hi friends.
i'm testing the new script with little variations.(seems great) a big, big tests,lots of samples. :) please,wait for my results. thanks :!: :wink: |
If I'm getting a smaller CQ value with the newest script, what am I doing wrong then :(
//Wolfi |
Quote:
how much was the cq decreased? |
Oldest script was :arrow:
ConvertToYUY2() LegalClip() GripCrop( width=544, height=480 ) GripSize(resizer="BicubicResize") STMedianFilter(10, 30, 0, 0, 10, 30) SpaceDust() unfilter(50,50) temporalsmoother(1,2) mergechroma(blur(1.50)) mergeluma(blur(0.2)) DctFilter(1,1,1,1,1,.5,.5,0) GripBorders() Letterbox(0,0,32,32) LegalClip() Newest :arrow: ConvertToYUY2() LegalClip() unfilter(50,50) GripCrop( width=544, height=480 ) GripSize(resizer="BicubicResize") STMedianFilter(8, 32, 0, 0, 8, 32) SpaceDust() temporalsmoother(1,2) mergechroma(blur(1.50)) mergeluma(blur(0.2)) DctFilter(1,1,1,1,1,.5,.5,0) GripBorders() Letterbox(0,0,32,32) LegalClip() I does'nt drop more then 1-2 but I thought cq would rise a bit :idea: //Wolfi |
maybe it´s because of the changes in STMFilter
with the new settings , the cq is not that higher, as with the old settings |
But the picture gets sharper and clearer with the new script, right?
//Wolfi |
Quote:
just make a short sample with both scripts and compare |
Thanks Kane :) but I'm not so good to compare clips :? Should I look at walls, faces, background details or what :( Please point me in the right direction...
//Wolfi |
Quote:
are the background and faces less blury, can i see more details? how do action scenes and dark scenes look? something like that if a script is really better than the older one, you will notice the difference, just by viewing , let´s say 10sec of each script one behind the other |
Are you comparing with "full screen" or just normal? Thank you Kane :lol:
//Wolfi |
Quote:
normaly i burn a view samples on a cd-rw and view it on tv, ´cos this is, where i want to watch it sometimes i use windvd fullscreen |
Quote:
the results of my sample tests. was hard to do and to write,you know my "klinglish" :oops: then... sizes and times using the full new script and variations: George Harrison sung in "any road": "traveling there and traveling here everywhere in every gear... and i've been traveling throught the dirt and the grime from the past to the future throught the space and time traveling deep beneath the waves... but oh Lord we've got to fight with the thoughts in the head with the dark and the light no use to stop and stare and if you don't know where you're going any road will take you there! :wink: tests and results: :!: first test: to compare the quality, sizes and times needed, i did some samples using trim. Total Frames: 2001 Total Time : 00:01:07<---sample time used, trim(30000,32000) all samples with cq 60: full script........9.362.678,00:05:32 only merge.....9.978.867,00:05:15<--less size,more time :!: no filters.......11.624.519,00:04:08<--more size,less time :!: only stf.........10.322.693,00:04:25 :!: second test: searching the prediction for each case in ToK, i found using: Total Frames: 56417 Total Time : 00:31:22<---sample time used, Trim(0,56416) the CQ obtained for each case was applied to do the final samples, see the values of this CQs in the final test! :!: final test: after found the CQs for each case: Total Frames: 3001 Total Time : 00:01:40<---sample time used, trim(30000,33000) full script.....17.024.579,00:08:13,CQ : 68,400<--more size,more time :!: only merge..16.454.478,00:07:49,CQ : 63,340 no filters......16.244.254,00:06:11,CQ : 57,260<--less size,less time :!: only stf........16.802.096,00:06:36,CQ : 63,270 :!: the results: after burn the 4 samples from my final tests: in my phillips 29 with only 2 "months of age", in another phillips 14 with less than 1 year of use and another sansung 20 with 5 years: ALL SAMPLES SEEMS THE SAME,TEENY DIFFERENCES. 8O :!: I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS BETTER!!! :wink: no filters - 16.244.254,00:06:11,CQ : 57,260<---less size,less time :!: is better for me than full script - 17.024.579,00:08:13,CQ : 68,400<---more size,more time :!: cos the image seems the same,is faster to encode and give less size. AND ALL SAMPLES FROM THE SAME SOURCE :!: sorry my screams "caps lock" cos after 3 days doing samples and Kwag was changed the values of STF in the middle of my tests... i did all again with the new STF parameters :!: was really hard :!: :!: i have pictures and a friend will help me to post it here. the pictures are: 4 bmp CQ60, 4 bmp CQ60 in another frame, 4 bmp from dif Cqs and dif scripts, 4 bmp from dif Cqs and dif scripts in another frame in rar(2,52mb) and/or zip(3,61mb) to send. the same 16 pictures in jpg format in zip(298kb) to send. if anyone wish, i send the pictures for mail, just pm me! tomorrow i will post it here, only waiting my friend cos i don't know how to post it. please, i'm waiting advices and commentarys from you all! thanks in advance. :) |
Does the newest script increase CQ by 5 for every one? CQ shrinks for me by 0.02 cq value if I use the newest script. I compared the oldest and the new one and cq actually gets smaller :(
ConvertToYUY2() LegalClip() unfilter(50,50) GripCrop( width=544, height=480 ) GripSize(resizer="BicubicResize") STMedianFilter(8, 32, 0, 0, 8, 32) SpaceDust() temporalsmoother(1,2) mergechroma(blur(1.50)) mergeluma(blur(0.2)) DctFilter(1,1,1,1,1,.5,.5,0) GripBorders() Letterbox(0,0,32,32) LegalClip() What am I doing wrong, or am I doing anything wrong 8O BTW: Jorel great job :wink: //Wolfi |
@ Jorel
The reason for the filters r to clean up the video image and reduce the file size and of course encode time is much longer, if we could fit more in one CD we wouldn't worry to much about filter and everything would be a lot easier, but as it is we have to sacrified speed for quality and i guess we will keep using this filter until a smart person comes along and tell us how to get more compression, good quality, and faster encode all in one deal. keep experimenting who knows maybe it will be you. :) |
Hi Wolfi,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Happy encoding, -d&c |
thanks for observations ovg64
:) i was waiting more observations from other members cos was hard to do and write the results... :( maybe is better wait a little more. you wrote: "...to clean up the video image and reduce the file size ... if we could fit more in one CD we wouldn't worry to much about filter and everything would be a lot easier.... have to sacrified speed for space and i guess we will keep using this filter ...." or i misunderstand your answer or my explanation was unclear. see: if i don't see extreme differences in quality and got CQ:57,260 without filters and CQ:68,400 in the full new script after find the CQs for the samples after prediction, we will got the same final size for them too. if we encode the full movie after find the prediction, no matter what filter we choose,the final size will be the same or near :!: my observations in the tests are: 352x240,we need some filters but, for 480x480 we don't need the same filters cos more "resize" gives less problems and for 528x480, less filters than to 480x480. resuming: do a sample(same source) with CQ 57 and another with CQ68... the differences is not too huge(only my opinion)...for me, more resize means 528x480 that is more than 352x240 and give better quality with less filters. and don't matter the resolution, the prediction will find the ideal CQ with or without the filters. the final size will be near in all cases. one with more CQ and another with less CQ. the important is not only the CQ or time to encode. the best is the quality and i see only teeny diferences in 480x480 using only unfilter(20,20) or no one filter. my sources are DVDs only, i don't encode captured avis or divx! maybe this make a big difference! i see in forums everybody changing filters,removing filters, put a new one filters but, they don't got our results with kvcds. i think that the miracle here is the kvcd formats and the Kwags modifications for tmpgenc, not the filters. or it all is my big mistake.... but my samples and pictures show me that i'm not too wrong! thanks my friend ovg64, if my explanations here worse the situation and turn it all more confuse, :lol: or are not clear, please excuse me. :oops: you know my horrible english! :wink: |
Hey Jorel, say you have to do a movie an you determine that 60% CQ is acceptable for it, now get tok and tok tells you that the hole movie will fit at 55% CQ. Now you want to get up to 60% again and that is when the filter come in affect, now you put a couple of this filters and bang you are back to 60% or more CQ. Now i agree with you that the least filters we use the better, cause if you use too many filters you probably make things worse (image quality) not to mantion your encode is slower, so you use the least amount of filters with the best posible setting depending on the movie. Personally I thinck anithing encode above 75% or even 70% you dont need anything but resizeing filter I guess Kwag templates are that good. :wink:
|
Quote:
-kwag |
ähhmmm....i´m a little bit confused, reading your last posting jorel:
Quote:
YOU KILLED ALL FILTERS 8O :? :?: |
Quote:
i post in my biiig explanation(well, was trying...): "i think that the miracle here is the kvcd formats and the Kwags modifications for tmpgenc, not the filters." my source have more or less 82minutes(dvd) and i got big results as posted and all my samples show me exact what i wrote. i send my pictures to ovg64 compare and he can explain better than me cos he speaks great english and his observations will be really true, of course :!: :wink: @helper ovg64, as i posted my friend, your opinion is very important. you have the pictures to compare. @ big tester Kane, Kwag is the fastest big clicker in the world, you hurt STF with mortal "punch" and i am the bad and worse dangerous filters killer! :lol: :lol: :lol: ps: maybe kwag and more friends are thinking now: this brasilian mid old guy(more old than mid)is mad. 8O :lol: :lol: :lol: only kidding...! but the results are here,if someone want it just pm! thank you all! :) |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.