autoaspect
 

I see in PackShot command line still autoaspect=1... :?:

Another question. By default PackShot not add:

hqdn3d or noise settings. And it is very speed..

Are those settings importants? How about noise=3th for avoid lowers minrates < 300 kbps?


-Maurus

hd3d is important as it is the only denoiser that you have in mencoder. To not use it is like have no filters in an avisynth script : you can understand that is better to have some :-)

Well.. Autoaspect=1 is a bug! ;-)
I already mentioned that in another forum that all others like "-nosapect -noskip...." etc. is given, but I lost to delete that AR irritating line above, ... right maurus.

Also a Null Output on first pass will be give etc etc etc etc ....
... Im in coding a new vers. of packshot, ... but as I can join a bit the beginning of summer these nice things take a "little" more time.
So you just can use "Commandline only" and tweak your needed additions.

Related to noise. You can set it manually as called "Blockbuster".
At default I do keep my videos clear from noise! Why? Cause my player gots no problems when bitrate touches the 100kbit marker. But you just can rise the Denoiser to 2 ticks and BBuster to 1 and then I assume yxou got Kwags defaults of noise as I stood in contact with him according this.

Packshot is generated in a purpose that I do hope Mplayer Team will get rid of that Bitrate problem soon, so till that time we do set that noise workout manually.


:secret:
But you know what! I did my two last encodings of two HQ DVD sources directly, means no HQ3d .... and that minimal "life" in the Sources "surfaces" did keep my Lowest Bitrates higher! Means Why first cleaning and then adding noise again = theoretically nonsens, practrically it MAKES sense as Optimal scripts did gave us these better results to AVOID Blocks.
But in here we wont avoid blocks as I dont get them with mencoder BUT we use that workout to avoid Bitrate drops. So the purpose is different.
BUT as every even HQ DVD comes with another type of noise we cant see that "let it as it is" generally - so my last encodings did look natural and bitrates where keeped ... even they got many dark parts. One of them was Matrix 1 and it worked.

So thats not to be seen as a result, but we "could" try to let some kind of HQ sources as they are??? We should check this.
As that "noise" workout is just a "trick" but should be useless when (i hope) soon they (mplayer team) do will get rid of that sucking bitrate problem ;-)

I just found some very old (3 Month ago or so) mencoder lines where I used NO lmin but another Type of commands which gave me perfect results with an encoding at 1 pass wich does look sexy! (Much better then just let doing 1pass using our settings now)
So I have to find a combination between last optimal settings and these old ones.

SECOND: WATCH out when applyying noise with Packshot in its state now as it "still" gots no source active pixels cropping area. So you can let generate your Commandline using "Commandline only" and change the values of the Resizing Part to the Values from FitCD crop/resize/Expand).

I got my active pixel based new resizing engine ready, ... finally and you will have the choise to determine the active pix area including x,y offsets, by this everything not needed will be cropped before and THEN the scaler incl. correct PAR calculation will bring the Image to its target related state where borders will be added finally using Expand.

Yes. but I think than a DVD source it's clear and it not have noise... :?:

-Maurus

Not necessarily :!:
You should see my DVD of "Back to the Future" :roll:

-kwag

And as I experienced, even VERY clean DVD have noise !
("we were soldiers", PAL edition).

In fact the trick we use to avoid DCT blocks by adding a little (unvisible) noise is used also by the industry :-)

Well, as "they" shoot their material on classic Film, its clear that a film by nature gots an amount of noise. And If your eyes are 100% correct, then you can see that dark scenes often do got more noise cause of more light sensible film material, its like when doing fotos using ISO 100 (normal) and ISO 400 (more dark environments). The ISO 400 is more light sensible but will result in more grain (hard to notice buts its there).
Thats also (IMHO) why you Phil, didnt see that grain first on that orig state.
As I do remember you had to switch the source to a more bright state, wasn't it? I do assume that this also is Film Material related :)

Thats why also all my captures did result in not lower than 400kbit bitrate drops as I never do "plain" my caps by denoising them into a surface-dead state.
Thereare also some DVDs around resulted out of bad "dups" from film material, like the "BlackRain" example showed in the "How Funny" Thread at optimal scripts forum - most of my captures do look better in their orig state than this "blackRain" example. :lol:

I don't know what you mean by "bright state" but non, I didn't do anything on the source. I just have to use an avs script for this movie as mencoder as totally unable to treat it decently !

And in my eyes thus noise has nothing to do with argentic noise that I used to because I took photo in the theaters, during the movie (so with no flash), using 1000 or even 1600 ISO. :-)

Off Topic:
Ahh, I guess I beat you all guys :lol:
Back in 1980, I was experimenting with Illford AcuFine Film Developers, and I was doing "Push Processing" of B/W Film (Tri-x Pan I believe it was) up to ASA 6,000 8O :D
I did many night shots with just moonlight, that you could have sweared they were taken during the day, until you started to look for details :cool:

-kwag

In fact (you probably know that) BW paper with high ASA are current but 1600 was COLOR film (from fuji). The only drawback was the greenish tint if badly treated in the labs :-(

But 6000... I don't even know about a camera taht can handle it :-).

That's why it's called "Push Processing" :D
I would take the pictures based on calculations (can't remember now my exact procedure), and the development was done like if you had taken at ASA 6,000.
The basic is that you would use a colder developer ( several degrees colder than normal), and longer time in the tank ( way longer. Like 15 to 20 minutes, instead of 5 to 7 or so.)
The colder chemical would cause a very slow development, reducing the grain in the film, and the longer time would correctly develop the normally "underexposed" film :)
These are very old tricks, and I had a lot of fun at the time. Once you learn to do it correctly, you can do MANY things that are normally considered impossible in "regular" photography.
As a matter of fact, I recall push processing regular color film (ASA 400) to 1,600, at the time when ASA 1,600 didn't exist :D
So you could (in theory) take the curent ASA 1,600 color film and push it up to about 3,200 to 6,400 with only a small increase of grain.
I haven't done that in 20 years, but many people do that.
Guess I started early pushing film to the limits, could have been the KFILM at that time :rotf:
Here are some methods and references: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_englis...processing.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/su...ing/push.shtml

-kwag

Kwag, have you tried colour process B&W film yet.
Ilford XP2 Ultra, rated at 400, and can be shot at anything from 50 - ~12000 (if camera will do it), ON THE SAME ROLL.

Process as normal, no special 'push/pull' needed, adjustments can be done in darkroom or minilab (I've done mine on minilab (I used to be a minilab operator), and results are good).

Grain results:

@ 50 = about 200 colour
@400 = about 125 B&W
@800 = about 400 B&W
@6400 = about 800 colour (fuji press 800)
@12000 = arty 'golfball' grain :lol: :lol:

8O 8O 8O 8O You're making me interested in photography again :lol:
It's been many years since I developed film, but I did it so long that I would pick it up again in a matter of hours :cool:
I'll read about this :!:
I love push processing and I even had a bunch of B/W books from Kodak (Don't know where they are now :( )
I even got involved developing "Cibachrome", so I could do color slides directly to color print. It was SOOOO cool :D
That was a LONG time ago :cool:

Thanks,
-kwag

Hehe I never got the hang of colour processing - I just did it on the minilab. Got quite good at B&W process tho.

Note that XP2 is a colour process B&W film - you need colour chemicals to dev it.

Xp2 is a great film (the ultra is the newer vesion released about 2002/3).
It's actually possible to do seperate shots, 50, 400, 3200, one after the other, and the film responds in the dev machine sort of automagically.

Any minor dev errors you correct as you print (with a good minilab).

It does have its problems tho - Fuji Delta 100 is a sharp crystal clear film (and rated at 160 is an excellent portrait film). By comparison, XP2 is a softer less contrasty film.
If you need clarity and sharpness, XP2 is not the answer.
If you want a soft (not blurry, soft) image for landscapes/flowers/nudes, XP2 is great.

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/XP2SGB_QX.pdf

I did a fabulous (even if I say so myself :lol: ) picture of a nude girl on a pool table @ 6400 on XP2 (indoor, evening, natural light).
It came out as an artistic, almost 'painted', image. She was very happy..
(No not THAT happy, is was a job after all :lol: :lol: )

<edit> Ahh POO!!, Sorry Kwag, accidental double click.

(My mouse is playing up - I have to hammer the right button to make it work, and the left does two clicks itself. Time for a new one...)