11-01-2004, 10:02 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 184
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
which method to use to make a prediction with tmpgenc xpress? in CQ
|
Someday, 12:01 PM
|
|
Site Staff / Ad Manager
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
|
|
|
11-01-2004, 10:09 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hi tamahome,
We can't use CQMatic with TMPEG xpress, to predict CQ
They changed a lot of options on TMPEG.
-kwag
|
11-04-2004, 12:08 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
What about using the CQ predicted with TMPG 2.5x in TMPG XPress?
Will it produce a file with approximately the same size or is it totally off?
|
11-04-2004, 12:11 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Puerto Rico, USA
Posts: 13,537
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hi muaddib,
No it won't.
I believe Fabrice tested just that, and he got different file sizes with the same CQ on both encoders.
-kwag
|
11-04-2004, 12:27 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Ok kwag, thanks ... I was suspecting that.
|
11-04-2004, 12:37 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid-Spain
Posts: 515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hi,
I don't have the test here, but it gave me a very big difference: they change their CQ function (It seems it compress a bit more), and there is a big difference between both CQ.
I'm just using Ping-Pong Method, and it gives me great (manual) results...
Salu2
Fabrice
|
11-04-2004, 06:02 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabrice
It seems it compress a bit more
|
Hi fabrice,
By saying that you mean that you have to use a higher CQ to achieve the same size?
What about the difference of the CQs... (approximately) how much do you have to increase it to get the same size?
Is this difference constant?
Thanks!
|
11-05-2004, 01:10 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid-Spain
Posts: 515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hi Muaddib,
Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
Quote:
Originally Posted by fabrice
It seems it compress a bit more
|
Hi fabrice,
By saying that you mean that you have to use a higher CQ to achieve the same size?
|
If I remeber well, yes. You can do yourself the test, using the trial version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
What about the difference of the CQs... (approximately) how much do you have to increase it to get the same size?
Is this difference constant?
|
Well, I have to do some test, but right now, I don't remember...
I'll try to encode in mpeg1 with the 2 version, with the same CQ, and post here the differences...
Salu2
Fabrice
|
11-05-2004, 09:10 AM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Ok fabrice, thanks!
I will make some tests...
|
11-05-2004, 01:25 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid-Spain
Posts: 515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hi,
Here are some test I did with a sample generated by Inc slicer's function, in mpeg1 (to be able to compare the same settings):
- Tmpgenc 2.521 CQ 70 = 34508 Mb
- Tmpgenc xpress CQ 70 = 31885 Mb
- Tmpgenc xpress CQ 71,3 = 34507 Mb
As the size/cq chart is not linear, I think the diff. can not be linear, but let's see it...
Salu2
Fabrice
|
11-05-2004, 02:02 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: São Paulo - Brasil
Posts: 879
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
What about the quality?
Did you catch any difference?
|
11-05-2004, 02:21 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 184
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
i have tested in mpeg 2 it's very different
tmpgenc 2.521 1h51----->CQ 75-----> 1190mb
tmpgenc xpress 1h51---->CQ 75 ----> 728mb
0_0 quality mpeg 2 it's better and fast in tmpgenc xpress (in processor p4)
|
11-05-2004, 02:24 PM
|
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 tamahome
i have tested in mpeg 2 it's very different
tmpgenc 2.521 1h51----->CQ 75-----> 1190mb
tmpgenc xpress 1h51---->CQ 75 ----> 728mb
0_0 quality mpeg 2 it's better and fast in tmpgenc xpress (in processor p4)
|
Hi tamahome.
Do you mean that the file of 728mb looks better than the one 1190mb
That's quite a file size difference, and I don't know how the 728MB can look better
-kwag
|
11-05-2004, 03:51 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 184
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
I was surprised yes in spite of the difference in size quality is identical to see better (the video stays a concert live one see block effects easily with the lights thing who less often returns with xpress)
I speak in MPEG 2, I do not make a MPEG 1
and a same size tmpgenc xpress is CQ87 for Cq75 in tmpgenc 2
|
11-05-2004, 04:03 PM
|
Free Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Madrid-Spain
Posts: 515
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Hi,
Quote:
Originally Posted by muaddib
What about the quality?
Did you catch any difference?
|
SSIM values are:
- tmpgenc 2.521 = 78.62
- tmpgenc xpress, CQ 70 = 78.33
- tmpgenc xpress, CQ 71,3 = 78.81
So no real difference.
From visual test, I don't really see differences (it was expected with so near SSIM value). I can post somewhere the samples: 30 Mb each...
Salu2
Fabrice
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 AM — vBulletin © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd
|