Size/CQ Curve: a one Pass CQ Estimation Method - Page 2 - digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives]
 digitalFAQ.com Forums [Archives] Size/CQ Curve: a one Pass CQ Estimation Method

#21
08-15-2003, 05:46 PM
 vhelp Free Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,009 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@ frabrice:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by fabrice Hi, @kwag: what's the translation of this is getting hairy. Google translate it as "esto realmente está consiguiendo melenudo" @vhelp: I'm not using excel, but Openoffice. Basically the same. Does Excel have a way to find automaticaly an equation from datas? This equation is one that give similar results to the size/CQ curve. Try it! Today I've been obliged to resolve a problem with 2 equations and 2 variables. Don't know if I could derivate this equation, or extract the x variable... I'm still encoding with a 2.510 version, to verify if it work with a old version, but the Cq 63 encoding gives the same file size
I'm not sure what CQ 63 stands for

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
Someday, 12:01 PM
 Site Staff / Ad Manager Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 42 Thanks: ∞ Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
#22
08-15-2003, 06:20 PM
 fabrice Free Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid-Spain Posts: 515 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi,

What an honor: I got a tab in your excel Spreadsheet !
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
#23
08-15-2003, 09:27 PM
 vhelp Free Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,009 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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..

Quote:
 Originally Posted by fabrice Hi, What an honor: I got a tab in your excel Spreadsheet ! 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... I encode samples from CQ 90 to CQ 100, and it's almost linear: only a 2% file size increase...
I'm glad things are finally working out for you

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

keep plugging away,
-vhelp
#24
08-16-2003, 04:53 AM
 fabrice Free Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid-Spain Posts: 515 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Weel,

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

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!

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! )
#25
08-16-2003, 07:38 AM
 Racer99 Free Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 119 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
#26
08-16-2003, 08:53 AM
 fabrice Free Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid-Spain Posts: 515 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Oooops, you're right
Should have been Kb ... (or I'm doing the validation with a 62 Gb sample size! )

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

#27
08-16-2003, 09:43 AM
 vhelp Free Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,009 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
@ Fabrice..

Quote:
 Originally Posted by fabrice @vhelp: sorry you moved the off-topic: I had the solution (in FitCD source! )
Sorry, but I didn't want to seem like I was starting a new topic in the middle
of yours

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

I finally went ta bed after 3:30am here..
Thanks for all your help and assist,
-vhelp
#28
08-17-2003, 10:17 PM
 rendalunit Free Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: san jose, Ca Posts: 1,148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by kwag But after 90, it really is a steep vertical line
That's weird 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.
#29
08-17-2003, 10:20 PM
 kwag Free Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Puerto Rico, USA Posts: 13,537 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by rendalunit
Quote:
 Originally Posted by kwag But after 90, it really is a steep vertical line
That's weird 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

-kwag
#30
08-17-2003, 10:29 PM
 rendalunit Free Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: san jose, Ca Posts: 1,148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by kwag 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
The 85 CQ curve doesn't catch fire

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

ren
#31
08-17-2003, 10:37 PM
 kwag Free Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Puerto Rico, USA Posts: 13,537 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by rendalunit Could you modify CQMatic to make 50 samples at every cq between 50 and 100 for me? (j/k) ren
Sure
But then, why not from 1 to 100
Then we can graph different resolutions

-kwag
#32
08-18-2003, 11:55 AM
 rendalunit Free Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: san jose, Ca Posts: 1,148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by kwag But then, why not from 1 to 100 Then we can graph different resolutions
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

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

#33
08-18-2003, 02:19 PM
 kwag Free Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Puerto Rico, USA Posts: 13,537 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by rendalunit This graph shows what I meant about the linear pattern from cq 85-100 with this particular movie
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
#34
08-18-2003, 03:16 PM
 fabrice Free Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid-Spain Posts: 515 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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:
Code:
```FR = round(Framerate) # frames per second.
IL = (Framecount / FR) /60 # 1 sample por min.
Sampler(samples=IL,length=72)```
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
#35
08-18-2003, 09:59 PM
 vhelp Free Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,009 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hay ren,

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

* Filesize (mb)
* CQ curve

Really appreciate, K?

Thanks,
-vhelp
#36
08-19-2003, 12:28 AM
 rendalunit Free Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: san jose, Ca Posts: 1,148 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
hi vhelp,

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

Code:
```cq      filesize (mb)
---      ------
0	6.286
1	6.29
2	6.406
3	6.345
4
5	6.437
6	6.424
7	6.404
8
9	6.549
10	6.485
11	6.491
12	6.643
13	6.594
14
15	6.624
16	6.781
17	6.693
18	6.701
19	6.825
20	6.897
21	6.834
22	6.84
23	7.023
24	7.049
25	6.993
26	6.999
27	7.206
28	7.269
29
30	7.208
31	7.37
32	7.567
33	7.462
34
35	7.474
36	7.871
37	7.835
38	7.789
39	7.795
40	7.962
41	8.37
42	8.276
43	8.261
44	8.269
45	8.473
46	8.983
47	8.906
48	8.873
49	8.881
50	8.889
51	9.593
52	9.852
53	9.817
54	9.825
55	9.834
56	9.932
57	10.852
58	11.221
59	11.254
60	11.264
61	11.274
62	11.285
63	12.075
64	13.105
65	13.415
66	13.573
67	13.584
68	13.596
69	13.608
70	13.942
71	15.712
72	16.884
73	17.361
74	17.774
75	17.813
76	17.832
77	17.853
78	17.877
79	18.69
80	21.138
81	22.83
82	23.914
83	24.721
84	25.398
85	25.529
86	25.561
87	25.596
88	25.633
89	25.671
90	25.711
91	25.755
92	25.801
93	25.849
94	25.901
95	25.957
96	26.016
97	26.077
98	26.142
99	26.21
100	26.281```
Some are missing because of mistakes I made in naming the .tpr

ren
#37
08-19-2003, 12:41 AM
 vhelp Free Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,009 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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:

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

-vhelp
#38
08-19-2003, 01:19 AM
 kwag Free Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Puerto Rico, USA Posts: 13,537 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by vhelp 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
Billy Gates
Kill your MSN client It's running, right
#39
08-19-2003, 01:28 AM
 vhelp Free Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,009 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi Kwag..

I'm not sure. But, I have IE 5.0, if that's what you mean
-vhelp
#40
08-19-2003, 01:32 AM
 kwag Free Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Puerto Rico, USA Posts: 13,537 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
 Originally Posted by vhelp 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: Kill it

-kwag

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post girv Avisynth Scripting 14 07-14-2003 04:51 PM Garedryl Convertir y Codificar Video (Español) 1 07-08-2003 05:11 PM kwag Video Encoding and Conversion 31 03-04-2003 12:42 PM logan555 Video Encoding and Conversion 1 12-04-2002 09:18 AM Pioneer Video Encoding and Conversion 0 11-21-2002 01:50 PM