digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]

digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/)
-   Avisynth Scripting (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/avisynth/)
-   -   Avisynth: Unbelievable! The script hasn't changed in 5 days?? (http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/avisynth/3257-avisynth-unbelievable-script.html)

PyRoMaNiA 04-21-2003 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bman
Hi PyRo !
Best is to try coz there are no 2 identical sources out there :D
Try and see which one fits u more :wink:
bman

OK. :) Faerydust works fine for me, so I'll stick with it. :D

kwag 04-21-2003 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfi
Okej, now I can see the differces :) So the only temporal filter who is in use, when talking about the script for dvd and clean material, is temporalsmoother :?:

//Wolfi

That's right, and with very low values. Too high values makes "ghosting" in the image ( Trailing images ).

-kwag

Bigswaffo 04-21-2003 02:29 PM

@kwag
For a clean DVD-Rip DivX, what noise filter should I use (Space, Faery, Pixie, or Gold Dust)?

Also, on the optimal script it has a mergechorma and a mergeluma. What exactly do those do?

kwag 04-21-2003 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigswaffo
@kwag
For a clean DVD-Rip DivX, what noise filter should I use (Space, Faery, Pixie, or Gold Dust)?

For DivX(XviD), I wouldn't go over FaeryDust.
Quote:


Also, on the optimal script it has a mergechorma and a mergeluma. What exactly do those do?
http://www.avisynth.org/index.php?page=Merge

-kwag

Kane 04-22-2003 02:13 PM

iŽve tried the newest script with several "types" of movies, action movies, dark movies, etc and compared it with the same script without STMedianFilter

In every try the movie without STMedianFilter had a better quality, than the on with STMedianFilter, although the cq value could be increased with STMedianFilter about 2-5

so my decision is to leave it out,
would like to hear about your results

kwag 04-22-2003 03:28 PM

Hi Kane,

Probably even lowering the values in the filter might still keep the file size down!, while maintaining better picture quality than with the current settings :idea:
Just keep the third and fourth parameters ( temporal section ) set to 0.
Only adjust the Spatial parameters.

-kwag

Kane 04-22-2003 03:31 PM

iŽll play a bit with this filter later, but i think i donŽt like him and he doesnŽt like me :wink:
picture with STM was always worse than without it

Reno 04-22-2003 03:50 PM

Gotta concur with Kane.

I use STmedian if I have to, but if I can complete an encode without it, I will. Detail does drop, although the 'compression gain vs. impact on quality' ratio is better than previous filters I've tried.

Got any new revelations for us, Kwag?

kwag 04-22-2003 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reno

Got any new revelations for us, Kwag?

No, but if you two agree, then there's something wrong :) I'll do some tests by changing the spatial parameters, and see how they impact quality and file size :!:

-kwag

Reno 04-23-2003 12:09 PM

Hey, has anybody tried Addnoise/Blockbuster with the current script? I'll give it a shot.

What settings do you recommend, Kwag?

I'm currently using-

Blockbuster(method="noise", detail_min=1, detail_max=7, variance=0.3, seed=1)

Kane 04-23-2003 12:24 PM

i used blockbuster with current script (for vhs) with default settings, as they are set in moviestacker.
i had a piece of movie which was more noise and artifacts than movie.

did a great job

Reno 04-23-2003 01:10 PM

Coolness! Thx Kane!!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 AM  —  vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd

Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.