Latest script discussion
 

Here's the latest test script. Valid for the next 10 minutes :mrgreen:

-kwag

8O as long as that?? I thought it would of been much shorter hehehe :D

Re: Latest script
 

I get a smaller filesize by putting SpaceDust() between TemporalSmoother and TemporalCleaner...

Thanks! :D

Re: Latest script
 

You see, I told'ya it was only going to last 10 minutes :mrgreen:
It actually lasted ~20 :lol:

:lol:

I see that!!!

That's why I suggested that you post it once a week.... Whatever is the latest script at the time. :D

Otherwise... you are absolutely right... There is going to be a new one every 10 minutes.... :oops:

DorvalCS

At least we'll only have to look through one thread to find the lastest! :D

maybe there´s something wrong with my eys.

i compared kwag´s script with this script

i got a video with this script , which is a lot less blury and a bit sharper.
i made samples with both script´s at cq 65 and 70.

strange. the more filters, the more blury the video? :?

kwag, can we see a sample using this script?

Check the last posts here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3366&start=45

My latest test script is this:

Info on the link above.

-kwag

To be tested:

Added TemporalSmoother with very small strength and radius values.
Added TemporalCleaner with very strong treshold ONLY on chroma and minimal value for luma.
This drops file size considerably, while still retaining quality without "smearing" the picture.

-kwag

i can see no difference in image quality between those two script, but the script WITH temporalcleaner and smoother was 0,1MB bigger than the other i took 90sec longer to encode

Those TemporalSmoother values dont look too different from the first script you posted...

Sure they do!.
The originals:
The new ones:
That makes a huge difference :wink:

-kwag

The image quality is identical, but the file size with the temporals will be smaller. Sure you didn't mix the encodes :?:
There's no way a file size can be larger with the temporal filters :!:

-kwag

what does this line make source_anamorphic=false ? Havent seen it before...

I'm not sure if anyone here remembers the original "The Green Mile" samples posted last year. So here's a new sample created with the script above, using MIN=64Kbps, MAX=1,150Kbps and a CQ of 80. Full sampler size was ~12MB, which is the correct size to target the complete 180 minute movie on one CD at 352x240. Here a 30 second clip so you can see how it looks. http://www.kvcd.net/mile-2003.mpg :mrgreen:

-kwag

That's created automatically by MovieStacker, depending on your source.

-kwag

i made those sample both with cq 70 to see, if there´s a difference in file size
now i make prediction with ToK for both scripts, let you know, what comes out

My file size difference using the temporal filters is ~150KB lower per every 30 seconds. Let me know your results :D

-kwag

I'm not using MovieStacker so can I leave that line out of my script (source_anamorphic=false) :?:

//Wolfi

perhaps you should *g*
makes things a lot easier, especially adjusting the aspect ratio to preven t "egg-heads"

if your source isn´t anamorphic, you can leave it out

I forgot... I dont know so much about all this filters so were can I find readme's for :arrow: GripCrop, GripSize, all the Dust filters for example Goldust, TemporalSmoother, TemporalCleaner, STMedianFilter :oops:

It's not easy to know witch comand I should use in different scripts, thats why I need to know were I can find readme's :oops: I have found some readme's on this site but I'd like to know if there is readme's for the filters I counted up and not the once on this site :arrow:

http://www.jungleweb.net/~sansgrip/avisynth/

//Wolfi

You can find most of the links here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2553

-kwag

did you use the same cq value for this comparison, or did you compare the final sample, ToK gave you?

Were can I download TemporalSmoother :?:

//Wolfi

i would suggest you download moviestacker
even, if you don´t use it, you´ve got the most common filters in the install-directory.
temporalsmoother is the same dll as temporalcleaner ( TemporalCelanerOld.dll )

I didn't use ToK. I used a fixed CQ of 70 for both samples.

-kwag

well, then i´ve already posted it.
but i will re-try it in a few minutes, just to make sure

let´s see:

the script without temporalcleaner and smoother:
size: 11,2MB
encoding time: 5:26
sample length 86sec
cq 70

the script with temporalcelaner and smoother
size: 11,3MB
encoding time: 7:34
sample length: 86sec
cq 70


maybe i´m too stupid to understand, but what should be the advantage of the script WITH temporalsmoother and cleaner? it takes longer to encode, but the image quality is the same, as without temporalcleaner and smoother.

:?

Here's your problem Kane: mergeluma(blur(.7)) on one script and mergeluma(blur(1.0)) on the other. The tests I did were with mergeluma(blur(1.0)) on both. This way, you get smaller file size with the temporal filters, and the image looks the same. However, with the temporal filters and lowering the value of mergeluma to .7, we get a slightly sharper picture and about the same file size. Sorry if I screwed up on my initial explanation 8O
There is a clear slight advantage on sharpness using .7, because we're not blurring the luma channel too much. Look closely at small details and you'll see what I mean 8)

-kwag

@Kane,

However, if you really can't tell the difference on a certain movie, hell :!:, then drop the temporal filters and use 1.0 for luma :lol:
You're getting a huge speed advantage that way :wink:

-kwag

More smoothing = less filesize...the more smoothing you can do without jeopardizing your resulting quality too much, the better. The reason your 2nd sample turned out larger than the first is because you lowered your MergeLuma(Blur) value. Try both scripts again with the same values and you'll see a lower filesize while using temporalsmoother/cleaner. :wink:
-d&c

:!: :oops: Beat me by a couple minutes Kwag!!! :wink: :lol:
-d&c

ahhh, that was the mistake.
i know what you mean. you can see this effect perfectly, if you look at gimli´s beard in lord of the rings.
the higher the luma value, the less hair you can see, it becomes one brown "thing" :lol:

btw:
i did the sample with temporalcleaner-,smoother again with luma 0.7
size: 10,7MB
so, everything´s allright, i´m not crazy *g*

I guess we can play with mergeluma(blur(.x)), where x can be .5 for shorter films, and increase the value towards 1.0 for longer movies. This way we could probably drop the slow temporal filters completely, and use the merge functions to achieve more compression :idea:

-kwag

Latest test:

Lowered the sharpen just a tad, and I was able to get rid of temporal filters completely.
Has anyone noticed that using this combination of filters, there's hardly any visible artifacts and/or blocks on dark scenes :?: It looks more like noise, which gives a more natural feel.
Look at this 10 second KVCDx3 sample, encoded with the above script using a CQ of 60 8O , which is the way this 117 minute full screen movie looks on one CD. It's from the movie "City by the sea": http://www.kvcd.net/city-by-the-sea.mpg

-kwag

yes, these are mostly the scenes i look at, when comparing samples. those dark areas seem more realistic with this combination. there´s hardly nothing disturbing like bocks in it which destroy the picture

i will test that later, it´s 3:30am, time to go to bed

Any good avi scripts?
 

I used virtually the following script on an avi from a VHS source:

LegalClip
Bilinear .....
mergechroma(blur(1.58))
mergeluma(blur(0.05))
SpaceDust()
TemporalSmoother(radius=2, strength=3)
TemporalCleaner(ythresh=5, cthresh=10)
STMedianFilter(6,15,4,7,6,15)
DctFilter(1,1,1,1,1,.5,.5,0)
AddBorders....
LegalClip()

The result was very, very blurry. Any good scripts for VHS and 8mm source material?

Hi MrRobot,

For a VHS cap, try something like this:

See how that works :wink:

-kwag