@FuPP,
sorry, sorry, sorry,... I've been following your releases almost from the begining. Even went some time to doom9 to see updates (thanx for keep us informed). I downloaded every new version you posted. I find it very intersting/useful.
... then? (you wonder)
I didn't test it yet. I'm very dedicated to mencoder now, with little time.
But I want to test it now in mencoder, with a captured avi (home-made film, my son :roll: )
And I ask you sorry me since, without having tested it, I'll ask a question: is there a way to use HybridFuPP without resizing, just cropping and adding borders/letterboxing?
I read (not carefully :oops: ) the complete Readme that comes with the release, and don't know if this can be done, even don't know if you will find it interesting... but in most of my DVD -> KDVD encodes I just crop, no resize.
Congratulations for your nice work.

good question my friend digitall.doc ! :wink:
i read (not carefully too) :oops: but i want to know the same.

Of course it is possible :). Simply using HybridFuPP(preset = xxx), without width and height parameters (all parameters are optional in HybridFuPP). Do not hesitate to use medium or even lower preset with such a size.

Be aware too that HybridFuPP could be rather slow when used with such a target size.

Regards,
FuPP

That easy!?
Thanx a lot for your fast answer, FuPP.

A doubt then, will edges still be sharpened?. I guess yes.

What would you advise then for a home-made video that is a bit noisy and a little blurred?. I was using:
Used "medium" since in VirtualDub seemed to me that got artifacts (like gibbs effects) with "low" or "very low".
But now I suppose I'd better use something like:
since resizer maybe is not needed anymore, isn't it?.
Maybe I'll try again with "low" preset.
Do you have any other hint?.
Thanx a lot in advance :wink: .

I don't use oversharpening anymore in presets. If you want to sharpen edges more, use E_Thr_X and E_Thr_Y parameters (keep in mind that it will be even slower).

As you don't resize, try "very low" !

FuPP

Thanks again, FuPP.
I started an encoding before reading your post, with HybridFuPP(preset="medium"). Yes, it works in mencoder (I'm using Milan's MencoderAVS). And, yes, it's veeery slow: with a previous script I was using, with deen, unfilter, fielddeinterlace, temporalsoften, asharp, and so, I was getting 5-6 fps; now just 3-4 fps. But in this case, I don't mind.

When it finishes I'll try with very low and see.

I keep in a doubt. I've been reading HybridFuPP.avsi to see if I could solve it, but my chinese isn't very good yet ( :lol: ). If a preset is selected and no resizer is changed, it will be selected the default resizer for this preset, isn't it?. If no width and height parameters are given, the function takes actual width and height. But then a resize is applied, but resizes to the same dimensions as input, did I understand this well?.
Would in this case be of any help to change the resizer?. Maybe this is not an especific HybridFuPP question, and is more avisynth one. But, does your function always resize (even when no change in size is applied)?, and does it make a difference to "resize" with one resizer or another?.
FuPP, if you think it's better to open a new thread with this questions, and keep this one just for bugs/suggestions, just make me now...
I'm willing to see the output of your function 8)

Actually, when you use a resizer with output size = input size, then it is a kind of no-op, ie nothing is done. So in that case, resizer doesn't matter.

Don't worry, I think there's enough room in this one :)

FuPP

OK, understood now.

Well, encode finished. With the same average bitrate (so the same final filesize) I get a lower average quantizer value in BitrateViewer tahn with my previous scripts. That doesn't mean necessarily better visual result, but... I previewed on PC screen, but I don't see big differences with previous tests. I will burn on DVD and see on TV, and compare.

But I think the source is really difficult to improve, blurred and dirty as I posted. And your function is designed for clean sources. I'll give very low preset also a try, and will compare.

You've been very helpful. :)

Hard to help you about settings without seeing the source... If it is blurred, you can try to enhance edges (E_Str_X=30, E_Str_Y=30), but sometime it can even look worse :? ... For more denoising, you can use parameter ST_Str (the higher, the less noise). You could start with 4 and try higher if needed...

FuPP

Fupp,
thank you for previous answers!

now a "new one" :
how can i use HybridFuPP with this "resizes" in the script

LanczosResize(720, 366, 6, 0, 708, 480)
AddBorders(0, 57, 0, 57)

:?:

thanks in advance!
:wink:

Hi my friend !

no you should not use it this way. The correct syntax is :

Crop(6, 0, 708, 480)
HybridFuPP(720, 366, preset=xxx, resizer=5)
AddBorders(0, 57, 0, 57)

But using mod 16 size would speed things a lot....

FuPP

FuPP,
using mod 16? :? i don't understood!

i change a little the script cos give errors in vdubmod preview.
something was wrong in "my" script and not in HybridFuPP,
see the script now:

Crop(8, 0, 704, 480)
HybridFuPP(720, 368, preset="medium", resizer=5)
AddBorders(0, 56, 0, 56)

i'm encoding toy story 1 (3000 frames) for test !
:wink:

Hi FuPP,
I finally used a ST_Str=5, and E_Str_X=20 and E_Str_Y=20, and looked well. I think I got all I could out of this bad source.

I also tried this, just to see if I understood well how it works:
I just loaded in VirtualDub too see there was no error (and wasn't :wink: ), but didn't try to encode and see if faster than with Deen "a3d".
BTW, when motion is detected (and in dark and lit areas), is unfilter applied in a progressive/adaptive way, or in a linear way?.
I ask because I first tried with:
and when there was motion, it got blurred too much, and seemed to me that was done linearly. Could I then apply a motion adaptive filtering chain for M, the way is done in the MA script?. Just a thought, didn't test.
Congratulations again for your nice function (good idea that of preserving static areas) :)

actually, this is less a filtering problem than a mask problem. In this version, I "binarize" the mask. That means that I use a threshold ; below that threshold there's no motion detected, above it there's motion. It is therefore not linear. In next version I will not use binarize function anymore : that implies that motion detected will be more "linear".
Btw you can use M_Thr to reduce the amount of motion detected (M_Thr is linked to the motion vector length).

FuPP

Sorry me, I didn't explain it well. But I understood your explanation: motion filtering is only done when motion (above a threshold) is detected.
But once motion is detected, the filter applied has always the same strength.
That's why I asked if in the filtering chain I can add a MA filtering when motion is detected, blurring more when the motion detected is greater, and less with less motion.

Me sorry ; I've not been clear enough.

What I meant is that in next version, as motion mask will no longer be binarized, quantity of blurring will be proportional to the quantity of motion detected (don't forget that the original picture and the blurred one are layered using the mask...). If motion mask detects different quantity of motion for a same frame, quantity of blurring applied won't be the same for each of these parts.

Regards,
FuPP

So...
...it will be great :D

Willing to test it. :wink:

oh, forgot to say : for next version, people will have to pay...

What the hell are you talking about, paying for a script :?

was kidding... :P