CQTESTER
http://www.boraxsoft.de/CQTester.shtml
I just discovered this cqmatic-like tool by borax I'm trying it out now. It looks cool. I pasted the link above here for english translation :wink: |
thanks friendal,
seems cool...i'm trying to follow the pictures, can't understand any word! :oops: oh...now i see the link to "translate"! :D double thanks! :lol: |
Another "CQMatic, Tok, acp" (me too) tool, with an "MVCD" accent :mrgreen:
-kwag |
Quote:
He programmed this also a time ago, and the first Question I made there was - when I saw the offer in his Thread - , if this appl. got its own core and if nothing of the core is taken frome somewhere else. ;-) I do beleive him as he assured it. It works refered to TmpgEnc's "Source Range" Settings different in comparison to CQmatic. YOU HAVE TO SET a range! So the whole movie range has to by choosing "Cut everything except selected area" (as I remember the text in TmpgEnc). Also afterwards the "source range" checkbox still has to be checked! And be shure to set the right settings refered to prediction sampling. Im also in contact with Borax for optimization and he's is still developing. So the Whole Sampler can be movie percentual based and so on. A nice bonbon is the "curve" where you can watch the CQ approach The Sample length in case of KVCD has to be set to: - 0,96 sec! PAL - 1 sec! NTSC 23.976 encoding - 0,8 sec! NTSC 29.976 encoding The formula is the following: ((1/fps)*GopSeq-length) = sec. of Sample Length. So for example (1/25)*24 = 0,96 sec. in case of PAL 25fps (as KVCD standard GopSeq Length is 24) It does not work with stream percentual based offset. So you have to set the Sample frequency. One week ago Borax and I we talked about the GOP-Lenght based Sampler Length setting, and if this appl. could read out of the Projects GOP Settings so the right Sampler Length will be calculated. As he's still developing and if you in here find something which could enhance the precision, just send him your thoughts via email. And as "babelfish.altavista" doesn't outputs a full translated-link to paste somewhere else, I give you a Link translated by google: EDIT: Borax informed me via email that he translated the HowTo in english: http://www.boraxsoft.de/CQTester_eng.shtml |
Well, I wish Borax a lot of luck with "Adventures in CQ prediction" ;)
-kwag |
I like it that cqtester goes all the way to 100 :roll: :roll: Sorry kwag I know I sound like a broken record :roll: :roll: I can't stand 2 cd encodes that are cq=90 and audio 256kbps because I like to think that the video is as good as it can be. The numbers below show that cq 100 is very slightly better than cq 90.
I did some comparisons: Code:
bitrate Q. level |
Quote:
Could you make a quick test, and compare a clip at CQ=95 and another at CQ=100 :?: Perhaps, if there is a slight quality gained, then I'll use 95 as MAX in CQMatic :!: But if there's no visible quality from 95 to 100, then I'll set 95 as ceiling :idea: Quote:
-kwag |
hey kwag,
I'm doing two complete encodes at cq 95 and cq 100. Is it possible to export the data from bitrate viewer to another app like Excell? I'd like to overlap the two graphs so I can find a spot where there's a difference in bitrate and view the clips at that exact spot side by side to see if there's any visual difference (or post the two clips for someone else to judge them). I'm using a trial version of BV btw and it doesn't have all the features as the registered versions (i think). thnx, ren |
Hi ren,
I think the best way is to open your encoded mpeg files in Vdub, and select a high action frame. Then copy that to clipboard, load it in Windows paint, and save as .PNG. Do the same with both encoded files, selecting the same frame. Then we can blow it up, and visually compare :) -kwag |
I encoded "Groundhog Day" at 352x240 with cq=95 and cq=100.
Code:
Mpeg2Source("C:\DVD_VIDEO\VIDEO_TS\groundhog.d2v") cq-100 final size=1.058 gb sample 9.37 mb ~47 seconds See if there's any visible difference between the two. I thought I saw a little more noise around the legs and feet of the people standing near the cliff in the cq95 sample. |
Hi ren,
I can't see any difference at all in Vdub :!: They both look identical, even after zooming frames. -kwag |
Also a nice way to do a 1:1 comparison on pics is as you said ... copy both windows of each sample to clipboard ... pasting them into Photoshop .... and afterwards copy both into a pixel-matching layer! based .psd file.
By doing this you just can switch on/off the first layer to see a very clear comparison ... thats the way I do it when testing AVS routines/filters. |
Quote:
Now I'm convinced that there's no visible difference from cq95 and cq100 :!: In fact there probably isn't any difference from cq 90 and cq 100. :D ren |
Quote:
Please do one more test, if possible :!: Compare the CQ=90 and CQ=100. This is important, because the whole idea of using a MAX CQ is to speed up prediction. Maybe there is a difference between 90 and 100, but maybe between 92 and 100 there's not, so then I can change the ceiling to the maximum level. -kwag |
Sure, I'll test a sample with cq90 and 100 this evening.
edit: after I fix the broken window that I threw the dogs rubber ball through because I thought it was open!!!! :roll: :douh: |
Quote:
I have a datshund, and all she wants to do all day, is for me to throw a tennis ball so she can chase it. Luckily, I don't have any glass windows around :lol: -kwag |
seem to be good =)
where to find forum support for this tool ? |
:douh:
|
Gosh Encoder Master, whatever could you possibly mean??? (http://www.kvcd.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5666) :lol: :wink: Just kidding!. Is it merely a coincidence that the link for that thread ends in "666" :?: :!: :lol:
Yes, let's all try to follow kvcd.net's unwritten rules of etiquette by not mentioning the "M" word around here....peace is already such a rare commodity these days. :wink: -d&c EDIT: Since EncoderMaster's preceding post has now been edited twice since he originally posted it (once since I replied), I'd simply like to prevent the possibility of my words being taken out of context by anyone by clarifying that: 1) EM originally made a small faux pas by posting a direct link here to a particular website, and his post was then edited some hours later so it said something similar to 'oops, I can't post a link to that site here...you can think why!', and 2) then it was re-edited again later by EM to remove those words, leaving only the 'homer' emoticon behind. EM, please understand that I mean no offense to you here by posting this!...I'm only including this footnote because your post has been changed twice now, and I do not want my own words or intent possibly being misunderstood or taken out of context by anyone because of this. I inferred that you were having a laugh about past happenings here, and that was my basic intention as well. Regards. |
Quote:
|
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.