Avisynth: Highest quality vs Motion Estimate file size?
Hi,
Playing with Tmpgenc, I discovered that using the MA script, Highest Quality parameter gives me a 5% smaller file than Motion Estimate (and a 200% larger encoding time :lol:)! I have to watch 2 samples on mi TV to see if there are equals, but 5% is a lot... Could someone confirm that? Thanks, Fabrice |
hy fabrice.
:wink: i can confirm if you post the exact scripts used,then i copy each and do 2 samples tests to compare. can you post the (exact) scripts please? :wink: |
Hi Jorel,
Of course (It's the Optimal one): Code:
LoadPlugin("D:\tools\AviSynth2\AviSynth 2.5\plugins\MPEG2Dec3.dll") CU Edited: I'm using Tmpgenc 2.520. |
fabrice,
results changing to 352x480(ntsc) with (trim) 2001 frames , 1 minute and 7 seconds source and using using CQ70 to encode: motion estimate search (fast): 1 minute,59 seconds to encode, 6,10mb size ( 6,250kb) high quality (very slow) : 2 minutes,39 seconds to encode, 6,04mb size ( 6,196kb) visual differences: can't see anything in my short sample,just the same! :wink: |
So it's true, I think I will be using high quality for larger files:)
|
Quote:
better is test with big sizes to compare cos we have tons of posts showing better results with ME! nothing is better than tests! :wink: |
Re: Highest quality vs Motion Estimate file size
Quote:
-kwag |
Hi,
I got a shot comparing Motion Estimation y Highest: http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif In my opinion, Highest in this case is better (on the right), because of less artifacts and less blocks. The CQ is 63, and the diference is 4% less for Highest. CU |
maybe is my monitor or the size of the pictures...
i can't see blocks and artifacts. :? :eyebrows: but with the "nose in the screen".... in the right picture i see better matizes...like, the green part on the bottom,the color of her lips and face, the skin of the guy in the back, the "light blue" througt the window. :!: more opinions are welcome! :wink: |
Colors look a bit more vibrant and crisper with the image on the right.
|
Just one thing : Highest quality "just" take more time than High Quality. The results are quite the same :-)
Time diff between High and Motion Estimare is only 20-30%. |
Re: Highest quality vs Motion Estimate file size
Quote:
|
Re: Highest quality vs Motion Estimate file size
Quote:
|
Quote:
You should put : Code:
function fmin(int f1, int f2) { |
Hi,
@Dialhot: you're right about the script. It was an old version of the MA script. Best with int! Thanks! I was looking at this parameters, because in that movie, the Marie Jane face seem to have strange artifact on the right side, and it 's very noticeable when she moves the head (with Motion estimate). With High, it's still noticeable, but with Highest, it's almost perfect: http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/error.gif I'm just encoding the whole movie with Highest (with a CQ 65,18. Before was 63,61). 6h instead of 4h, but worth it, I think. I was just recording my firsts DVDRip, and I was already changing the template to put Highest... Fabrice |
Why ME instead of HQ.
Hi Fabrice,
In order to proplerly see the effect as to why Motion Estimate is better that High Quality or Highest, we can't compare still frames :!: I've picked a very appropiate scene, where there's horizontal, vertical, and circular motion. Here is where you can really appreciate the "far less" mosquito effect, when using "Motion Estimate" Look carefully at around the moving space craft. http://www.kvcd.net/red-hq.m2v ( High Quality) http://www.kvcd.net/red-hhq.m2v ( Highest Quality ) http://www.kvcd.net/red-me.m2v ( Motion Estimate ) The difference is obvious, and this was a direct encode from a .d2v. No filters used :!: Edit: These are NTSC encodes :!: Maybe there's a difference in PAL :roll: -kwag |
Hi kwag,
I agree with you that there is no sense to compare still frames, with the MA script, but this scene is quite still, and you can notice the defect on the TV: it last 3 seconds... and in this scene, it's better Highest. I think it's quite unfair to compare this Motion Search Precisions without filters, as MA script is changing quite a lot this kind of things (more blurring when movement). And I see that your samples are mpeg2. Couldn't this produce different results? I'll cut this part in the 3 samples, and post them. Fabrice |
Quote:
Yes, I agree that in some scenes, there is a slight advantage using "High Quality". But after doing many comparisons, the overall quality/speed ratio with "Motion Estimate" is just greater than the time spent encoding with "High Quality". I believe there's some extensive test data done by SansGrip, related to "High Quality" vs. "Highest Quality", where the conclusion was that "Highest Quality" was just useless, as there is really no visual quality gained. It's way deep in this thread: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2073 So we were actually using "Normal" quality before the MA script, because there was not that much difference to "High Quality". Just a little better with "High Quality". But then, specially on fast movind scenes, where you can see an image in front moving fast over a still background, there is where you really see the "Motion Estimate" shine above all other search methods. On "High Quality" and "Highest Quality", you'll see a "Streak" image left behind, where it's barely visible when using "Motion Estimate". I believe there are some screenshots to prove that in some thread where we were discussing the MA script, where it clearly shows the benefit. That's why we changed from "High Quality" to Motion Estimation, and there were many tests to confirm that. The screenshots you provided, I believe from "Spiderman" , it's a sceenshot inside the bus. There's not much "Cross Motion" there, like on a fast panning front image with a still background scene with small details. If you can make a small test with that type of scene, I'm sure you'll see what we're talking about :) Also, it applies to MPEG-1 and MPEG-2. It's the same result. Edit: Here's the thread. In my first post here: http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic....=asc&start=416 there are two MPEG-1 samples which show the "Gibbs" effect, clearly more visible with "High Quality" than "Motion Estimate". Specially noticeable on far away small objects. -kwag |
Hi Kwag,
Quote:
See that it's the famous post about CQ vs CQ_VBR... have to read it again. Quote:
Quote:
Thanks for all that 'pointers'. Just 2 hours reading, and others 2 hours doing test! :) Just one more thing: since I'm reading this forum, I can't see TV anymore, as I see all defects on satellite channel, and traditional TV: garbage... ;) Fabrice. |
Quote:
-kwag |
And we've got the digital transmissions that have lost a/v sync and sync problems with subtitles :lol: I hope we won't ditch the analog system in 2006 as planned. My KVCDs look and sound a lot better than most digital TV transmissions that I've seen in various stores :?
|
Hi kwag,
I'm encoding this movie at 352x576, CQ 63, and I get poor results, even with the MA script... This is perhaps the bigger difference between PAL and NTCS: I've never been able to encode at 704x576, for one CD, and even in 528x576, the CQ value is almost always lower than 70... High vs Highest: it's here http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic....=asc&start=592 I'm encoding it with blur(0.3), at 352x288, Motion Estimate, to see if I get better results. Fabrice |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.