Information relevant to the new prediction:
[1:42 PM] krassi10: Hi Karl, can you please call me when you have some time?
[3:01 PM] krassi10: Hi Karl,
CQMatic gave me a final CQ of 63.17, before it was 35 ; -)
I'm retesting this with a bigger source range.
[3:15 PM] kvcdnet: Hey Marc, did you use 2-pass(old) or 2-pass(new)? Because all tests I did, were using "old". I got different results when I used "new" 2-pass!
[3:18 PM] krassi10: I used the new one. I'm on my 3rd run with the old one now. Forgot that Plus is having the new one as default. Doing a test with a sc of 1.40 min and 10 min. But now i see that the filesize is still bigger with a CQ of 40 and thats a nogo...
[3:20 PM] kvcdnet: Is the current test with the "old" 2-pass ?
[3:20 PM] krassi10: Yes, with padding enabled.
[3:20 PM] kvcdnet:
[3:20 PM] kvcdnet:
[3:24 PM] krassi10: Keep smiling Karl, you have done so much great things. Have you tried it with CQ_VBR?
[3:26 PM] kvcdnet: No. Not yet. I'm still focused on the 2-pass thing. Because 2-pass is predictable, I still believe I can "steal" something out of the 2-pass prediction, and apply it to CQ.
[3:27 PM] krassi10: Gee, CQ_VBR @60 is giving me a filesize of 53,744KB (should be 20,471).
[3:28 PM] kvcdnet: =:O
[3:31 PM] kvcdnet: I think the problem is clear. When we make a 2-pass VBR sample of X size, the average bitrate will ALWAYS be the one we selected. Doesn't matter if it's a 1 minute clip, or 10 minute clip. But that is the average of the total sum of the movie. Not independent chunks. So we can't target the same file size with CQ as with 2-pass on a little (small) sample. It must be much larger.
[3:34 PM] krassi10: Yeah. Maybe a dumb question: And if we would calculate the average bitrate only on the source range?
[3:37 PM] kvcdnet: Now that you mention it, we can instead of trying to match the file size that 2-pass made with CQ, we can try to encode in CQ and "match" the same average bitrate !!!!! So drop the 2-pass sample into bitrate viewer and note the average. Then encode with CQ, and start lowering CQ value until the same average is reported.
[3:37 PM] kvcdnet: DOes that sound logical?
[3:38 PM] krassi10: Still reading and trying to understand... Give me two minutes... good that you have written it down...
[3:38 PM] kvcdnet:
[3:39 PM] krassi10: I think its worth a try... I'll do one.
[3:41 PM] kvcdnet: If you get about the same average, but there is a substantial difference in file size, then that's it! But in theory, no matter how you encode, if you have two files with the same average bitrate, the file size should be about the same. It's just the way the "bits" are allocated.
[3:51 PM] kvcdnet: Finished Red Planed at 704x480. Wanted: 729,726KB. Encoded: *** 725,003KB ***
[3:51 PM] kvcdnet: I think I know what the problem is!
[3:51 PM] kvcdnet: What was your average, MIN and MAX bitrates????
[3:52 PM] krassi10: Hmm. Optimal CQ (from CQMatic would be 63, with a CQ of 60 bviewer is giving me an average of 2318 and VB had 1619.
Min: 1000 Max: 5000 (KDVD), thats what i thougt before.
[3:53 PM] kvcdnet: Ok. What was PEAK (max) bitrate you got in your 2-pass sample?
[3:53 PM] krassi10: Great Result! CQ of 40 is giving an average of 1807
[3:54 PM] krassi10: Peak is 5033 from 2-pass
[3:54 PM] kvcdnet: Is CQ of 40 about the correct value you need?
[3:55 PM] krassi10: No, it would be 63.
[3:55 PM] kvcdnet: So then you have to increase CQ to match the needed average
[3:55 PM] kvcdnet: Let me do a quick test here too....
[3:57 PM] krassi10: Sorry, i meant 63 would be the optimal CQ, but then average bitrate is way off >2300
[3:58 PM] kvcdnet: What average do you get on that sample if you encode with CQ=63?
[3:58 PM] krassi10: Currently encoding...
[3:59 PM] krassi10: Maybe we can find a constant multiplier here, but i don't expect this...
[3:59 PM] kvcdnet: Not with this crazy CQ (un)linearity
[4:01 PM] krassi10: CQ=63: Average 2357, Peak is 4772.
[4:04 PM] kvcdnet: Marc, check this out. I just checked the average of my 2-pass sample and the average of the CQ sample I created, and the averages were almost the same. This is the one I got almost perfect result (Red Planet at 704x480). Could you check the average of your 2-pass against the average of your CQ sample ( with the CQ that you got ~980MB instead of 1.4GB ) and see if the averages of both samples don't match?
[4:07 PM] krassi10: I've overwritten it but i'll redo a sample with CQ=35 (what resulted in that file). However i've changed source range but that shouldn't matter.
[4:09 PM] krassi10: Results with CQ=35: Average bitrate:1708, Peak:3609
[4:10 PM] kvcdnet: Are you using "source range", or are you encoding your 2-pass using the file "CQMatic.tpr" ??
[4:10 PM] krassi10: This time i used source range, before it was using the time slices from CQMatic.
[4:11 PM] kvcdnet: Ok. I'll do more tests here. Just trying to find a constant!
[4:13 PM] krassi10: I'm doing a prediction on my second workstation with min=1300 and max=2000 (VB and CQ of course). I think its coming from TMPGEnc's variable bitrate:
Normally its nearly sticked to the average, CQ isn't. Thats why there's such a difference in my tests.
[4:15 PM] kvcdnet: Right! There are not that many fluctuations between low and high bitrate. That's why CQ is better that 2-pass, at least with TMPEG
[4:17 PM] krassi10: BINGO. With the latest settings on my second pc theres only a file difference of less than 1000KB with a CQ of 60, before the size was nearly doubled.
Maybe you can make a test with wide-spreaded min-and-high-bitrates.
[4:18 PM] kvcdnet: I think that's the main problem!. The further apart are MIN and MAX to average, the worse the results.
[4:19 PM] kvcdnet: So maybe we should raise MIN if we raise MAX, and keep MIN bitrate at a constant percent below average bitrate (idea!)
[4:20 PM] krassi10: Yes, but personally i want to have 3 movies one on KDVD and the final quality suffers if i'm adjusting min too high, but you're right!
BTW: Nice chat!
[4:22 PM] kvcdnet:
[4:22 PM] kvcdnet: Doing a wide MIN,MAX test....
[4:24 PM] kvcdnet: SO, in theory, the higher the resolution, the wider can be the MIN and MAX range. That's why my 704x480 was exact, but my 352x240 was lower in file size!.
[4:25 PM] krassi10: Why can't players do 1600x1280
[4:25 PM] kvcdnet: So we must "scale", or find the MIN and MAX bitrate "borders" for different resolutions.
[4:26 PM] kvcdnet: Could you repeat the test you did with the .tpr, but at 704x576 and MIN=300, MAX=2,500?
[4:26 PM] kvcdnet: 1600x1280, I wish
[4:27 PM] krassi10: I'll redo with these settings
[4:28 PM] kvcdnet: If you can hit final file size target with that resolution and with those MIN/MAX values, then we know that for 704x or 720x, MIN of 300 and MAX of 2,500 will always be correct!
[4:30 PM] kvcdnet: It's going to be a circus, trying to find the optimal MIN and MAX for 352x240, 352x288, 352x480, etc, etc
LOL
[4:31 PM] krassi10: Yes, and i'm the clown searching for the KDVD-settings : -)
[4:31 PM] kvcdnet: No, we both are LOL
[4:32 PM] kvcdnet: I hope this is worth it!, and not another "CQ down the drain" attempt
[4:37 PM] krassi10: Mee too. I have some time while encoding, so here something funny. Me and my friends were on vacation near Calpe (Spain). Some spanish girls talked to us. One of my friends is indonesian. They asked where we come from, we all said "from Stuttgart", except the indonesian. He said "me too". The girls understood Mi-Tu and asked, where this is located
LOL
So i decided to learn spanish but wasn't very succesfull till now.
[4:37 PM] kvcdnet: LOL
[4:38 PM] krassi10: BINGO, filesize is right on target with 704x576 @300-2500. I'll try it with 720576 now.
[4:38 PM] kvcdnet: YES
[4:39 PM] kvcdnet: It should be good at 720x too. We might be able to increase to at least ~2,800 MAX for 720x (idea)
[4:40 PM] kvcdnet: 'm trying a 352x240 now, and setting MIN to 300 and MAX to 1,500. My previous encode had 1,800 as MAX, and final file size was a little low. So probably with 1,500MAX will hit target.
[4:41 PM] krassi10: But i'm still the clown concerning KDVD. I've tried with MIN=2000, Max=5000, but filesize is 13MB bigger. I'll try with 350-5000.
[4:44 PM] kvcdnet: It might be a problem with such a "wide" range! Maybe a true 2-pass full encode is the only way to accomodate such large bitrate fluctuations :\
[4:47 PM] krassi10: Yep, it's just a try. 720x576 is hitting also!!!
[4:47 PM] kvcdnet: I'll have 352x240 results in a couple of minutes.
[4:50 PM] kvcdnet: Have you noticed that Bitrate viewer gives lower MPEG-1 average bitrate than if viewed with VirtualDub?
[4:51 PM] krassi10: Yes, i've already noticed that. Thats really curious, i think it's the same with mpeg2. But the question is: which one is right
[4:52 PM] kvcdnet: VirtualDub. I manually calculated an average bitrate, and Vdub is the correct valu.
[4:54 PM] kvcdnet: I'm going to do a scale, by increasing MAX bitrate, until I find the "Roll off" point of every resolution. I think we don't have to worry too much with MIN bitrate, because the problem is mainly theMAX bitrate. So I'll figure a MAX bitrate to be used with every resolution.
[4:54 PM] krassi10: I'm a bit tired now,Kwag. I'm sorry. Do you have something important to test? If not, i'll be offline in a couple of minutes. But i think we thats means you have found a good way for alternate prediction. If you want to, you can post this chat into the thread.
[4:55 PM] kvcdnet: Hey, go to sleep Marc
It's 11:PM your time!. Hopefully, I'll have a table of MAX bitrates for tomorrow, and your name will be in lights in the forum, for the findings you did
[4:56 PM] kvcdnet: Good idea! I'm Copy&Pasting this into the forum now! See you tomorrow
[4:57 PM] krassi10: Thanks Kwag. The spotlight should be on you. Good night. I think i'll login tomorrow evening.