@ frabrice:

I'm not sure what CQ 63 stands for 8O

Is it your "pivot" at pointing to a final value, based on a scale ??
ie, your chart above (page 1) maybe ??

I experimented w/ the algo in Excel, just to see if I could at least get a num
out of it. I had trouble w/ the "^" char, as I understood it, "^" means
"power of". In Excel it means (assuming I'm understanding the help file)
that "^" is the Exponent.. same as "Power of" ??

here's the Excel formulat format, placed under my Fabrice TAB :)
* =ABS( SIN ( 1000/E5 ) * 1.3 ^( E5/10 )+1.5 ^( E5/8 ))

--> where X=Cell(E5) = 300
--> E5[300] --> result: 4012066.95
--> E5[150] --> result: 2022.290361
--> E5[050] --> result: 15.99550055
.
.
etc. etc.

If by chance, my Excel of "^" is used incorrectly in the formula, please feel
free to correct me.

Thanks,
-vhelp

Hi,

What an honor: I got a tab in your excel Spreadsheet ! :ole:
I use the 63 value, because it's in the middle of a vertical line, so it gives, I think, better results. It could be 71 too, for the same reason.

Your formula is correct, because a CQ 50 gives me a 16 value, with this equation. It should be 8917, in this case...

Just finished encoding my sample with the CQ calculated, and with Tmpgenc 2.510, it gives me a variation of 2%, just because the CQ is in the 'jump' zone, and I have to get more datas in this zones, to get more accurate results.

I encode samples from CQ 90 to CQ 100, and it's almost linear: only a 2% file size increase...

Fabrice

Hi Fabrice..

For some strange reason, I didn't get e-mail noticifcation of your last response..
sorry I didn't get to it sooner !! Anyways..

I'm glad things are finally working out for you :)

EDIT: - - I moved the ..off topic.. snip :)

keep plugging away,
-vhelp

Weel,

After a very short night 8) , I have the first 'proof of concept' version of my estimation program. It's quite small, but not as small as CQMatic! :)

http://coutadeurf.en.telepolis.com/CQEstim.exe

It's quite easy to use:
- encode a sample at a 63 CQ
- give the program the estimated sample size (or total frames, samples frames and video size) and the encoded sample size
- and estimate!

With the CQMatic sampling way, you get your CQ in 3 minutes! 8O

Tell me your success and failed story.

And just remember, this is a very alpha version!

Fabrice

@vhelp: sorry you moved the off-topic: I had the solution (in FitCD source! :) )

Hey Fabrice,

I tested and tried you program. I noticed you used MB vs KB for you numbers. Also in the program you allow only whole numbers. I have a sample size @63 of 8.91 MB do I use 8 or 9 for the sample size?

Racer99

Oooops, you're right :oops:
Should have been Kb ... 8O (or I'm doing the validation with a 62 Gb sample size! :lol: )

I change the text in the application, and I'll change the exe file (you can use the exe you get putting Kb instead of Mb).

Thanks,

Fabrice

Edit: link ok.

@ Fabrice..

Sorry, but I didn't want to seem like I was starting a new topic in the middle
of yours 8)

If you want, please PM me your solutions. However, I too, did some laborous
hard working as well (off topic) I found that I could just use the following in
my calcs ie, (480 * 2.35) or (480 * 1.85) etc etc., but I'm not sure it's 100%
accurate. In any case, ad not to go too off-topic, PM me what you have and
maybe we can compare :lol:

I finally went ta bed after 3:30am here..
Thanks for all your help and assist,
-vhelp

That's weird 8O All the tests I did with dvd sources when graphed, had a leveling off after cq=85 that was almost horizontal.

I'll do more testing on that.

Let me know ren,
After so many hours of coding/fixing/debugging CQMatic, I really can't tell the difference from 85 CQ curve to 85 proof Bacardi Rum :lol: :mrgreen:

-kwag

The 85 CQ curve doesn't catch fire :lol:

Could you modify CQMatic to make 50 samples at every cq between 50 and 100 for me? (j/k) :D

ren

Sure :!: :D
But then, why not from 1 to 100 :idea:
Then we can graph different resolutions :idea:

-kwag

Yeah! If you could modify cqmatic to do that, that would be great :!:

I did that manually with "Heist" and it was tedious to make 100 tprs :wink:

This graph shows what I meant about the linear pattern from cq 85-100 with this particular movie

http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2003/08/2.png

Hi ren,

And that's exactly why we had settled for a ceiling of 90 :)
After a value of around 88, there's no more noticeable file size change for a given CQ change :!:
So it's a loss of time trying to find CQ above 90, because there's no quality increase at all :!:
The curve pattern will apply to any movie, with only different file sizes for a given CQ.

-kwag

Hi,

You're right Kwag: this pattern is for every movies I tried.

I'm encoding a 116 min movie, with the CQ given by cqestim (what a ugly name! :) ), and using the sampler line:
which gives me the best results with 2 PAL movies (better than more shorter samples). The estimated diference was less than 1%. Let's see tomorrow how accurate it is with this one.

Fabrice

Hay ren,

would you happen to have those number laying around somewhere's ??

* Filesize (mb)
* CQ curve

Really appreciate, K?

Thanks,
-vhelp

hi vhelp,

here's the numbers from the "Heist" samples .xls file;

Some are missing because of mistakes I made in naming the .tpr :oops:

ren

Thanks ren..

Ok, one more thing.. who's pointing my browser to this location, after I
pressed REFRESH key to update this page, I got this popped up:

* http://login.passport.net/uilogin.srf?id=2

What gives ??
Happended to me on once before, but I ignored it. Now, it's a 2nd time 8O

-vhelp

Billy Gates :mrgreen:
Kill your MSN client :!: It's running, right :?:

Hi Kwag..

I'm not sure. But, I have IE 5.0, if that's what you mean :?
-vhelp

This little icon in your tray: :arrow: http://www.digitalfaq.com/archives/i.../2003/08/8.jpg Kill it :!:

-kwag