quote:
//Wolfi |
Quote:
|
Quote:
//Wolfi |
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 |
Quote:
please,remove my doubt: in my (lots) samples,with STM is slow but better! what is better for you? with or without STM filter? :? |
as i said before, the samples without were always better in my test.
as someone said before, itīs like looking through a big glass, the video is really unsharp with STM |
Oke, if I drop STM filter, you think I still should have DCT filter :?:
//Wolfi |
Quote:
why always search for alternative filters , if you drop one? sometimes less is more :wink: |
Jorel, you think you can send some pics with STM and without, just to comapre, it would be great :D
//Wolfi |
Quote:
send me a pm with your mail and i send it later cos here in Brasil on saturdays,sundays and holidays the internet is tooo sloooooow. ....waiting your pm! :wink: |
Thanks Jorel :lol:
//Wolfi |
@Kwag,
Could you please take a look at my post to andybno1 in this thread: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3802&start=15 and tell me what you think of the script recommendations I listed there. Personally, I don't think you should have dropped STMedianFilter completely from your Optimal Script. I know that a few people have complained that it reduces quality too much, but I happen to think it actually does a very good job at reducing filesize without effecting quality too much. Keywords: too much! :wink: Because ANY extra filtering is going to cause some quality-loss probably. But for those longer movies where you really need some more compression, the first filter I would choose to add would actually be STMedianFilter. I did a few comparison tests (back at the beginning of this thread I think) between STMedianFilter and SpaceDust, and I found STMedianFilter actually looked a bit better. Just my opinion though. Thanks, -d&c |
Well I haven't made any tests in the couple of days, but I have had very good results with STM filter, just like jorel...
However we are using the max. Values for Spatial Filtering in STM so this might lead to an unsharp picture... For me the question is just, if it's better to kill sharpness with a Spatial Filter or with a Luma Blur... ?? I still doubt that blurring the picture with a simple command will replace almost the whole temporal AND spatial filtering process... This would somehow be too easy. I like to compromise for some reason... :wink: |
STDMedian is back!
I've done several tests today, and I came to the conclusion that the filter set like this: STMedianFilter(10, 30, 0, 0, 10, 30), I can't see any visual difference with or without the filter, but the file size is still smaller with the filter using these settings. Please try it :!:
I've updated the current script again. -kwag |
ok, iīll give it a last try, if it failes, iīll delete the filter from my hdd :twisted: :wink:
|
I will try this script on Showtime, 90 min :arrow:
ConvertToYUY2() LegalClip() GripCrop( width=544, height=480, overscan=3 ) GripSize(resizer="BicubicResize") STMedianFilter(10, 30, 0, 0, 10, 30) SpaceDust() unfilter(50,50) temporalsmoother(1,2) mergechroma(blur(1.58)) mergeluma(blur(0.3)) DctFilter(1,1,1,1,1,.5,.5,0) GripBorders() LegalClip() Just hope that ToK will work :( //Wolfi |
ahah the same naisty problem, to said nothing is working :cry:
//Wolfi |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:) 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? :wink: |
Re: STDMedian is back!
Quote:
I think this one needs more investigation :)[/b] |
Quote:
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. |
ok Kane.
:wink: but why we see differents qualitys? maybe the sources. :? mine is from dvd,and your? :?: |
Quote:
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 :wink: |
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.
|
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! :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 :lol: i'm turning it all more confused! :lol: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thanks! :wink: |
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 :wink: :wink: :wink: bman |
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! |
@ 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 |
Quote:
Code:
AVISource("xvid.avi") |
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: :? ) More to try :lol: 8) bman |
Quote:
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. |
@ girv
I'm using KWAG's optimal script with some small changes on prams of filters . bman |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.